Why do people have children that they can't afford?

Millionaire only not

Millionaire only not wrote: »

Well might be no harm , Irish are very ugly more polish blood needed

Your ego is writing cheques your body can't cash.

Millionaire only not

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your ego is writing cheques your body can't cash.

Am I not right ? Lol

Strumms

If you want to have 7 kids, go for it.. as long as you teach them right from wrong, educate them, give them a sense of value for themselves and everyone... that when they hit xx age and go out into the ‘big bad world’ they do so with not their hand out but with their shoulder to the collective wheel, not to the window of the social every week... contributing, working hard or smart...

One eyed Jack

Strumms wrote: »

If you want to have 7 kids, go for it.. as long as you teach them right from wrong, educate them, give them a sense of value for themselves and everyone... that when they hit xx age and go out into the ‘big bad world’ they do so with not their hand out but with their shoulder to the collective wheel, not to the window of the social every week... contributing, working hard or smart...

I don’t think anyone who wants to have children cares one way or the other for what anyone else actually thinks tbh.

Padre_Pio

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think anyone who wants to have children cares one way or the other for what anyone else actually thinks tbh.

Course they don't.

If you want to have children then go for it.
Your tax money is wasted by the billions every year. I much prefer that it's going towards nappies than quangos.

Raconteuse

People seem to be one extreme or the other - having children you can't afford is sponging behaviour no matter what the circumstances (despite the fact that relationships end, spouses/partners die, accidents happen, jobs are lost, best laid plans can fall apart) or "Have all the children you want".

What about the middle ground? Sure, people cannot be stopped from having as many children as they want - but it's not great in terms of responsibility if you can't provide a stable home for them. I'm thinking of the life the children will have first and foremost, not the tax payer.

blueshade

Raconteuse wrote: »

People seem to be one extreme or the other - having children you can't afford is sponging behaviour no matter what the circumstances (despite the fact that relationships end, spouses/partners die, accidents happen, jobs are lost, best laid plans can fall apart) or "Have all the children you want".

What about the middle ground? Sure, people cannot be stopped from having as many children as they want - but it's not great in terms of responsibility if you can't provide a stable home for them. I'm thinking of the life the children will have first and foremost, not the tax payer.

Of course circumstances change for many parents. What doesn't change is that there are quite a few women out there having multiple kids with different daddies who don't seem to be in their children's lives or contribute financially to their upbringing. Realistically, there are a lot of those women out there who are more than happy to live a life on benefits with their free or subsidised Council or Social house, a few hundred euro a week in benefits topped up with a single parent allowance, child benefit and whatever other payments they're entitled to. They're happy not to bother working or to encourage their kids to better themselves.

Most decent parents want their kids to have a better life than they have and to work to reach their potential. People insist that there aren't many of them but there are and it's often a generational thing going back to their grandparents. A life of welfare dependency for healthy adults should never be a lifestyle option. Many of these people were unemployed during the boom years and they'll go through life on benefits. They'd laugh at you if you suggested they get a job. Why should the taxpayer pay for Anto and Jacinta or Lucky and his missus to sit on their arses reproducing while other people go out to work. We've a situation now where there's Social housing inserted in every new housing development.

Paddy and Mary are getting up and heading off to work to pay the mortgage and the bills while the slackers next door are paying feck all because Paddy and Mary's taxes are paying their rent, putting food on the table and providing for their kids. While Paddy and Mary are at work the other lot are asleep in bed.

Idbatterim

Dah above post is races so it is! Me angles are me everythin!!!

Mad_maxx

blueshade wrote: »

Of course circumstances change for many parents. What doesn't change is that there are quite a few women out there having multiple kids with different daddies who don't seem to be in their children's lives or contribute financially to their upbringing. Realistically, there are a lot of those women out there who are more than happy to live a life on benefits with their free or subsidised Council or Social house, a few hundred euro a week in benefits topped up with a single parent allowance, child benefit and whatever other payments they're entitled to. They're happy not to bother working or to encourage their kids to better themselves.

Most decent parents want their kids to have a better life than they have and to work to reach their potential. People insist that there aren't many of them but there are and it's often a generational thing going back to their grandparents. A life of welfare dependency for healthy adults should never be a lifestyle option. Many of these people were unemployed during the boom years and they'll go through life on benefits. They'd laugh at you if you suggested they get a job. Why should the taxpayer pay for Anto and Jacinta or Lucky and his missus to sit on their arses reproducing while other people go out to work. We've a situation now where there's Social housing inserted in every new housing development.

