2015 post UK election discussion

[tim cahill]

Good try pal, but I'm not here to tell other people what they should or shouldn't do. All I can say is what I would do.

Because I don't want to be in a position where I am reliant on state support to raise my children, I would not choose to have children before I had saved the amount of cash I felt was sufficient to provide the cushion necessary to compensate for the temporary drop in income that would result from Mrs. Tree taking time off for maternity. Mrs. Tree feels the same way, so we have spent five years saving up, building our careers, buying our house and have got married in the meantime.

Other people may choose to do it differently, but that doesn't mean that their approach would be any more palatable for me than mine would be for them.

Good for you. All I'm saying is not everyone is in a position to do that because most jobs don't offer the wages that allow people to save with the cost of living how it is.

 

[Milk]

That is a very interesting point. Currently born out by statistics, but is it right?

Surely all children are born equal regardless of their parent's relative wealth?

So how about creating a society that rewards talent and effort regardless of background?

Surely that is a Capitalist society? To take an extreme example, Tim Leahy started on the shop floor.

The tricky part is the "effort". How do you make schools places where children actively want to go to learn especially those from underprivileged backgrounds? Conversely, is it right that people are encouraged to go to university where they often drift in "non" degrees whereas they would be far better off in apprenticeships and learning on the job? Where do you pitch benefits to make a job seem the better option?

 

[Tree13]

Tree, you would be better off just saying now you ain't having children and get on with your life if that is how you feel.

That seems to presume that the options are 1) Have children the moment you leave school and 2) Don't ever have them.

No amount of saving will put in a position to start a family.....take it from me, you could live five lifetimes of saving but the moment those kids come along a black hole opens up in your financial plan no matter how much you have saved (assuming you are not a millionaire).

With respect, that is not even close to an argument that justifies not saving anything at all. It is, if anything, further evidence that some saving beforehand is better than none.

Start your family and let life take care of itself.

Sorry mate but that sounds suspiciously like "have kids and let the state pick up the bill".

And it will.......provided you accept the fact that life as you know it is over.

Forever.

You cannot have your cake and expect to eat it.

Raising children at the state's expense IS having your cake and eating it, to my way of thinking. Mrs. Tree and I could be spending £10k a year on any number of different things, but instead we are choosing to save it towards raising a family

Your lifestyle will change and you will need to direct your dough toward the raising of those children.

I don't doubt that for one second. So that's yet another reason to save a bit first, isn't it.

But it's all good.

After a day or two you wouldn't be without them and you will gladly make any sacrifice you need to.

Then one day they wil grow up and your money is your own again

Saving up in advance is exactly the sort of sacrifice you are counselling against though - why is that?

Provided you ain't got a daughter getting married and you are footing the bill for the reception.....like I have had to do twice

But hey.......I love those gals to bits and they are worth every penny I have had to spend feeding them, clothing them, educating them and leading them down the aisle

So go for it pal.....don't let fear get in the way

Because before you know it the old body clock in your wife starts ticking away and it becomes harder for her to conceive......even dangerous on occasion.

Absolutely not afraid of having children - curious as to what I've said that suggests otherwise - but will happily confess to being wary of going into a twenty-year commitment under-prepared.

Is the consensus on here that at 26 a woman should be putting everything else to one side and devoting all her efforts to conceiving? Most women aren't even married at 26, are they?

As before, very grateful for the reasoned responses on this thread. It really is interesting getting an insight into the way different people look at an issue. @Khalekan, congratulations on raising your two daughters - the weddings sound like they were fun!

EDIT: don't know what's happened to the quoting function here, can't seem to correct it. Hopefully it's clear which parts are Khalekan's comments and which parts are mine.

 

[Tree13]

Good for you. All I'm saying is not everyone is in a position to do that because most jobs don't offer the wages that allow people to save with the cost of living how it is.

So do you think that someone in the situation would be wiser to:

a) perhaps delay having children
b) maybe limit themselves to just the one
c) have them anyway, because they will work harder after the kids start arriving and will get paid more as a result - as per @the esk 's suggestion
d) "just wing it" - (can't recall which poster suggested that, will scroll back through the thread)
e) some other suggestion

I believe that each person's decision has an impact on society, and every right that anyone chooses to exercise (or not) should be considered in the light of that impact.

 

[bring the ghost on]

The legal aid would be saved in the long term. We could also take the costs out of it from the individuals if they where mean's tested however both parties should be only be allowed to spend the same amount. The pre-nups since agreed by the courts before marriage would be binding.

Sorry mate, it's a crazy idea. Forcing people to spend thousands on contract lawyers for every single marriage. You haven't answered my point about the costs of the subsequent litigation. Contractual disputes are something only wealthy individuals and companies can partake in because the court fees, let alone the legal costs, can amount to several thousand pounds.

