Children

[tillyh345]

Surely if u choose to have children you choose to look after them not expect the goverment to pay you to pay someone else to look after them so you can go back to work...and dont come back with the argument that families need two earners to survive...yes if you want two or three holidays a year or a large house, but not if you just want to enjoy your family and bring the children up not to be greedy and think they can have it all....

Your comments appreciated

[Coobeastie]

Your argument seems to be based on a lot of assumptions and a smattering of a chip on your shoulder.

You'll find that most families where both the parents work aren't on huge wages and having multiple holidays per year let alone large houses. Have you any idea how much child care costs??

I'd also point out that if both the parents are working then they are paying tax, much better to give them some support (and its not that much) than providing for those who are too lazy to get off their backsides and earn a living.

[tillyh345]

But tell me why u would want to have a child that u love more than life itself and then pay someone else to bring it up, even if it means u have to cut down on your lifestyle. It seems to me that each generation is just getting greedier. No chip on my shoulder I chose to have my children and between me and my husband we have always been there for them never paid anyone to look after them and not even had parents support so it can be done, but then again we realised that our life wasnt going to be full of BMW s and radley hanbags, false nails etc.....

[4getmenot]

OK so what is best, work your butt off all your life then never have children, or manage to pay yourself but never see them because youare earning the money. Or dont go out and work and just have loads of kids and claim loads of benefits. I have worked hard all my life got a house with a mortgage, never been on benefits until now as I was made redundant, so does that also mean I am not allowed these benefits, and does that mean I shouldnt be given the right to have children

[sara3]

I've always worked, and my life isn't full of Radley bags and false nails!

it's work or benefits, so go ahead and judge me..

[4getmenot]

and I assure you my house is not full of radly handbags and I dont have a BMW. but I would still need to work to pay the mortgage and have a child. You are very lucky.

[tillyh345]

i think some of u are getting the wrong end of the stick, im saying the couple that i saw earlier on the news who jointly earn in excess of 50000 a year are moaning because of the tax cuts that will affect them and their childcare.

[Sqad]

tilly

////Surely if u choose to have children you choose///

and there lies the problem..............many, don't CHOOSE to have children, they are the "bye products" of sexual (often casual) intercourse.

Not all, but many of these children are brought up on state handouts, paid for by you and me....the taxpayer.

[4getmenot]

oh yes they could probably cut back on wages and be there for their child

[tillyh345]

What I am saying is to have a child u dont need to earn a lot of money children just want stability and parents that love them. Some people seem to think that they have to have all the latest gadgets designer clothes etc they wont love u more for that especially if they spend their days with people who are paid to look after them.

[tillyh345]

I just believe that proffessional couples who can and do afford nannys or au pairs to look afer their children are still entitled to child benefits Ridiculous. Perhaps if this was means tested then couples who have always worked then find they are made redundant due to no fault of their own, can be allocated more benefits whilst they look for more work. We were not lucky we just had our priorities right, and no we didnt have BMWs or radley bags and Ive never had nail extensions in my life, but you see these people in everyday life thinking they can still have these things and continue having children, sometimes it seems they are all trying to be A Listers!! using their children as accessories!!

[4getmenot]

yer I see where you are coming from now. I just know my bloke isnt on the best wage, and our wages together would just about pay the mortgage so I would struggle to afford children

[tillyh345]

Yes and thats what I am trying to say, if these high earners were made to pay their own way because they dont need help child benefits tax credit etc. Then maybe couples who want children should have the most help and support. I m really not very good at getting my argument across, but hope all is clear now.

[sara3]

those that need it most get Tax Credits, Working Tax Credits, Income Support, free school meals, etc..

[boxtops]

The trouble is tilly, if you (they) are high earners then you spend accordingly, I have a friend who works and has childminders and has a cleaner and a gardener. They can afford it and they reckon they work to give their children a better standard of living and they can afford for them to do dance classes and other stuff which others of my friends can't possibly afford. If you commit yourself to a large mortgage etc because you can afford it at the time, times do get hard when you are sideswiped for tax or you lose your job. Most of us spend what we can afford at the time. I do agree about child benefits though, I remember the days when you didn't get benefit at all for the first child, as you say that bringing up the child was your own responsibility.

[mollykins]

Only my dad works properly, my mum flits in and out of temporary, part time work. Most years we get a cheap week away, somewhere in europe, often staying with my auntie in cyprus.

[anotheoldgit]

Tut, Tut, repetitive posting on the same subject, where is VHG while this crime is going on?

[rov1200]

With the current population standing at around 63 million and projected to reach 70 million in a decade maybe couples should be paid NOT to have children?

[boxtops]

..or it becomes a penal thing, as in China? -hmmm.

It might be an idea to say (e.g.) you can have child benefit for up to 3 or 4 children, and after that, that's your lot. People might (or might not) think again about having a shedload of children if they are not receiving benefits for all of them.

[Coobeastie]

You do rather seem fixated on the luxury lives these people are supposedly living.

Having two wage earners doesn't mean that you can necessarily afford a big house, multiple holidays or even dare I say it a BMW on the driveway.

Our small 2 bedroom (the second being a box room) house costs 900 a month in mortgage payments, prior to the interest rates dropping it was around £1200. Before our daughter was born we would have fitted in to the 'high earning' group that you have referred to.

We still both work but have gone part time so that our daughter goes to nursery twice a week. She gets attention from both her parents throughout the week and also gets to socialize with other children and adults on the days that she attends nursery.

We certainly do not lead a luxurious lifestyle. Our income fell by around 20k when we went part time. We haven't had a holiday since 2006 (our Honeymoon), though my wife does have a Radley bag (rather threadbare as she's had it for years). We don't go out, we don't drink, we don't smoke. Our wages just about cover our bills, food and petrol.

We've both paid taxes for years and the amount you get isn't a huge amount (£40 per month) but it helps.

"Then maybe couples who want children should have the most help and support"

So in order to want a child or to love a child you have to not work?

Isn't that one of the social problems that this country is facing at the moment, plenty of people who don't work and have never worked having lots of children paid for fully by the state and ultimately the tax payer.