Are you paternal?

Professor Moriarty

Gravelly wrote: »

Not disagreeing with that at all. ALL children should have the entitlement to food, shelter and education. Working people should get a tax credit when they have more children.

Everybody who works gets children's allowance and tax allowances. Anyway the proposal was about 'middle classes' being 'financially incentivised to have children', not working people. So ordinary working Joes don't qualify.

The Specialist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Everybody who works gets children's allowance and tax allowances. Anyway the proposal was about 'middle classes' being 'financially incentivised to have children', not working people. So ordinary working Joes don't qualify.

The middle class are generally the ones working so your point doesn't make sense. They are also the most squeezed section in the country - work like dogs, pay bills/rent/mortgages/childcare with minimal state support, get nothing for free but are then expected to subsidise everybody else.

eviltwin

There is no right age to have a child but it's definitely easier the younger you are. I'm 40 and had my last at 32. I babysat my nephew last month for overnight and I was shattered. It's tiring whatever age you are though. I don't particularly like the idea of dealing with teens in my 50's, I want to be doing my own thing by then. Mostly I hope that if I'm lucky enough to have grandchildren that I will be young enough to be active in their lives. My parents were mid 40's when I was born, my grandparents were gone by the time I was 6 or 7. My dad was gone by my twenties, he never got to see his kids marry, missed all bar one of his grandchildren. I don't want to miss out on that.

Gravelly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Everybody who works gets children's allowance and tax allowances. Anyway the proposal was about 'middle classes' being 'financially incentivised to have children', not working people. So ordinary working Joes don't qualify.

There are no tax allowances in Ireland for having children. Everybody gets childrens allowance.
There should be tax incentives for working people to have children, as the current system favours the unemployed. For the future health of the country, we should be incentivising working people to have children. Look at Germany, spent decades disincentivizing the working and middle classes from having kids, belatedly realised the consequences, tried to import a million or so immigrants to make up the shortfall, and now all hell has broken loose. Children are the future of any country, and the people best placed to raise them without being a burden on the state are those who work.

farmchoice

farmchoice wrote: »

in my opinion no, you can have all those emotions and experiences but when you have children they are experienced in a different way.

now you could argue that that is the case for loads of things that i have not experienced but in my opinion reproducing is such a fundamental part of the human experience that it trumps everything else in regard to the depth of emotion and feeling that it engenders in us.

this is my opinion based on what has been my experience, no more, but it has influenced my thinking on the subject, and i find that in general its the way that other parents feel.
its also influenced by the nature of human existence. what drives all life on earth is the overwhelming desire of the members of species to reproduce. it tops almost everything else.
humans in general also have an overwhelming desire to nurture and raise their young.

Yes. In your opinion that has been your experience.

CramCycle

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The over riding goal of all animals is to ultimately reproduce. To not have that in your life is, of course, diminishing the human experience. People are quite entitled to make that choice but to think that you get the full human experience while ignoring the primary reason for our existence is absurd.

It really isn't. It maybe something you missed or did not want but the experience as can be seen across all levels of society is not always a positive one. It was for me but I would laugh at the idea that it is "diminishing" the human experience. Technically you miss a strand of the potential human experience, for some people that maybe a positive. I have certainly missed parts of this human experience as a result of having kids. I didn't plan any of my kids, I certainly didn't intend it and if I did not know what I know now I would be just as happy. Different type of happy but equally fulfilled nonetheless.

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

It'll be for some, it won't be for others. We all want different things out of life and we're all complex characters, there's no one size fits all.

100% - I have friends who suffered through their kids childhoods. They were good parents, done all they were meant to but they really suffered, borderline breakdown cases, broken relationships, utter anguish. It was the exception but it is there. Some people were just neutral to it all, and some people said it was the best thing ever. Everyone is different, shocked at how many people fail to see that.

Professor Moriarty

The Specialist wrote: »

The middle class are generally the ones working so your point doesn't make sense. They are also the most squeezed section in the country - work like dogs, pay bills/rent/mortgages/childcare with minimal state support, get nothing for free but are then expected to subsidise everybody else.

Everyone who works is middle class? No.