So, unless you're willing to fork this money out, the prenup is worth nothing.

That's also ignoring the fact that a prenup is a very unromantic way to start your marriage and in my view, promotes a selfishness which shouldn't be at the forefront of marriage.

 

[Tramps_mate]

If it's all so cheap, as you're suggesting, then how do people struggle financially?

If people do indeed struggle financially, why are you suggesting raising a child is cheap and affordable?

The idea of having the child first and then HOPING that a prospective employer would view me as MORE responsible and dedicated as a consequence seems, to me, to be a huge risk. And if it doesn't pay off (i.e. no pay rise) what happens to Mrs Tree and the new sapling?

Finally, by planning financially in advance I mean saving up money - thereby allowing greater flexibility should Mrs. Tree change her mind about returning to work.

Nothing you've said has convinced me that having children WITHOUT saving up for a few years first is remotely sensible. To do so would make it virtually inevitable that we would leave ourselves very vulnerable to changes in child benefit, statutory maternity pay and the like. We would also be far less prepared for dealing with either one of us being ill for any period of time, or made redundant. We would end up struggling to make ends meet on an income that didn't cover our outgoings, and we'd be looking to the state for support. We might even start worrying about where our next meal came from, or having to chose between heating or new clothes. I do not want that type of life for myself, my wife or any child we might have. What's more, I don't think it would be right, having made such a flippant decision, to then expect other more prudent people to pick up the bill, by way of increased taxation to fund welfare provision for people who have made stupid decisions.

If everyone did it that way, the state would fail. This is one of the reasons I vote Tory and you presumably don't. Deliberately choosing to have children you can't afford to raise is feckless and every legislative measure that can be taken to dissuade such behaviour should be put in place, IMHO. I really do appreciate the patience you've shown in explaining the way you look at the scenario, it helps me understand your point of view a bit better. I hope you aren't too offended by the degree to which I am amazed that anyone would deliberately choose to follow the decision-making process you've outlined though.

We tell impoverished African nations that one of the most important steps to take to improve their quality of life is to convince their citizens to have fewer children. I don't view the situation in this country as particularly different, on a conceptual level. Child poverty will continue for as long as people wilfully choose to have children without preparing adequately beforehand, but no child of mine will ever experience poverty.

What's most sad to me is that the genuinely needy and vulnerable invariably suffer because some of the funding that should be going to help them is diverted to fund the sort of people who "just wing it".

Nah, our bilks weren't really that much more with having a new baby. Formula and nappies aren't cheap, but we found Lidl nappies just as good as expensive brands but 1/3 of the price. I don't see this 70 grand bit myself.

With regards to those who struggle, we cut our cloth accordingly a few years back, no sky TV, neither smoke, occasional drink, but live within our means, no loans or credit, be sensible and its easily affordable.. But that's just us.

 

[Blue 1]

Nah, our bilks weren't really that much more with having a new baby. Formula and nappies aren't cheap, but we found Lidl nappies just as good as expensive brands but 1/3 of the price. I don't see this 70 grand bit myself.

With regards to those who struggle, we cut our cloth accordingly a few years back, no sky TV, neither smoke, occasional drink, but live within our means, no loans or credit, be sensible and its easily affordable.. But that's just us.

Yep, exactly the same situation here.

Oh, and speaking of Lidl nappies being just as good, Cow & Gate formula is identical to Aptamil, only two or three quid cheaper per container.

 

[Moomin]

If you don't have a Smeg fridge and a Rolex you can't have kids.

Child benefit is a drop in the ocean compared to the companies shandying out of corporation tax and people with tax avoidance schemes.

 

[Tramps_mate]

If you don't have a Smeg fridge and a Rolex you can't have kids.

Child benefit is a drop in the ocean compared to the companies shandying out of corporation tax and people with tax avoidance schemes.

Exactly, but the conservatives will never admit that!

They need a law to stop people doing jobs for cash. Receipts must be made law!!

 

[marty mcfly]

Sorry mate, it's a crazy idea. Forcing people to spend thousands on contract lawyers for every single marriage. You haven't answered my point about the costs of the subsequent litigation. Contractual disputes are something only wealthy individuals and companies can partake in because the court fees, let alone the legal costs, can amount to several thousand pounds.

So, unless you're willing to fork this money out, the prenup is worth nothing.

That's also ignoring the fact that a prenup is a very unromantic way to start your marriage and in my view, promotes a selfishness which shouldn't be at the forefront of marriage.

What do you think marriage is? It is a contract.

Given that most would be very similar you could mostly use an off the shelf contract and then modify to your needs.

As for not being romantic. You have to apply for a marriage license. It's no less romantic than that and if it was a legal requirement nothing neither party could use that excuse.

 

[degsy]

That is a very interesting point. Currently born out by statistics, but is it right?

Surely all children are born equal regardless of their parent's relative wealth?

