Won't somebody think of the children?

[DodgyAgent]

You're focussing on one group of poor people, when the problem outlined by the article affects many more.

Or do you actually feel that low or minimum-wage workers can be thrown into the same pot as unemployed benefit recipients?

I'd hope not. But it's just the more emotive - Wail like - narrative to moan about those maintained by the state, as if they're the only ones that are struggling to get by.

I entirely accept your point. Indeed I was referring to those on long term benefits.
I will add that if public services were run properly it would be much easier to live on low wages and to progress into better paid jobs - something that this article fails to acknowledge.

[formant]

I think a big issue is the cost of childcare. If you have two people earning 15k each , having a child is likely to make it pretty pointless for one of them (usually the mother, I guess) to return to work. That then pushes them from self-supporting to benefit-supported.

Around here (south Northamptonshire), childcare is around £40/day per child - so £200 a week, £800 a month. A 15k salary currently yields £1,061.13 in take-home pay. Considering the cost of getting to work (fuel, possibly an additional car) - it's just not worth it.

So, yeah, I generally agree that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them, but we can't exactly expect all low-earners to abstain from having a family. :-/

[The Spartan]

I entirely accept your point. Indeed I was referring to those on long term benefits.
I will add that if public services were run properly it would be much easier to live on low wages and to progress into better paid jobs - something that this article fails to acknowledge.

The only reason for long term benefits should be if you're disabled and unable to work or if you are indeed very ill, as for public services the fact that they're crap I agree

[The Spartan]

So, yeah, I generally agree that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them, but we can't exactly expect all low-earners to abstain from having a family. :-/

But we can refuse to supplement them, well I wish we could. It's the people that put in that don't have children I feel sorry for they get nothing in return really.

[DodgyAgent]

I think a big issue is the cost of childcare. If you have two people earning 15k each , having a child is likely to make it pretty pointless for one of them (usually the mother, I guess) to return to work. That then pushes them from self-supporting to benefit-supported.

Around here (south Northamptonshire), childcare is around £40/day per child - so £200 a week, £800 a month. A 15k salary currently yields £1,061.13 in take-home pay. Considering the cost of getting to work (fuel, possibly an additional car) - it's just not worth it.

So, yeah, I generally agree that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them, but we can't exactly expect all low-earners to abstain from having a family. :-/

The solution is to prepare children to be able to compete in the market place on level terms with each other. The only way that this can be done is through education. there would be a considerable cost to this but compared to the price we pay for supporting unemployable people it is nothing. Simply paying out benefits is only making matters worse (as is chucking people out on the streets)

[vetran]

I think a big issue is the cost of childcare. If you have two people earning 15k each , having a child is likely to make it pretty pointless for one of them (usually the mother, I guess) to return to work. That then pushes them from self-supporting to benefit-supported.

Around here (south Northamptonshire), childcare is around £40/day per child - so £200 a week, £800 a month. A 15k salary currently yields £1,061.13 in take-home pay. Considering the cost of getting to work (fuel, possibly an additional car) - it's just not worth it.

So, yeah, I generally agree that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them, but we can't exactly expect all low-earners to abstain from having a family. :-/

so how much are you willing to pay per hour for someone to mind your kids? 2- 3 kids works out to £8 - £12 an hour which falls to £2-6 when they become school age so your child minder would be eligible for TUC largesse.

Note childcare vouchers are available pre tax so 20 - 50% reduction in the costs you suggest. Plus at the indicated income levels most of that would be paid by working tax credit.

[formant]

so how much are you willing to pay per hour for someone to mind your kids? 2- 3 kids works out to £8 - £12 an hour which falls to £2-6 when they become school age so your child minder would be eligible for TUC largesse.

Note childcare vouchers are available pre tax so 20 - 50% reduction in the costs you suggest. Plus at the indicated income levels most of that would be paid by working tax credit.

Working Tax Credits - you only get those if your household income is below 26k if you have only one child, so two people on £15k each wouldn't qualify. Childcare voucher schemes aren't particularly common in bottom-end low-pay jobs (more common among salaried employees - not those on an hourly rate). It's helpful to some, but it's far from solving the childcare cost problem for the poor.

Urgh, don't get me started on how underpaid childcare workers are. I don't have a problem with the £4 per hour that I'll be paying my childminder to look after the new baby. Instead, I'd be in favour of heavily subsidised childcare like in Germany or Sweden (here's an outline of the Swedish example: What can British childcare policymakers learn from Sweden? | Society | Society Guardian).
I think socialising kids early in nurseries or with childminders is significantly more educationally beneficial than one parent raising them at home in near-isolation.

If you're going to subsidise people's income to avoid disadvantaging children, then focus on subsidising those that do work, and keep making it easy for both parents to continue working, rather than situationally forcing them to become benefit recipients.

[formant]

The solution is to prepare children to be able to compete in the market place on level terms with each other. The only way that this can be done is through education. there would be a considerable cost to this but compared to the price we pay for supporting unemployable people it is nothing. Simply paying out benefits is only making matters worse (as is chucking people out on the streets)

That, I certainly agree with.

[formant]

But we can refuse to supplement them, well I wish we could. It's the people that put in that don't have children I feel sorry for they get nothing in return really.

I think those people - in theory - are meant to have their care and pensions funded by the next generation of tax payers, so they would actually get something back eventually.

Of course it doesn't quite work out that smoothly in reality.

[original PM]

I think a big issue is the cost of childcare. If you have two people earning 15k each , having a child is likely to make it pretty pointless for one of them (usually the mother, I guess) to return to work. That then pushes them from self-supporting to benefit-supported.

Around here (south Northamptonshire), childcare is around £40/day per child - so £200 a week, £800 a month. A 15k salary currently yields £1,061.13 in take-home pay. Considering the cost of getting to work (fuel, possibly an additional car) - it's just not worth it.

So, yeah, I generally agree that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them, but we can't exactly expect all low-earners to abstain from having a family. :-/

why not - why should people be allowed to breed like rabbits and let everyone else pick up the tab?