Responsible people aren't having kids

[bloodline76]

I do think its wrong to judge the kids of the worthless numpties we all despise as many of them will make a difference to the world in both big and small ways.

It is no surprise that there is an endless cycle to these types of people. You start off with a numpty who has kids. They are already at a disadvantage because they get most of their knowledge from this numpty. I cant see it getting any better soon.

 

[stickman1]

I 99% sure that the enviroment kids are raised in plays a massive part on how they turn out. Especially regarding what schools they go to.

I was brought up in the very run down area of Glasgow with drug dealers living next door etc but because my Mum enroled me in a good school I didn't follow the crowd of kids in my area who ended up doing drugs/drinking being general wasters.

Now, i'm not saying everyone who is brought up in a rough area or went to a lowly rated school turn out to be bad people. I know that this isn't the case.

What I am trying to say is that your environment and the people you are brought up with play a huge role. Especially as a child when you are heavily influenced by the actions of others.

i totally agree m8 i use to live in drumchapel and maryhill lol

 

[Combat squirrel]

People on about the cost of bringing up a kid earlier.......i heard recently in a docu to raise a kid 0-21 in a modern society with a middle class privilege inc going to uni was actually closer to £1 million, soo 200k was massive understatement.

 

[Vonhelmet]

People on about the cost of bringing up a kid earlier.......i heard recently in a docu to raise a kid 0-21 in a modern society with a middle class privilege inc going to uni was actually closer to £1 million, soo 200k was massive understatement.

Haha, what a load of cobblers. Given that the average wage in this country is about £26k or thereabouts (pre tax)...

I can't even be bothered to type the rest, I'm sure you can work it out.

EDIT: Unless things have changed a lot in the last two years, that is.

 

[dustofnations]

why wouldnt you want some of your own money back, you pay tax, then you are entitled to some back under crtain conditions, its YOUR money, providing youre not on benefits, its exactly what the benefits system is for, anyway, you do realise that child benefit is miniscule?

If it was "your" money then the government wouldn't take it from you.

first off, a large majority of your electric bill comes from appliances which will be on regardless of how many people are in the house, EXTRA costs are very minimal, you dont have to fill your childs room with electrical items you know


as above, the majority of your gas bill comes from central heating and cooking, these will both be used the same amount of time regardless of how many people are in the house, if you think your large bills are down to washing your wrong!

This is just nonsensical. Having more people (including children) living in a house, and using the utilities, food, lights, shower,... does cost more money. I don't understand how you can try to assert that it makes almost no difference.

Perhaps in your personal case this is true, because (for instance, as random examples) you have a large house with spare rooms and would heat it all, you leave all of the lights on, you threw food out, or whatever set of circumstances that exist for you that means children fall under your existing expenditure. You cannot say this applies to the general population though.

why would i let a small woman live in my house for free, shes not one of my kids! :equally as confused: ...

The point is exceptionally simple. You state that somehow children are innately "cheap" on utility bills; this means that adults must be massively more expensive. Hence an adult who was proportioned like a child (for instance a small woman) would be surely be equally cheap to house, however that is paradoxical because presumably adults are the ones causing the expense...

personally, ive always rented 3 bed houses since the age of 21, cant stand flats, so its made no difference to me, I would never buy anything smaller either, also if you own, you only need to extend, not sell and move, possibly paying more

Therefore this pertains only to your personal situation, and hence it is entirely irrelevant to the original point. You cannot extrapolate your situation to the rest of the population. The point still stands, if you have more people (children inclusive), you need a larger house, which is more expensive.

im gonna go out on a limb here and say you obviously have no children and are gripping hold of this 100/200 grand to the age of 18/21 fantasy

Your suppositions are pretty vacuous. I'm not sure what your implication about me is, but I suppose you are making some sort of insipid remark about people who (you think) don't adhere to the same ideals you do.

I can't even decipher what you mean by "100/200 grand to the age of 18/21 fantasy"?

yes it does, my opinion is based on experience, that statistic youve read is without doubt based on very high end living, not the norm

The statistics are based upon reasonable sample sizes, that vastly outweighs a single individuals experience. Sure, you can live on a shoestring budget, but if you want to give you chance the best (statistical) chance of success in life it requires more investment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-tops-pound200000-if-youre-lucky-1907381.html - SS of 4000

 

[AMG]

too be fair I went to a very rough school, and in the first year I ll admit i was not the best child to teach ( this is secandary school I m talking about) but later I found this was not the right path for me, plus I join up with the air training corps, which is probly why I m not like the other wasters in my year. In other words I m a lot more disaplined than what they are, and as a effect I hate thier kind. . . lol

I think the envirment what your exposed to does have a roll as well as your parents etc. as well as on personal goals and such, basicly its your take on the world you live in...