So how about creating a society that rewards talent and effort regardless of background?

Well of course they are - when they're born. They maybe born equal but you can't pick your parents and if they have not made the best of decisions since THEY were born 'equal'...and so on and so on.

Rooney, Rodwell and Barkley were all 'born equal' with the same potential.

Sad to say, in the genetic lottery some start off with a better chance than others, which may be then enhanced or weakened by life's other handicap(s)

 

[daylightrobber]

If you don't have a Smeg fridge and a Rolex you can't have kids.

Child benefit is a drop in the ocean compared to the companies handying out of corporation tax and people with tax avoidance schemes.

I've expressed it a few times, but it really is one big con trick. Slight of hand, distraction and misdirection all being employed to focus attention at the wrong problems and it's bloody well working. Working poor against poor. Divide and rule. Its a very sick game they play.

No disrespect to the likes of @Tree13, I genuinely think your thoughts are admirable. Wanting the absolute best for your kids should be a top priority. (Remember though its not all about money. There are commodities such as love and time that will leave a bigger impact on them). However, people who pull down child benefits really aren't that big a drain on society by comparison.

See it as an investment in the future of the country.

 

[Tubey]

I've expressed it a few times, but it really is one big con trick. Slight of hand, distraction and misdirection all being employed to focus attention at the wrong problems and it's bloody well working. Working poor against poor. Divide and rule. Its a very sick game they play.

No disrespect to the likes of @Tree13, I genuinely think your thoughts are admirable. Wanting the absolute best for your kids should be a top priority. (Remember though its not all about money. There are commodities such as love and time that will leave a bigger impact on them). However, people who pull down child benefits really aren't that big a drain on society by comparison.

See it as an investment in the future of the country.

Less than 5% (£13bn) of overall welfare spend, and just on 10% of the cost of tax avoidance to the country - approx. £120bn.

Even something as trivial as tax debt costs the country £18bn.

But yeah, let's attack benefits.

 

[neil999]

this is guesswork, but email i got today(from housing benefit info which provides training)..


Good morning members
The election is over and the Government is in place. The Welfare State is going to look very different as a result; we await the full list of Ministerial appointments.
So what changes are we likely to see? A cut in the benefits cap from £26,000 to £23,000 was highlighted in the election campaign as one of the first changes the new Government will do. Under occupancy / “the bedroom tax” may be extended and the roll-out of Universal Credit (UC) will now begin in earnest. We expect the timetable for this to be revised to “quicken the pace”.
It is widely accepted that significant cuts will be needed to keep the new government within the maximum welfare spending budget. Proposals drawn up include withdrawing Housing Benefit from the under 25 age group, reducing Housing Benefit by a flat 10% cut across all claims, freezing benefit rates for three years and limiting claims payments to a maximum of three children. Housing Benefit is particularly vulnerable because of its soaring budget; without all the restrictions already in place the cost would exceed £30 billon per annum. We await to see what will be included when Parliament is recalled.
Council Tax Support has to have a statutory review this year and this will consider whether to abolish the current scheme and move this to Universal Credit.
For those in UC phases two to four, this post by a member may be helpful:
“We have a secondment agreement with Citizens Advice ( CAB ) who provide personal budgeting support and debt advice to customers at home but working within our benefit team. We have negotiated full payment from DWP to cover costs regardless of volumes and any excess time is spent in supporting referrals from other council services- on the basis that these customers will migrate to UC later and this early intervention will help them to prepare. This has been very successful and CAB comparisons to their office based provision shows that take up of our home visiting service is much higher. After dealing with budgets and debts the CAB refer to our employment mentors to help people to find work, using local welfare assistance to provide funding for training, licences etc. I would strongly recommend this approach”.
We can expect a lot of changes over the next few months; there may be some major shocks. Hbinfo will be advising you of these in our weekly newsletters.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

A great many family break ups of course happen due to money problems just as they do cos 1 partner has wandered. When families break up due to money issues ..... i'll take a wild guess at 99.9% being lack of money btw..... then there's not enough cash to support 1 household, its the bloke that has to leave the family home the vast majority of the time and mostly at the womans request, he then has to find somewhere to live and attempt to support 2 households. Happened to mate of mine recently and he'd lost his decent paid job and all that was available paid way less (his wifes a teacher) which wasnt enough in her eyes and the relationship started to go downhill, he ended up in some tip of a 1 room flat that he could only just afford and at the same time was having to work all kinds of hours to survive. He quite simply didnt have anything left over to give to her, she had her teachers salary and tax credits though but he was cast as a feckless father by many who wasnt supporting his kids. I saw his 'finances' and he was having to do the taxi's on a friday and saturday to be able to get anywhere near break even .....i.e. be able to afford food & heating in winter.
A minimum wage job with a £30+ fuel bill to get there doesn't go a long way in any situation.