So those on social welfare are screwing the system by having kids? Ever walk around a deprived area? Ever walk around a middle class area? Which houses are nice big houses in leafy streets? Which houses have two nice cars in drive? Which families go on a few expensive holidays every year. Whose kids are getting piano lessons, ballet lessons, grinds to make sure the get the course they want? Whose kids get to jump the queue when they get seriously sick?

Yeah. Let's incentivise them financially because the need the money.

Rather than bashing those on welfare, here's a thought. Why don't we aspire to make everyone more middle class?

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The over riding goal of all animals is to ultimately reproduce. To not have that in your life is, of course, diminishing the human experience. People are quite entitled to make that choice but to think that you get the full human experience while ignoring the primary reason for our existence is absurd.

The primary reason for my existence is to help other people to the best of my ability. I get to do that which means for me that I'm having fulfilling human experience.

Professor Moriarty

Gravelly wrote: »

There are no tax allowances in Ireland for having children. Everybody gets childrens allowance.
There should be tax incentives for working people to have children, as the current system favours the unemployed. For the future health of the country, we should be incentivising working people to have children. Look at Germany, spent decades disincentivizing the working and middle classes from having kids, belatedly realised the consequences, tried to import a million or so immigrants to make up the shortfall, and now all hell has broken loose. Children are the future of any country, and the people best placed to raise them without being a burden on the state are those who work.

Let's apply logic to your point. Unemployed people are already at home so they can parent their children better than middle class people. So for "the future health of the country" unemployed people should be raising better children than middle class people.

The Specialist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Everyone who works is middle class? No.

So those on social welfare are screwing the system by having kids? Ever walk around a deprived area?

There is an element there yes - pop out a few kids, collect benefits. Never worry about working because as long as you keep having them, you'll keep collecting the state benefits that entails. Don't pretend it doesn't happen.

Ever walk around a middle class area? Which houses are nice big houses in leafy streets? Which houses have two nice cars in drive? Which families go on a few expensive holidays every year. Whose kids are getting piano lessons, ballet lessons, grinds to make sure the get the course they want? Whose kids get to jump the queue when they get seriously sick?

Yeah. Let's incentivise them financially because the need the money.

They have those things because they work. They have those things because they have earned the money to buy them - not sitting on their arse with their hands out to the state. As for kids jumping the queue when they are sick - that's called Health Insurance. You can generally afford it when you work. Despite that, you still get the pleasure of paying full price for any medicines you need because you don't get a medical card when you earn any decent income.

Gravelly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Let's apply logic to your point. Unemployed people are already at home so they can parent their children better than middle class people. So for "the future health of the country" unemployed people should be raising better children than middle class people.

Read my post again. If you want people to have children, and don't want the raising of those children to be paid for by the state, the only option is to incentivize working people to have children.

Professor Moriarty

The Specialist wrote: »

There is an element there yes - pop out a few kids, collect benefits. Never worry about working because as long as you keep having them, you'll keep collecting the state benefits that entails. Don't pretend it doesn't happen.



They have those things because they work. They have those things because they have earned the money to buy them - not sitting on their arse with their hands out to the state. As for kids jumping the queue when they are sick - that's called Health Insurance. You can generally afford it when you work. Despite that, you still get the pleasure of paying full price for any medicines you need because you don't get a medical card when you earn any decent income.

Yet kids whose parents are on social welfare rarely end up well-educated and wealthy. Whereas kids from middle class areas rarely end up uneducated and poor. Just one of life's strange coincidences I guess.

Professor Moriarty

Gravelly wrote: »

Read my post again. If you want people to have children, and don't want the raising of those children to be paid for by the state, the only option is to incentivize working people to have children.

I'm not disagreeing with that point. I'm disagreeing with the proposal that middle class people should be financially incentivised to have children. I'm doing this for two reasons. 1. It's a form of eugenics. 2. They don't need the money.

The Specialist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yet kids whose parents are on social welfare rarely end up well-educated and wealthy. Whereas kids from middle class areas rarely end up uneducated and poor. Just one of life's strange coincidences I guess.

Not really a coincidence at all - do you understand how a childs view of the world develops based on their parents? Middle class are more likely to have completed school, be in employment and will naturally pass that ethos on their children.

Welfare is no excuse either - it doesn't put any ceiling on what you can be or become provided your parents also give you the drive to be something. A kid watching his mother collect multiple state benefits with a "work is for mugs" attitude is never going to aspire to completing school or working - they already know what's to be gained from not doing either.