Paddy and Mary are getting up and heading off to work to pay the mortgage and the bills while the slackers next door are paying feck all because Paddy and Mary's taxes are paying their rent, putting food on the table and providing for their kids. While Paddy and Mary are at work the other lot are asleep in bed.

"Single mothers" are viewed as sacred cows by the media, much of the political class and all of the quangocracy, Joan Burton cut welfare for "single mothers"she was branded the devil ever since, it's impossible at this stage to publicly encourage fiscal consideration when it comes to family planning for certain demographics

LirW

blueshade wrote: »

Paddy and Mary are getting up and heading off to work to pay the mortgage and the bills while the slackers next door are paying feck all because Paddy and Mary's taxes are paying their rent, putting food on the table and providing for their kids. While Paddy and Mary are at work the other lot are asleep in bed.

I'm not making excuses here for Jacinta and Anto but Paddy and Mary are able to get make a whole lot of choices that the first couple are never able to make.
Of course life would be cheaper if I'd live on welfare doing nothing all day and let the tablet raise my 5 kids but this sounds like a fairly sh*t life to be honest.
If you're on welfare you're always on an invisible leash that will allow you to live comfortably in a small frame if you're used to it.

But they never have the chance to travel to places of their choice. Or send their kids to good schools or have them participate in good after school activities. They basically have to live in the house they're given with little choice of where they want to live. No chance of uprooting and heading towards new exciting opportunities. No achievements in life to show for.
All they do is breed another generation of miserable people that have no perspective than hanging on the government's lifeline and maybe have a holiday in one of these sad knacker tourist places in Spain.

There's a single mother with two young kids living on my road, she has no education, 2 kids from 2 different fathers and she's the opposite of bright. She is afloat because of SW but I don't envy her, her life is absolutely miserable. Her days are empty, she has no goal in life.

Sounds like a pretty sh*t deal and not something I aspire to on any way.

Mad_maxx

LirW wrote: »

I'm not making excuses here for Jacinta and Anto but Paddy and Mary are able to get make a whole lot of choices that the first couple are never able to make.
Of course life would be cheaper if I'd live on welfare doing nothing all day and let the tablet raise my 5 kids but this sounds like a fairly sh*t life to be honest.
If you're on welfare you're always on an invisible leash that will allow you to live comfortably in a small frame if you're used to it.

But they never have the chance to travel to places of their choice. Or send their kids to good schools or have them participate in good after school activities. They basically have to live in the house they're given with little choice of where they want to live. No chance of uprooting and heading towards new exciting opportunities. No achievements in life to show for.
All they do is breed another generation of miserable people that have no perspective than hanging on the government's lifeline and maybe have a holiday in one of these sad knacker tourist places in Spain.

There's a single mother with two young kids living on my road, she has no education, 2 kids from 2 different fathers and she's the opposite of bright. She is afloat because of SW but I don't envy her, her life is absolutely miserable. Her days are empty, she has no goal in life.

Sounds like a pretty sh*t deal and not something I aspire to on any way.

Bigotry of low expectations

Why do the left have so little faith in people and view them in need of minding like pets?

Majority of people in the 1950,s were much poorer than the vast majority on welfare today, they still had aspirations to better their own lives and those of their children

Idbatterim

The people you want having kids holding off , not having them at all etc due to mainly financial concerns. The vermin breeding well... like vermin!

GreeBo

The answer is devastatingly simple....its because in Ireland we pay you to have children.

LirW

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Bigotry of low expectations

Why do the left have so little faith in people and view them in need of minding like pets?

Majority of people in the 1950,s were much poorer than the vast majority on welfare today, they still had aspirations to better their own lives and those of their children

Don't hate the player, hate the game. The real issue is that somehow living like this became a viable option.
For one, there are no mechanisms in place for job dodgers to get it together because the benefits stay the benefits.
The other is that housing policies are ridiculous, leases are infinite and every single council is doing their own thing. People can't really move to another council and apply for housing there, they'd get send back. Hell, Dublin alone has 4 councils.

This sort of stuff happens because there are loopholes to let it happen. On one hand I'm glad that if my family ever falls on hard times without any fault of our own that we have breathing room and the necessities are taken care of.
On the other hand exactly this system has nothing in place for long-term unemployed from disadvantaged areas and families. The government sees them as sorted and as long as they are sorted, they won't give them any trouble, doesn't matter if this is destroys local communities.

