[Politics] have the right amount of kids you can afford, or should the govt stump up costs?

[Thunder Bolt]

So, the house prices were 3 - 6 times a yearly salary, depending on where you lived in the country. My house in Brum cost roughly £175,000 which is 8x my yearly wage. A quick scan on right move and similar sized properties are going for around £400,000 in Burgess Hill (my home town) which is about 19x my annual salary.

I know it's difficult now, but my point is that it wasn't easy 50 years ago, either. There seems to be an attitude that us baby boomers had a wonderful life but what we have is what we've worked hard for.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Given that the first paragraph of the article states that costs of having a SINGLE child have gone up by 50% in 8 years, it's incredibly disappointing that it only took 5 posts before someone comments about lifestyle and spending habits.

Any world where a parent is better off staying at home than going to work because their entire salary would just go on childcare is pretty screwed to be honest. If some CHOOSES to be a stay at home parent and can afford to, then more power to their elbow. When it's forced because of economics, it's plain wrong.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I know it's difficult now, but my point is that it wasn't easy 50 years ago, either. There seems to be an attitude that us baby boomers had a wonderful life but what we have is what we've worked hard for.

I don’t doubt that you’ve worked for it, not at all, but I think it has to be acknowledged that, generally speaking, millennials have it very difficult financially. I see a lot of frustration, and maybe that’s comes across as entitlement, all I know is that I’m only lucky that I can afford a house at the age of 28 because I moved out of Sussex. Sure, I’ve worked hard for it but no more so than my friends back in B Hill who can’t even afford a deposit on a one bed, up/ one down.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I don’t doubt that you’ve worked for it, not at all, but I think it has to be acknowledged that, generally speaking, millennials have it very difficult financially. I see a lot of frustration, and maybe that’s comes across as entitlement, all I know is that I’m only lucky that I can afford a house at the age of 28 because I moved out of Sussex. Sure, I’ve worked hard for it but no more so than my friends back in B Hill who can’t even afford a deposit on a one bed, up/ one down.

That was my point. I also moved out of Sussex to be able to buy a house.

 

[Lush]

I don’t doubt that you’ve worked for it, not at all, but I think it has to be acknowledged that, generally speaking, millennials have it very difficult financially. I see a lot of frustration, and maybe that’s comes across as entitlement, all I know is that I’m only lucky that I can afford a house at the age of 28 because I moved out of Sussex. Sure, I’ve worked hard for it but no more so than my friends back in B Hill who can’t even afford a deposit on a one bed, up/ one down.

I do think that what passes for 'an average lifestyle' for young people is hugely different to what it was when I was in my 20s. Mobile phones for one. Ubers rather than get the bus or walk. ASOS deliveries. Nail bars. Party drugs. There's a lot more to give up these days if you want to save some money.

There's also a tendency to spend first and pay later, which doesn't help.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I do think that what passes for 'an average lifestyle' for young people is hugely different to what it was when I was in my 20s. Mobile phones for one. Ubers rather than get the bus or walk. ASOS deliveries. Nail bars. Party drugs. There's a lot more to give up these days if you want to save some money.

There's also a tendency to spend first and pay later, which doesn't help.

Party drugs!? Seriously...when I was in my 20s a certain dance orientated pill was about 300% more expensive than they are today!


(apparently...)

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

That was my point. I also moved out of Sussex to be able to buy a house.

Personally I think this is a bit shit. I’ve told this story before, but I know someone who earns above the average wage and this affords you **** all these days. You get yourself educated, get yourself an above average paying job for what? **** all really. Sure, you can move somewhere cheap but if your reward for getting yourself into a good and above average position is to have to move to some dump of a town so they can buy a shoe-box I can understand why some will question life.

 

[dazzer6666]

Why would anyone have kids? Horrible little buggers

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Typical kid comment that, just copying what your own parents think.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Party drugs!? Seriously...when I was in my 20s a certain dance orientated pill was about 300% more expensive than they are today!


(apparently...)

And Charlie was once the sole preserve of Duran Duran and supermodels. Now every oik does it.

 

[portlock seagull]

How do you start explaining something based on such broad assumptions? If the parents are contributing, then why would they be taking social costs for the kids? Do all immigrant families from anywhere in the world coming to Britain all have an average of 5 kids? Where did you even pull this figure from, just your best feeling for it?

National office of statistics, mainstream media and then there’s your own eyes...all for many years now have been saying those from ethnic minorities and immigrants have way more children. It’s a fact if you put your liberal chip to one side ( sorry, but ‘broad assumptions’ my arse, anyone listening in their school geography lessons knows our native demographics have and continue to plummet as fewer have children and those that do, have less). It’s why we need immigrants. Anyway...) Back to the question. If someone has 3,4,5,6,7 children (ie a much bigger family) then how does that contribute to the economy given they all need housing, educating, health etc for at least 20years? That and the fact this has rapidly grown in a relatively
Short space of time such has been the unprecedented scale of immigration to apply to millions not a few thousand families? How can this be anything but a massive social bill that the current kitty of income simply cannot afford? You do the maths as they say because frankly I can’t. I’m just following logic.