Gravelly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with that point. I'm disagreeing with the proposal that middle class people should be financially incentivised to have children. I'm doing this for two reasons. 1. It's a form of eugenics. 2. They don't need the money.

I'm not sure about the eugenics point - if incentivising middle class people to have kids is eugenics, then surely incentivising unemployed people to have children is too?

The point about them not needing the money is another one I'm not sure about - depends on your classification of what middle class means - these days, most people would consider, say, a teacher, a mid-level manager, or a Guard to be middle class - they are hardly rolling in money, and if they bought a house during the boom are quite possibly struggling financially.

farmchoice

Deleted User wrote: »

The primary reason for my existence is to help other people to the best of my ability. I get to do that which means for me that I'm having fulfilling human experience.

that might be your primary motivation in life and a noble one it is to have and its one we should all have and the world would be a better place if everyone took that view.

its not the reason for your existence though. in the sense that there is any reason to existence its simply to reproduce and continue on the species. we have no other evolutionary function.

farmchoice

farmchoice wrote: »

that might be your primary motivation in life and a noble one it is to have and its one we should all have and the world would be a better place if everyone took that view.

its not the reason for your existence though. in the sense that there is any reason to existence its simply to reproduce and continue on the species. we have no other evolutionary function.

I understand where you are coming from in terms of evolution. For me I see it on a more individual level. My work for example, while it means so much to me is certainly not going to mean much to others. I believe having children to be similar. It may mean a lot to some but not to others.

Human existence I feel can't be reduced down to purely evolutionary functions. We are many dimensional complex beings with a variety of instincts and desires which drive us.

Professor Moriarty

Gravelly wrote: »

I'm not sure about the eugenics point - if incentivising middle class people to have kids is eugenics, then surely incentivising unemployed people to have children is too?

The point about them not needing the money is another one I'm not sure about - depends on your classification of what middle class means - these days, most people would consider, say, a teacher, a mid-level manager, or a Guard to be middle class - they are hardly rolling in money, and if they bought a house during the boom are quite possibly struggling financially.

Most teachers I know are married to teachers. Guards that I know are married to nurses. Average combined income would be in the region of 110k per annum. Recession didn't really affect them. Nice houses, health insurance, two cars, grinds and piano/ballet lessons for the kids, few expensive holidays a year or off to their apartments in Spain or Italy. I would define them as lower middle class. Upper middle class is your dentist, solicitor, accountant etc.

If you're flipping burgers in McDonald's then I'm afraid you don't qualify for the incentive.

Professor Moriarty

The Specialist wrote: »

Not really a coincidence at all - do you understand how a childs view of the world develops based on their parents? Middle class are more likely to have completed school, be in employment and will naturally pass that ethos on their children.

Welfare is no excuse either - it doesn't put any ceiling on what you can be or become provided your parents also give you the drive to be something. A kid watching his mother collect multiple state benefits with a "work is for mugs" attitude is never going to aspire to completing school or working - they already know what's to be gained from not doing either.

So society isn't just and all children are not treated equally. Yet we should give more money to the parents of kids who do really well out of society?

The Specialist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So society isn't just and all children are not treated equally. Yet we should give more money to the parents of kids who do really well out of society?

I really don't get why you are so opposed to giving the middle class a break for once? As another poster said, that class is not rolling in money. Explain to me how it's fair that someone should work 40 hours a week, pay 80% of their wages between rent/bills/taxes and should they require medication (let's say inhalers for asthma) they have the pleasure of forking out 120 quid of whatever cash they have left. Meanwhile, someone unwilling to work and rolling in benefits can get the same medication for 2.50 max.

So yes they should get more money because most of their money as it is is being used to subsidise those who can't be arsed to work even menial jobs, but still come out better off than those of us breaking our arses to keep things afloat.

Professor Moriarty

The Specialist wrote: »

I really don't get why you are so opposed to giving the middle class a break for once? As another poster said, that class is not rolling in money. Explain to me how it's fair that someone should work 40 hours a week, pay 80% of their wages between rent/bills/taxes and should they require medication (let's say inhalers for asthma) they have the pleasure of forking out 120 quid of whatever cash they have left. Meanwhile, someone unwilling to work and rolling in benefits can get the same medication for 2.50 max.