Just imagine a new government would drastically change the rules. The dole is no viable career anymore, these people are not employable elsewhere. Chances are that there would be roots and many would turn towards crime because crime has a lower entry requirement than the local Centra.

Complex issue really.

Igotadose

marieholmfan wrote: »

Most important job a woman can do is be a mother (except maybe doctor).
Much more important than fund accounting or airplane lease structuring.

More important than Marie Curie? Susan B. Anthony? Countess Markiewicz?
Golda Meir? Margaret Thatcher?
Elena Kagan?

People have kids because they have a want. Usually, it's the mam has the want and the dad along for the ride. There's never a need to have a child.

Limpy

Why do people keep billions in the bank when they could give to people who need it.

Igotadose

Limpy wrote: »

Why do people keep billions in the bank when they could give to people who need it.

Choice. Like having a kid.

Deebles McBeebles

Limpy wrote: »

Why do people keep billions in the bank when they could give to people who need it.

Selfishness. Like having kids when you can't support them.

Western Lowland Gorilla

Vasectomy for the win?

Raconteuse

Millionaire only not wrote: »

Am I not right ? Lol

Nope, you're not. So don't be so hard on yourself.

Mad_maxx

LirW wrote: »

Don't hate the player, hate the game. The real issue is that somehow living like this became a viable option.
For one, there are no mechanisms in place for job dodgers to get it together because the benefits stay the benefits.
The other is that housing policies are ridiculous, leases are infinite and every single council is doing their own thing. People can't really move to another council and apply for housing there, they'd get send back. Hell, Dublin alone has 4 councils.

This sort of stuff happens because there are loopholes to let it happen. On one hand I'm glad that if my family ever falls on hard times without any fault of our own that we have breathing room and the necessities are taken care of.
On the other hand exactly this system has nothing in place for long-term unemployed from disadvantaged areas and families. The government sees them as sorted and as long as they are sorted, they won't give them any trouble, doesn't matter if this is destroys local communities.

Just imagine a new government would drastically change the rules. The dole is no viable career anymore, these people are not employable elsewhere. Chances are that there would be roots and many would turn towards crime because crime has a lower entry requirement than the local Centra.

Complex issue really.

"hate the game"

The left invented the game and not only defend it robustly, demand more of the same game

The false assumption here is believing that travellers and rampant breeders do not like their lot but then the left always believe they know best

LirW

Mad_maxx wrote: »

"hate the game"

The left invented the game and not only defend it robustly, demand more of the same game

The false assumption here is believing that travellers and rampant breeders do not like their lot but then the left always believe they know best

That was my point. Policies made it able in the first place. Some people live a cushy life, they are sorted. It's just not a high standard and it wouldn't appeal to me in the slightest.

s7ryf3925pivug

Why do people work, pay rent, save for a deposit, pay health insurance, delay having kids until they risk no longer being able to? That's a greater question.

It would be interesting to see a study on outcomes for the private and public approaches to funding your life. Negative outcomes of the private approach are plenty - you just don't see them because most people don't like to talk about finding they can't have kids.

Personally you would take us as a positive outcome of the private approach, but I don't think we will have a second and we both always would have liked to. The possibility of age related fertility decline aside, there are emergent health issues and simply not having the energy we had ten or twenty years ago. So whether we were better off going what we thought of as the responsible route depends on the metric.

Strumms

Limpy wrote: »

Why do people keep billions in the bank when they could give to people who need it.

People who have amassed serious wealth often do so through hard work. Almost always in fact.

If we are in a situation where we are penalizing and even more heavily taxing people who have wealth to ‘pay’ for people who don’t want to get out of bed and off their arses and directly contribute to society we are not giving any incentive for people to take responsibility for their own lives and wellbeing...

Social welfare isn’t going to bring you an excellent quality of life no, it’s meant as a stopgap to help people who are between jobs for whatever reason, people who have health issues, left or been forced out of jobs etc....

Social welfare is not designed or should it be as a lifestyle enabler, not too many people are jumping on planes to spend a five star week in Dubai off what they get on the dole.... if they want that lifestyle do they say... “ hey, there should be a holiday fund where I can reap the benefits of sitting on my hole and other people working hard to pay for my lifestyle “ OR... “this actually sucks, I’m going to get up, retrain, get a job, work hard, contribute and in a couple of years I’m going to be paying for my own holidays, nice car, own apartment AND making my own tax contributions that help pay for the running of the state and for the wellbeing financially and personally of people who fell on hard times like I did...

marieholmfan

Igotadose wrote: »

More important than Marie Curie? Susan B. Anthony? Countess Markiewicz?
Golda Meir? Margaret Thatcher?
Elena Kagan?