 

[narly101]

Urgh the millennial bashing is just a lazy way to avoid looking at the wider issues. It’s easy to sit there and say this generation is ‘entitled’ when your generation could probably afford to buy a house on an unskilled wage at 21. This ‘entitled’ generation will be the first generation to be financially worse off than their parents and it’s not because they are afraid of hard work.

It took two of us working full time to buy a house, and we weren't certainly unskilled. We could also only afford a mortgage for tiny 2 bed maisonette based on my salary because my wife (due to certain circumstances) couldn't get a mortgage.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

National office of statistics, mainstream media and then there’s your own eyes...all for many years now have been saying those from ethnic minorities and immigrants have way more children. It’s a fact if you put your liberal chip to one side ( sorry, but ‘broad assumptions’ my arse, anyone listening in their school geography lessons knows our native demographics have and continue to plummet as far fewer have children and those that do, have fewer. It’s why we need immigrants. Anyway...) Back to the question. If someone has 3,4,5,6,7 children (ie a much bigger family) then how does that contribute to the economy given they all need housing, educating, health etc for at least 20years? That and the fact this has rapidly grown in a relatively
Short space of time such has been the unprecedented scale of immigration to apply to millions not a few thousand families? How can this be anything but a massive social bill that the current kitty of income simply cannot afford? You do the maths as they say because frankly I can’t. I’m just following logic.

Logically speaking 5 or 6 children need educating housing health etc, for 20 years but then will spend the next 50 years contributing in taxes and NI.

 

[narly101]

If your statement 'there is no entitlement, there's hard work' is to be true, then every hard working job needs to be rewarded with a decent living wage. That is simply not happening, and you'd be naive for thinking it is.

I dont disagree, but some of the individuals interviewed in the article are stating that they have had to give up work, because they can't "afford" the childcare costs whilst being employed, and they're moaning about it. If they have 3 kids, and the two individuals interviewed do, then maybe they should have considered the circumstances before plugging away for that many children.

If you can't afford to have the children, and then moan that your standard of living has changed because of them, then they shouldn't have ****ing had kids.

 

[portlock seagull]

Logically speaking 5 or 6 children need educating housing health etc, for 20 years but then will spend the next 50 years contributing in taxes and NI.

However...they don’t because there will be more unemployment, lower wages and people live longer lives requiring a bigger social bill at ‘the other end’. Not to mention the population explosion in the (20yr) short term is a hell of a long time to be finding the cash to pay for all this.

I honestly believe that the default “I pay my tax and worked for 40 years line” is full of holes as an argument. Most of us even in decent jobs are probably not even paying the half of what’s needed in terms of state provisions. And then we don’t even have the decency to die within 2 years of retirement which is what the Pensions business is banking on! This before all the costs of booming populations like impact on environment. I don’t think we pay for ourselves let alone the cost of children

 

[Bold Seagull]

I dont disagree, but some of the individuals interviewed in the article are stating that they have had to give up work, because they can't "afford" the childcare costs whilst being employed, and they're moaning about it. If they have 3 kids, and the two individuals interviewed do, then maybe they should have considered the circumstances before plugging away for that many children.

If you can't afford to have the children, and then moan that your standard of living has changed because of them, then they shouldn't have ****ing had kids.

I think you are reading more into the article than there is. I didn't read anything about any moaning about their standard of living, they were moaning that the cost of childcare was more expensive than what they would earn. That is entirely different to what you are portraying.

The article is about hardworking parents who want to continue to 'work hard', but the cost of childcare is preventing them from doing that because that cost is higher than their earnings.

Perhaps you need to re-read it, because you are seemingly criticising hard working parents who want to work, but the childcare is too expensive. One of them even had twins, so hardly made a decision to have 3, unless you believe that is something you can plan for!?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

However...they don’t because there will be more unemployment, lower wages and people live longer lives requiring a bigger social bill at ‘the other end’. Not to mention the population explosion in the (20yr) short term is a hell of a long time to be finding the cash to pay for all this.

I honestly believe that the default “I pay my tax and worked for 40 years line” is full of holes as an argument. Most of us even in decent jobs are probably not even paying the half of what’s needed in terms of state provisions. And then we don’t even have the decency to die within 2 years of retirement which is what the Pensions business is banking on! This before all the costs of booming populations like impact on environment. I don’t think we pay for ourselves let alone the cost of children

So why is unemployment at an all time low at the moment despite the number of children growing up?