So yes they should get more money because most of their money as it is is being used to subsidise those who can't be arsed to work even menial jobs, but still come out better off than those of us breaking our arses to keep things afloat.

Because they can well afford it. It's called wealth redistribution. The idea that we should incentivise only middle class people to have children is a seriously f**ked up idea. So those on social welfare and the working poor can f*ck off?

The Specialist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because they can well afford it. It's called wealth redistribution. The idea that we should incentivise only middle class people to have children is a seriously f**ked up idea. So those on social welfare and the working poor can f*ck off?

What part of not rolling in money did you not understand? I think you have a real misconception about what money the middle class have left when everything has been paid at the end of the month.

As for social welfare - why should they be incentivised any further than already are? Let's incentivise them to have even more kids they can't afford because **** it, the rest of us will pick up the tab for them? Get the **** out of that.

CramCycle

farmchoice wrote: »

its not the reason for your existence though. in the sense that there is any reason to existence its simply to reproduce and continue on the species. we have no other evolutionary function.

Deleted User wrote: »

Human existence I feel can't be reduced down to purely evolutionary functions. We are many dimensional complex beings with a variety of instincts and desires which drive us.

I have some bad news for both of you, there is no reason for your or my existence. There is a reason in that Physics has a set of rules and the following of those rules led to this point in time but if you really think we have a choice or function, then, in my opinion, you are incorrect. We have the feeling or appearance of these things but that is that.

Coffee Shop Philosophy 101, I'll be here all week.

Professor Moriarty

The Specialist wrote: »

What part of not rolling in money did you not understand? I think you have a real misconception about what money the middle class have left when everything has been paid at the end of the month.

As for social welfare - why should they be incentivised any further than already are? Let's incentivise them to have even more kids they can't afford because **** it, the rest of us will pick up the tab for them? Get the **** out of that.

Give the doctors, solicitors and accountants more money to have children while the unemployed and the people serving you coffee can piss off. OK got that.

The Specialist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Give the doctors, solicitors and accountants more money to have children while the unemployed and the people serving you coffee can piss off. OK got that.

There's your problem - you are confusing the upper class with the middle class.

farmchoice

CramCycle wrote: »

I have some bad news for both of you, there is no reason for your or my existence. There is a reason in that Physics has a set of rules and the following of those rules led to this point in time but if you really think we have a choice or function, then, in my opinion, you are incorrect. We have the feeling or appearance of these things but that is that.

Coffee Shop Philosophy 101, I'll be here all week.

no there is no reason for our existence, but at the point where we do exist and in ''evolutionary terms'' by reproducing we continue it (humanity), which is a positive for the species.

Sleepy

Dial Hard wrote: »

But saying that we should force them to feel morally obliged to reproduce isn't far off saying we should force the opposite end of the spectrum to stop having children. And that's just a bit too close to social engineering for me.

"Forcing" was poor wording on my part but honestly, and some who aren't intending on having children have admitted it in this thread, I think there's a certain selfishness about the decision not to procreate. Life is generally pretty sweet for the DINK demographic and if the numbers of them making the decision to maintain that lifestlye instead of having children continue to increase society as a whole will suffer.

eviltwin wrote: »

Assuming people's ability to parent based on age, income, address etc is a bad idea.

Is it? All research indicates those are key factors into whether children will become productive adults. Of course it's not a hard and fast rule and falls to pieces when looking at individual cases but at the aggregate level it's generally true. We can't base public policy on individual circumstances so we have to use broad strokes. Hard cases make for bad laws.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Everybody who works gets children's allowance and tax allowances. Anyway the proposal was about 'middle classes' being 'financially incentivised to have children', not working people. So ordinary working Joes don't qualify.

The vast majority of the Irish population are considered "middle-class" (I think it was arround 85% according to the last demographics I read). "Ordinary working Joes" (like myself and the majority of my friends) tend to be considered the "lower middle class". The "working class" has largely ceased to exist in Ireland as those among them that work have become the "lower middle class" whilst those that don't have become a parasitic underclass that the label "working" simply can't be applied to.

Gravelly wrote: »

There are no tax allowances in Ireland for having children. Everybody gets childrens allowance.
There should be tax incentives for working people to have children, as the current system favours the unemployed. For the future health of the country, we should be incentivising working people to have children.

Exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Everyone who works is middle class? No.

So those on social welfare are screwing the system by having kids? Ever walk around a deprived area? Ever walk around a middle class area? Which houses are nice big houses in leafy streets? Which houses have two nice cars in drive? Which families go on a few expensive holidays every year. Whose kids are getting piano lessons, ballet lessons, grinds to make sure the get the course they want? Whose kids get to jump the queue when they get seriously sick?

Yeah. Let's incentivise them financially because the need the money.

Rather than bashing those on welfare, here's a thought. Why don't we aspire to make everyone more middle class?

I think you're confusing my use of "the middle classes" to be refering to the English "upper middle classes" that inhabit those leafy suburbs who would in Irish terms be considered upper class but don't get that label in the UK despite their wealth by virtue of their not holding peerages.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Let's apply logic to your point. Unemployed people are already at home so they can parent their children better than middle class people. So for "the future health of the country" unemployed people should be raising better children than middle class people.

That's effectively our current policy tbh. Our tax code penalises working people who want to have children while incentivising those on welfare to do so.

The research all shows that life-long welfare recipients are currently doing a worse job of raising children than those who spend the majority of their life in employment. The most worrying part of that is that they're breeding beyond their replacement rate while those footing the bill for their welfare aren't even approaching their replacement rate of reproduction. If this continues, the welfare state will fall apart as there simply won't be enough taxpayers to bear the cost of it.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yet kids whose parents are on social welfare rarely end up well-educated and wealthy. Whereas kids from middle class areas rarely end up uneducated and poor. Just one of life's strange coincidences I guess.

Ask any teacher and they'll tell you that educational outcomes are primarily determined at home. A kid from a family that values education and encourages the child to read for pleasure and helps with their homework etc. will succeed pretty much regardless of the financial circumstances of the family. Parents who live their entire lives on social welfare rarely provide that support and encouragement (and rather terrifyingly often actively discourage education).

Yes, additional disposable income can cover costs like grinds, trips to the Gaeltacht, private schools etc. Add in the effects of social capital and many kids from well off backgrounds in the upper middle or upper classes end up achieving to a degree that a kid from a bad council estate is unlikely to. That's not fair but life rarely is.

It doesn't prevent the kid from the council estate suceeding professionally and entering the middle class themselves though. It may take that kid's line a couple of generations to catch up in terms of social capital and financial support for education but it can be done. Ironically, the current policies you're arguing in favour of (incentivisation of the unemployed to procreate at a faster and higher level to the working) make it harder for that to happen. Those at the lower end of the middle classes are the ones that current policy hurts most meaning they're choosing to have smaller families later in life, or choosing not to have kids at all and enjoy their lives "child-free".

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with that point. I'm disagreeing with the proposal that middle class people should be financially incentivised to have children. I'm doing this for two reasons. 1. It's a form of eugenics. 2. They don't need the money.

Again, this comes down to your perception of the "middle class" I think. Most middle class people I know have struggled financially over the past decade.

Out of my main social circles (all at various stages of our 30's) most have started to have kids but we're all having small families: 1 or 2 kids with no plans for more as they couldn't pay the rent / mortgage if one of them had to give up work due to childcare costs being higher than their salary.

Again, rather ironically when viewed through your arguments, one of the things I'm suggesting (making childcare costs tax deducatable) would be perhaps the greatest means of helping single parents to re-enter the workforce: helping them escape the poverty trap and provide a better chance for their children to suceed in life.

mzungu

farmchoice wrote: »

no there is no reason for our existence, but at the point where we do exist and in ''evolutionary terms'' by reproducing we continue it (humanity), which is a positive for the species.