I have seen examples were the child is completely different from the parent/parents

 

[finga]

If it was "your" money then the government wouldn't take it from you.


This is just nonsensical. Having more people (including children) living in a house, and using the utilities, food, lights, shower,... does cost more money. I don't understand how you can try to assert that it makes almost no difference.

Perhaps in your personal case this is true, because (for instance, as random examples) you have a large house with spare rooms and would heat it all, you leave all of the lights on, you threw food out, or whatever set of circumstances that exist for you that means children fall under your existing expenditure. You cannot say this applies to the general population though.


The point is exceptionally simple. You state that somehow children are innately "cheap" on utility bills; this means that adults must be massively more expensive. Hence an adult who was proportioned like a child (for instance a small woman) would be surely be equally cheap to house, however that is paradoxical because presumably adults are the ones causing the expense...


Therefore this pertains only to your personal situation, and hence it is entirely irrelevant to the original point. You cannot extrapolate your situation to the rest of the population. The point still stands, if you have more people (children inclusive), you need a larger house, which is more expensive.


Your suppositions are pretty vacuous. I'm not sure what your implication about me is, but I suppose you are making some sort of insipid remark about people who (you think) don't adhere to the same ideals you do.

I can't even decipher what you mean by "100/200 grand to the age of 18/21 fantasy"?



The statistics are based upon reasonable sample sizes, that vastly outweighs a single individuals experience. Sure, you can live on a shoestring budget, but if you want to give you chance the best (statistical) chance of success in life it requires more investment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-tops-pound200000-if-youre-lucky-1907381.html - SS of 4000

sigh, statistics are based on a small percentage of people, not the entire country, if you want to believe them thats up to you, I can easily point out where you are wrong in all your quote replies but you know what, I cant even be bothered to add seperate quote tags to your post, im just going to say that you must be some kind of moron to try and tell me, a parent, with real experience, that what Im saying isnt true, when you have absolutely no first hand experience of your own, just because you read what somebody else has told you and you are taking it as a fact of life, one day you may join the rest of us in the real world, until then, keep worrying about it mate lol, im sure you will come back with another pedantic answer to try and get one up, go ahead

 

[Hatter The Mad]

sigh, statistics are based on a small percentage of people, not the entire country, if you want to believe them thats up to you, I can easily point out where you are wrong in all your quote replies but you know what, I cant even be bothered to add seperate quote tags to your post, im just going to say that you must be some kind of moron to try and tell me, a parent, with real experience, that what Im saying isnt true, when you have absolutely no first hand experience of your own, just because you read what somebody else has told you and you are taking it as a fact of life, one day you may join the rest of us in the real world, until then, keep worrying about it mate lol, im sure you will come back with another pedantic answer to try and get one up, go ahead

The survey covered nearly 4,000 adults and was carried out during January. Perhaps unsurprisingly, parents in outer London faced the biggest cost is raising a child – £220,769. Yorkshire and Humberside was the cheapest place at £177,706.

That's a big sample.

 

[finga]

That's a big sample.

it maybe 4000 adults, but what do you know about them adults and what they actually spent the money on, how can somebody say that a child costs x amount when a large portion is no doubt spent on stuff that is not necessary, its a false figure, if kids cost that much in reality, only the rich would have them, and the population would dwindle dramatically rather than increase

 

[Hatter The Mad]

it maybe 4000 adults, but what do you know about them adults

Well, we know that the sample is more likely than not to be representative of the nation as an average, as the sample is large enough and has been weighted regionally.

 

[finga]

Well, we know that the sample is more likely than not to be representative of the nation as an average, as the sample is large enough and has been weighted regionally.

the thing is though, over 100k of the money is childcare and education, nursery fees are extortionate upto the age of 3, its a choice the parents make whether to pay it and work or stay home, change shifts etc to cut the cost out, its not a cost of having kids, its a choice by the parents

that article should be titled

Bringing up a child could top £200,000, if you choose

 

[regulus]

All the money in the world won't make you a better parent, though it will help a good parent immensely.

Sig worthy.

 

[dustofnations]

sigh, statistics are based on a small percentage of people, not the entire country, if you want to believe them thats up to you, I can easily point out where you are wrong in all your quote replies but you know what, I cant even be bothered to add seperate quote tags to your post, im just going to say that you must be some kind of moron to try and tell me, a parent, with real experience, that what Im saying isnt true, when you have absolutely no first hand experience of your own, just because you read what somebody else has told you and you are taking it as a fact of life, one day you may join the rest of us in the real world, until then, keep worrying about it mate lol, im sure you will come back with another pedantic answer to try and get one up, go ahead

Oh wow, this is just childish. Calling me a "moron", and saying that you can "easily point out where am wrong" is frankly hilarious, and extraordinarily ironic for someone pontificating about their parenting and "morals". You provide no proof to back up your assertions, you just say things and become agitated when I don't just acquiesce.