Btw to debate your post about immigrants having more children, yes they do, but this article is very fair on that subject.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-Britain-has-biggest-families-in-Europe.html

Often, women from overseas bring a culture of high birth rates - something that is exaggerated as research suggests migrants often delay having children until they reach a new country, at which point the high-birth rates occur. As migrants then integrate, later generations tend to have fewer children.

 

[narly101]

I think you are reading more into the article than there is. I didn't read anything about any moaning about their standard of living, they were moaning that the cost of childcare was more expensive than what they would earn. That is entirely different to what you are portraying.

The article is about hardworking parents who want to continue to 'work hard', but the cost of childcare is preventing them from doing that because that cost is higher than their earnings.

Perhaps you need to re-read it, because you are seemingly criticising hard working parents who want to work, but the childcare is too expensive. One of them even had twins, so hardly made a decision to have 3, unless you believe that is something you can plan for!?

Fair point, but the quote from TUC;

"Parents need subsidised, affordable childcare from as soon as maternity leave finishes to enable them to continue working, and so mums don't continue to have to make that choice between having a family and a career."

This is just daft. Why should the government (and therefore a wealth of tax paying childless adults) subsidise the childcare of mums who can't afford childcare, just so they can go back to work?

And when I say mums, I also mean dads unlike the TUC quote.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Fair point, but the quote from TUC;

"Parents need subsidised, affordable childcare from as soon as maternity leave finishes to enable them to continue working, and so mums don't continue to have to make that choice between having a family and a career."

This is just daft. Why should the government (and therefore a wealth of tax paying childless adults) subsidise the childcare of mums who can't afford childcare, just so they can go back to work?

And when I say mums, I also mean dads unlike the TUC quote.

Because, as I stated before, those parents might be nurses, care workers, emergency services, teachers, medical assistants, public sector, etc. etc. stuff we all need and use! Even if they aren't those things, what sort of economy is it if it doesn't pay for a parent to work because childcare is a higher cost than wages?

Why shouldn't the government subsidise this? That parent instead of working will earn nothing, and therefore pay no taxes and potentially we lose a skilled person from the economy. If you said, hang on, if we effectively match their tax contributions by subsidising childcare, we're enabling someone to work, who would otherwise be paying us no tax anyway. The nursery / childcare operation will then pay tax from that kid being in there, and their staff. There is surely economic sense to doing that?

As an aside, you had a 1 in 64 chance of a multiple birth when you had your only child. With your hardline stance, its a good job you were not a statistical chance of twins or triplets!

 

[portlock seagull]

So why is unemployment at an all time low at the moment despite the number of children growing up?

Btw to debate your post about immigrants having more children, yes they do, but this article is very fair on that subject.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-Britain-has-biggest-families-in-Europe.html

Often, women from overseas bring a culture of high birth rates - something that is exaggerated as research suggests migrants often delay having children until they reach a new country, at which point the high-birth rates occur. As migrants then integrate, later generations tend to have fewer children.

In 20years time it won't be! Automation is killing jobs as well you should know. And let's not forget wage deflation masks unemployment levels. Record unemployment doesn't = record tax generation.

Look, it's simple. Many other cultures have higher birth rates for lots of reasons primarily the lower emancipation of women. These cultural differences don't disappear at Dover. Nor does lower mean 1.6 or whatever the average is so if a family of 5, lower than perhaps 7 or 8 kids that's perhaps the norm in the developing country, how does the social cost of bringing kids up get paid in the 20 year (hell of a) short-term before they become economic contributors (if they ever do)? And multiply this by a few million people in that 20year short term because of unprecedented immigration levels and...how's this all add up in the here and now? Not forgetting that the social bill at the end of life is sky rocketing and that'll be forced even higher by a population rapidly advancing towards 80 million. It doesn't and people wonder why we don't have enough in the kitty now never mind the future. It's madness to pretend we ever would. I think the cost of 'humans' (this isn't really about kids, they're just little humans!) is way more than any of us currently contribute economically versus expectations of what we should get back: state education, housing, health, public services, clean environment, food, security...the list just grows but the resource pool shrinks. Quite simply, more is going out than is being put in. Population growth ain't helping any of that.

 

[sams dad]

And this is the crux of the matter. There is a generation now who are what I would call the "entitled". Where there is a hard self-belief that they are entitled to do what they want without considering their "means", and then when they don't get it, or find out that they can't afford it, then spend the time moaning about it rather than tightening their belts.

I've been fortunate in my life , through a solid dependable well paid job, a working wife, low interest rates on my current repayment mortgage, and only 1 child (9 years old) that we've been able to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Had we had more than 1 child, then I would have expected our standard of living to drop, so we decided that one was enough.

There is no "entitlement", there's hard work.

Well said! I wholeheartedly concur.