All that means is that two people were able to have sex and pop out a sprog, there has yet to be any description in this thread (or anywhere for that matter) of what makes it the be all and end all of experience. Surely if this was the case, it could be described in a fashion that could be universally agreed upon? The fact is that it's not, therefore it is a bit like saying "Ah you haven't lived until you have seen the Taj Mahal". It might be great for some, but of little interest to others. Whether you have seen the Taj Mahal or not, it doesn't mean that those who have seen it have experienced a fuller life.

eviltwin

You can't physically stop people having children unless you are suggesting forced contraception. Stopping welfare brings us back to a time when the only option for poor people was adoption. I'm proof that, with support, people who have children in less than ideal circumstances can do well. I think giving incentives for those on welfare to better themselves is a better option. One of the most prohibitive aspects of modern life is lack of affordable childcare, if we can sort that out it will benefit all parents.

farmchoice

mzungu wrote: »

All that means is that two people were able to have sex and pop out a sprog, there has yet to be any description in this thread (or anywhere for that matter) of what makes it the be all and end all of experience. Surely if this was the case, it could be described in a fashion that could be universally agreed upon? The fact is that it's not, therefore it is a bit like saying "Ah you haven't lived until you have seen the Taj Mahal". It might be great for some, but of little interest to others. Whether you have seen the Taj Mahal or not, it doesn't mean that those who have seen it have experienced a fuller life.

id say the reason there has been no such description in this thread is that nobody has said any such thing.

CramCycle

CramCycle wrote: »

I have some bad news for both of you, there is no reason for your or my existence. There is a reason in that Physics has a set of rules and the following of those rules led to this point in time but if you really think we have a choice or function, then, in my opinion, you are incorrect. We have the feeling or appearance of these things but that is that.

Coffee Shop Philosophy 101, I'll be here all week.

Are you saying that I am just a brain in a jar?

kyeev

I was sitting by a pool in Tenerife a few years ago with my 2 year old trying to hurl himself into the deep end, and my older fella trying to concuss himself jumping off the top of a climbing frame/slide.
There was another Dad there in a similar situation, except he was in his early 20s (I was 37). I remember looking at him and thinking the poor b*stard has no hope.
At his age I was on the piss. Off on holidays with the lads. Hangovers and lies in on the weekend.

So, my advice is, for goodness sake, don't have kids til you're in your 30s! Live your life first and you'll have the best of both worlds.
It's great being young and single and its great being a dad... just not at the same time...

Wardling

Deleted User wrote:

The primary reason for my existence is to help other people to the best of my ability. I get to do that which means for me that I'm having fulfilling human experience.

I think I am a pretty good guy and am as nice as I can be to others. Treat people how you'd like to be treated and all that.

Well now I have the little terror tornado, my life goal is to hope to raise a better person than myself. If this was everybody's main goal in life the world could only get better. Regardless of the starting point or base level and your current circumstances, If you raise your child to be a better person than yourself and then they do the same and so on and so on, as a species we can only improve and get better....easier said than done of course but hey, nothing's ever easy

Wardling

Wardling wrote: »

I think I am a pretty good guy and am as nice as I can be to others. Treat people how you'd like to be treated and all that.

Well now I have the little terror tornado, my life goal is to hope to raise a better person than myself. If this was everybody's main goal in life the world could only get better. Regardless of the starting point or base level and your current circumstances, If you raise your child to be a better person than yourself and then they do the same and so on and so on, as a species we can only improve and get better....easier said than done of course but hey, nothing's ever easy

I'm happy for you

farmchoice

Wardling wrote: »

I think I am a pretty good guy and am as nice as I can be to others. Treat people how you'd like to be treated and all that.

Well now I have the little terror tornado, my life goal is to hope to raise a better person than myself. If this was everybody's main goal in life the world could only get better. Regardless of the starting point or base level and your current circumstances, If you raise your child to be a better person than yourself and then they do the same and so on and so on, as a species we can only improve and get better....easier said than done of course but hey, nothing's ever easy

the poet Philip larkin had a different take on it.!!
This Be The Verse


By Philip Larkin

They **** you up, your mum and dad.

They may not mean to, but they do.

They fill you with the faults they had

And add some extra, just for you.



But they were ****ed up in their turn

By fools in old-style hats and coats,

Who half the time were soppy-stern

And half at one another’s throats.



Man hands on misery to man.

It deepens like a coastal shelf.