People have kids because they have a want. Usually, it's the mam has the want and the dad along for the ride. There's never a need to have a child.

Much more important than any of the above except Maria Sklodowskja (unlike sexists I use a woman's own name not her husband's).

Antares35

beejee wrote: »

True, and the other side of that coin is that mothers who rarely see their own children because of work are hardly brilliant either. Ditto father's.

Did you have children to be raised in crèches the second you can get them out the door? Maybe they tune in after a few decades, they didn't want children but adults raised by strangers instead. Just rent a family like in Japan, far more efficient

I'd rather a mother who went out to work and set a good example than just sat around at home having child after child. You don't have to sit with your child 24/7 holding their hand. Eventually, they got to school etc. Also, there are so many parents juggling flexi time or part time work to spend time with their children while still bringing in money. They are also contributing to the social welfare for those who stay at home full time. It's not feasible nowadays for one parent (mother or father) to stay at home. For one thing, look at mortgage repayments. It's not like it was years ago. If all those working mothers that we judge were to stop working so they could sit at home with their children 24/7, there'd be a lot less money in the pot for those who choose to derive their self worth solely from procreation.

I'm due a child next year. I plan to come back to work after 7 months. I've worked hard for my career and I am not going to throw that away and lose all self identity besides being a pro-creator. People who advocate that women should stay at home clearly just see them as baby makers. This does them a disservice. Women are worth more than that.

marieholmfan

Not work proportionate to the reward.


The hardest working people are those at the bottom of society. In fact the much reviled Margaret Cash almost certainly works far harder than any of the so called captains of industry and certainly is living a far more meaningful life than any 'professional' woman failing to squeeze out an IVF at fifty.




[QUOTE=Strumms;111822234]People who have amassed serious wealth often do so through hard work. Almost always in fact.

If we are in a situation where we are penalizing and even more heavily taxing people who have wealth to ‘pay’ for people who don’t want to get out of bed and off their arses and directly contribute to society we are not giving any incentive for people to take responsibility for their own lives and wellbeing...

Social welfare isn’t going to bring you an excellent quality of life no, it’s meant as a stopgap to help people who are between jobs for whatever reason, people who have health issues, left or been forced out of jobs etc....

Social welfare is not designed or should it be as a lifestyle enabler, not too many people are jumping on planes to spend a five star week in Dubai off what they get on the dole.... if they want that lifestyle do they say... “ hey, there should be a holiday fund where I can reap the benefits of sitting on my hole and other people working hard to pay for my lifestyle “ OR... “this actually sucks, I’m going to get up, retrain, get a job, work hard, contribute and in a couple of years I’m going to be paying for my own holidays, nice car, own apartment AND making my own tax contributions that help pay for the running of the state and for the wellbeing financially and personally of people who fell on hard times like I did...[/QUOTE]

marieholmfan

How is that setting a good example?

Antares35 wrote: »

I'd rather a mother who went out to work and set a good example than just sat around at home having child after child. You don't have to sit with your child 24/7 holding their hand. Eventually, they got to school etc. Also, there are so many parents juggling flexi time or part time work to spend time with their children while still bringing in money. They are also contributing to the social welfare for those who stay at home full time. It's not feasible nowadays for one parent (mother or father) to stay at home. For one thing, look at mortgage repayments. It's not like it was years ago. If all those working mothers that you judge were to stop working so they could sit at home with their children 24/7, there'd be a lot less money in the pot for those who choose to derive their self worth solely from procreation.

I'm due a child next year. I plan to come back to work after 7 months. I've worked hard for my career and I am not going to throw that away and lose all self identity besides being a pro-creator. People who advocate that women should stay at home clearly just see them as baby makers. This does them a disservice. Women are worth more than that.

Antares35

marieholmfan wrote: »

How is that setting a good example?

By showing your child that you have to work for nice things? That you will never get beyond a certain point in life if you just sit at home with your hand out?

Antares35

marieholmfan wrote: »

Not work proportionate to the reward.


The hardest working people are those at the bottom of society. In fact the much reviled Margaret Cash almost certainly works far harder than any of the so called captains of industry and certainly is living a far more meaningful life than any 'professional' woman failing to squeeze out an IVF at fifty.

So you think a woman's self worth is solely derived from her ability to pro-create, while simultaneously leveraging a cruel and unnecessary jibe at women who struggle with IVF? What a nice person you must be...