h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'd guess the answer would be - she'll have to pay more taxes to support my 2 children. But it doesn't go as directly as that.
And we're having another child because we want to have more than 1 and there's a time element here- the older you are the more there's a chance for illness and defects in the child. And I'm in my late 20's. Another reason, by the way, is that I could train, after having this child, so that I'm in a better paying job, which may enable us then to think whether or not we want a 3rd child.

>> Why would it concern you how many kids they have? They are a tax
>> paying family and if they choose to "lower" their standard of living
>> for the privilege of having another well-loved and well-cared for
>> child, how does that impact your life?

It's no concern of mine at all. It won't impact my life in any way. Why would you assume that it would?

I was mearly bringing up the question of whether a "lower" standard of living for two children would be better than a "higher" standard of living for an only child?

For a given amount of money coming into a household.... which is better? Spreading that money around two children with a "lower" standard of living or giving one child a "higher" standard of living?

Would you prefer to grow up with siblings in poverty, or be a lonely only-child with no money worries? I honestly don't know which is better.

Hmmm... it isn't really the child's choice, though. I think it's possible to raise 2 children with the money we have, therefore I'm having two. I don't think they'll be harmed if they don't get the new mega-toy every christmas.
I think the parents' philosophy dictates a lot of what's considere good and bad standards of living for their children. I for one never owned my clothes untill I was 6, as I was growing up in a commune-like way of life. I didn't, and still don't, think it was depriving me of anything. As a second child I probably would have inherited all my brother's clothes anyway. At least this way I got some girls' clothes, too.

The two children thing. No way would give up having had a kid brother for more toys and better holidays.

I'd have given up all three of mine for the benefits of being an only child. In fact I'd sell them now, if I could!

I do wonder sometimes if some people just get used to a certain standard of living, spending all their income. They then don't think they can possibly manage on one income plus a baby, (or are unwilling to make changes) despite the fact that probably many people are managing on that level of income.

I'm remembering one of Alvin Halls' programmes advising a young couple expecting their first baby. Their extravagent lifestyle seemed shocking - as well as their apparent inability to see how they could easily make savings.

I totally agree. People who 'can't afford' to have kids I often think mean 'don't want to give up xyz so they can have one'. I was earning £50 a week and my ex was earning about £600 a month when I fell pregnant, so if people earning that little can afford one...

Obviously if you've got financial commitments that's one thing, but if you're busy paying off your life of credit, then it's hardly reasonable to say you can't afford one - you've simply already spent that money on something else!

I manage perfectly well on one income, a mortgage that's around the average rental price in my area - although yes, top ups do help. I'd still be able to afford my child without though. He just wouldn't have the threatre trips and outings that he has now.

Well said Mina

Hoo, would you care to give us your definition of 'lower' and 'higher' standard of living?

Given the amounts of kids that live on substandard nutrition, in poor housing etc. I think that one should be pretty easy.

>> Hoo, would you care to give us your definition of 'lower'
>> and 'higher' standard of living?

No.

That's why I put "lower" and "higher" in quotes since they are both relative terms.

Given the millions of kids that live on substandard nutrition, in poor housing etc. I think that question should be pretty easy.

Oops, sorry about that, addled mind there...

Yes, they are relative terms. So how it is ok to then make absolute statements on what is right in terms of having/raising/caring for children...

W

>> I totally agree. People who 'can't afford' to have kids I often >> think mean 'don't want to give up xyz so they can have one'.

But isn't that what this entire thread is about? Making sacrifices in order to have children?

>> Yes, they are relative terms. So how it is ok to then make
>> absolute statements on what is right in terms of
>> having/raising/caring for children...

Would you care to point out the absolute statements I have made? I have been very careful to be generic in this thread.

Not you, necessarily, Hoo - being generic, meself 'n'all!

Ah... I see!

"But isn't that what this entire thread is about? Making sacrifices in order to have children?"

Well, that and about you complaining about subsidised chold care, which is actually *very* expensive.

The government is trying to persuade those people who say they can't afford it to realise that they can, by helping them if they need to go back to work to carry on paying the mortgage because they need two wages, and also trying to persuade those staying at home with children because the sort of job they'd be able to get wouldn't pay very well, that yes, they can get out there, back into the work place.

Childcare is a really big issue, and if you've got anything other than a perfectly normal child it's really hard to find. I couldn't find proper child care for my son until early this year when he was 10.

He'd been rejected from more than one place before that.

Well I think one point that needs making (and probably has been) is that as a society we do need people to have children. And to be honest preferably as many children as there are people dying.

Otherwise we are going to be in the shit.

One of the purposes of "Government" is to provide those things that are neccesary to the functioning of society and "the country" that would not otherwise get done/paid for. If this means subsidising childbirth to ensure that it happens at a sustainable level then good.

>Well I think one point that needs making (and probably has been) is that as a society we do need people to have children. And to be honest preferably as many children as there are people dying.<

Either that or a sensible debate on immigration, but as this country seems congenitally unable to have that discussion without resorting to one word insults such as 'Nazi' and 'scrounger', I guess we'll need to keep the kids coming.

Perhaps somebody would like to dig out the figures on the cost of subsidised child care as against the cost of benefits payable to non-working mothers? And add in the cost to the economy in taxes of having all those workers staying at home. I'll bet i can guess which is the most cost effective option, though.