Get out as early as you can,

And don’t have any kids yourself.

gct

I have 4 kids who are now between 16 and 25. I was 25 when the eldest was born. I had other friends my age who were parents in their mid 20's and friends who had no kids and wanted to stay that way.
I have friends now who are parents of very young children while now being in their late 40's/50s. There are pros and cons to becoming parents young or in middle age. The kids have cost me a fortune over the years and I've spent most of my time working 6 day weeks to bring them up. I can remember being constantly tired and constantly broke over the years. I still don't have a pot to piss in but I wouldn't change anything. I had an amazing time helping to bring them up and I'm pretty sure they had a great time too. (Although the government could have made it a bit easier what with education and medical costs etc., The government don't do enough for working families while doing too much for layabouts but that's another story.)
I'm now a Grandad and I hope to have just as much fun watching them grow up.

laserlad2010

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Everyone who works is middle class? No.

So those on social welfare are screwing the system by having kids? Ever walk around a deprived area? Ever walk around a middle class area? Which houses are nice big houses in leafy streets? Which houses have two nice cars in drive? Which families go on a few expensive holidays every year. Whose kids are getting piano lessons, ballet lessons, grinds to make sure the get the course they want? Whose kids get to jump the queue when they get seriously sick?

Yeah. Let's incentivise them financially because the need the money.

Rather than bashing those on welfare, here's a thought. Why don't we aspire to make everyone more middle class?

I hate to interrupt your rant, but I'm a stickler for facts.

There is no private emergency department serving children who are seriously sick. There is no seriously sick child who will get better treatment as a private patient. There are no private inpatient facilities for seriously sick children.

What does occur is some illnesses have long waiting lists - but these are not what anyone would call "seriously sick". Emotional parents will call all illnesses "serious" but this is not the case.

eviltwin

kyeev wrote: »

I was sitting by a pool in Tenerife a few years ago with my 2 year old trying to hurl himself into the deep end, and my older fella trying to concuss himself jumping off the top of a climbing frame/slide.
There was another Dad there in a similar situation, except he was in his early 20s (I was 37). I remember looking at him and thinking the poor b*stard has no hope.
At his age I was on the piss. Off on holidays with the lads. Hangovers and lies in on the weekend.

So, my advice is, for goodness sake, don't have kids til you're in your 30s! Live your life first and you'll have the best of both worlds.
It's great being young and single and its great being a dad... just not at the same time...

When I was in my twenties I went out maybe once a month. I had a kid and was saving like mad to buy a house. Got the comments from friends that I was wasting my life while they spent their wages on having fun. Those same people are now stuck in private rental struggling with small babies and crazy childcare costs unable to buy a house while my mortgage will be paid off within the next few years. So pros and cons to both. That dad will still be a young man twenty years from now, his son will be an adult and he and his partner will be off enjoying themselves.

Gravelly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because they can well afford it. It's called wealth redistribution. The idea that we should incentivise only middle class people to have children is a seriously f**ked up idea. So those on social welfare and the working poor can f*ck off?

The whole "wealth distribution" thing has been tried many times over the years, and invariably ends in tears, usually after lots and lots of people have died (see; Soviet Union, Cambodia etc.). It seems human nature is that those who try the hardest get rewarded, and any attempt to interfere with this never works.

Shelga

Sleepy wrote: »

Honestly, I see so many posts on boards.ie or in social media in general from predominantly middle class people choosing to live "child free" and women who believe they'll have no problems putting off having children until the latter half of their 30's / early 40's, I'm beginning to worry about the future.

:rolleyes: I know this was posted a while back but still. I don't think there's a woman alive who isn't aware of her biological clock, whether she wants children or not.

There's a big difference between acting to people like you planned it all this way and are happy about it, and having concerns on the inside. Frankly, women are sick of being told to get a move on. It's not so easy to get it all together and have your first child by 30 anymore. I know myself that there would be very few people who would know my true thoughts on the matter. So maybe just bear that in mind?

Also, middle class people are obliged to procreate... wtf

Stigura

No.

Pat Mustard

Mod:

Posts by rereg troll and replies to him have been deleted.

Divelment

The Specialist wrote: »

I really don't get why you are so opposed to giving the middle class a break for once? As another poster said, that class is not rolling in money. Explain to me how it's fair that someone should work 40 hours a week, pay 80% of their wages between rent/bills/taxes and should they require medication (let's say inhalers for asthma) they have the pleasure of forking out 120 quid of whatever cash they have left. Meanwhile, someone unwilling to work and rolling in benefits can get the same medication for 2.50 max.

So yes they should get more money because most of their money as it is is being used to subsidise those who can't be arsed to work even menial jobs, but still come out better off than those of us breaking our arses to keep things afloat.