Again, just because you feel you have experience doesn't mean you are automatically right with respect to the entire population, that is what science is for - figuring these things out. You know, statistical analysis.

Just a few more amusing points;

statistics are based on a small percentage of people, not the entire country

Of course everyone isn't included that would be tens of millions of people. That would be impossible and insane.

me, a parent, with real experience, that what Im saying isnt true, when you have absolutely no first hand experience of your own, just because you read what somebody else has told you

Ahh, so we shouldn't trust statistics because they don't use a large enough sample size... HOWEVER, we should take your singular opinion as fact! Wait a minute, I think we just said that 1 is greater than 4000 (which is not an enormous sample size in itself, but is supported by several other studies of similar sizes).

im sure you will come back with another pedantic answer to try and get one up, go ahead

So you think by attempting to goad me that it makes your arguments any more valid?

im just going to say that you must be some kind of moron

I explained my arguments in a clear way, I didn't insult you personally. Do you always get angered when people disagree with you? However, I did rather enjoy your raging stream of consciousness, even if it left me a tad breathless by the end!

p.s. I'm not a moron, honest !

 

[bloodline76]

the thing is though, over 100k of the money is childcare and education, nursery fees are extortionate upto the age of 3, its a choice the parents make whether to pay it and work or stay home, change shifts etc to cut the cost out, its not a cost of having kids, its a choice by the parents

that article should be titled

Bringing up a child could top £200,000, if you choose

Not everyone has a choice to pay childcare or stay at home. If it was that simple then I think a lot more would stay at home. And not all employers allow you to change shift to accomodate nursery patterns. And if you are really unlucky your nursery wont allow you to skip payments if your child is off that day. So it can be hard to save money when you have to pay whether the child is there or not.

There have been many times when I have had to pay over £70 for a day when I didnt send my kids because I wanted to spend the day with them. I am lucky that they are a little more accomodating now and they are being a little more flexible if I arrange it in advance(six weeks) but not all give you that option.

I think once they do get past 3 as you said then it is a lot more affordable to have kids. Until then reach the "I want stage" where your parenting(Or negotiation) skills come into play

 

[alastair84]

rich or poor, everyone should have the right to have children

 

[Hatter The Mad]

rich or poor, everyone should have the right to have children

Not when the state has to fund the babies because the parents don't work/have too many kids.

 

[Fr0dders]

they should have a right to have them

but not a right to benefits for every single one of their children encouraging them to have more children when they cant afford to keep the one they've already got ...

But wasnt this a thread debating whether they should be allowed to have them at all, regardless of benefits, ala what china does restricting people to 1 child ?

I'm not so sure we as a country are ready for that sort of control.

 

[EdwardTeach]

Responsible people are still having kids though, just obviously at a much older age. That's not so much of an issue in that people live much longer, but obviously means a child born when their parents are older will obviously be less likely to rely on support from them as they get older, especially with things like going to University or such if their parents have already retired.

If anything, the people who live on benefits who pump out children will continue to do so, possibly reinforcing that by further generations of their family doing the same. I can't imagine what goes through the mind of a child whose parents have not worked their entire life.

There is another problem here in that woman who wait to have children are not having them at the best time biologically speaking. A woman approaching 40 is much more likely to have a child with birth defects or to suffer infertility.

 

[EdwardTeach]

Just with regards to the costs for those who are interested. I have a baby and have been looking into childcare as wife intends to be working full time shortly.
The costs for full time childcare (as in nursery/daycare, not a "nanny") will be ~10k per year. (This is in west London).

Remember if you are comparing that to your salaries that is net. e.g if you have two kids in childcare you are looking at another 20k disappearing from your salary after tax - a fair chunk in anyone's book!

 

[Vonhelmet]

Just with regards to the costs for those who are interested. I have a baby and have been looking into childcare as wife intends to be working full time shortly.
The costs for full time childcare (as in nursery/daycare, not a "nanny") will be ~10k per year. (This is in west London).

Remember if you are comparing that to your salaries that is net. e.g if you have two kids in childcare you are looking at another 20k disappearing from your salary after tax - a fair chunk in anyone's book!

Are you eligible for tax credits? Would get you 70% of your childcare costs back.