This is it exactly I think. I thank Christ every day that I don't have kids and that I am still single. We think that "the middle class" is the category of citizen that earns good crust and has a few bob to bank at the end of the month. The reality I think is that what we used to call working class (people who worked low paid jobs because they had no qualifications, and had social housing and who couldn't save or accumulate any wealth due to their circumstances), they were known as the working class.

The reality is that what I have stated above to describe "the working class", people who can't save, people who can't accumulate wealth, people who have no money left at the end of the month to have a quality of life, that is the middle class of today. The middle class are now the working class and what was formerly the working class are now the welfare class. Guess which class of people are still at the top in this country?!? And I'm a right wing capitalist I wish to point out, not one of these AAA/PBP/Solidarity advocates...

Sleepy

Shelga wrote: »

:rolleyes: I know this was posted a while back but still. I don't think there's a woman alive who isn't aware of her biological clock, whether she wants children or not.

There's a big difference between acting to people like you planned it all this way and are happy about it, and having concerns on the inside. Frankly, women are sick of being told to get a move on. It's not so easy to get it all together and have your first child by 30 anymore. I know myself that there would be very few people who would know my true thoughts on the matter. So maybe just bear that in mind?

That people lie is no great revalation. That the middle classes are now far, far fussier about the standard of living they expect to maintain isn't either. Most of our parents raised us with far less than we have now. Sure, they may have had a house and a mortgage but they were smaller simpler houses, far more simply decorated and furnished than the average first-time buyers get these days. Replacing the kitchen / bathroom / windows or adding an extension was something done after a lotto win or an inheritance, not within weeks of drawing down. Foreign holidays, regular nights out, two relatively modern cars, designer labels and tech gadgets weren't common outside of the ultra wealthy either.

If anything, it's probably easier to have it "all together" to be in a position to have a child these days. The middle classes just prioritise procreation far lower than maintaining a comfortable 21st century life with all the consumerism that entails.

I don't say this any judgement on or criticicim of the choice to live that way btw, it's just my observation about what I see around me. I think people are fussier about who they choose to marry and / or raise kids with these days too (how common would the phrase "checks all the boxes" have been in the seventies or eighties?).

The liberation of women and the loosening of the power of organised religion in the western world would both be contributing factors in this. Sex outside of marriage is the norm these days. Women have more options in life than to simply hitch their wagon to the most successful guy they can land in their local community. These are unquestionably good things. But as with all changes in a system: they have consequences.

One of those consequences is that those who support themselves, and who are careful to ensure they can provide the best life they can for their offspring are breeding later (if at all) and in lower numbers. The welfare class who worry less about such things are actively monetarily incentivised to procreate and do so profligately.

This trend is leading to an ever smaller workforce trying to support not only themselves but also an ever growing welfare class and (thanks to increases in medical science) increasing number of pensioners. That seems destined to cause huge problems: even higher levels of personal taxation on those in employment may lead to them swinging to far-right parties who promise to reduce those taxes. Lower welfare levels may lead to much higher levels of crime. The elderly may feel obliged to take themselves off to Switzerland to stop themselves from being a burden on their kids.

Also, middle class people are obliged to procreate... wtf

I already agreed that the use of the word "obliged" as being perhaps inappropriate. In social terms, however, it seems obvious to me that we need to encourage the middle classes to do so. The only demographics that are increasing as a percentage of the population are those that draw more resources from the state than they contribute. Unless we can find a way to increase the numbers of those that contribute more than they draw the great experiment that has been the welfare state will fail. Any such failure, will be a nightmare for all concerned.

ThinkProgress

Am I paternal? Yes!

Will I choose to have kids someday? Most likely not...

I could easily see myself having a family, and being quite happy and content in that lifestyle. It's a somewhat limited lifestyle, but not necessarily an unhappy one! (depending on how you approach it)

However, I am the sort of person who weighs up the pros and cons of these things. And tbh, the childless lifestyle is just so much more fun and interesting to me...

So long as you are very adaptable and have a fully functioning imagination, there is no reason why living childless can't be just as fun and enjoyable in later life, as it is when you are young. But the key is to be very adaptable imo... you will very quickly feel out of place in society, if you try to keep living like a teenager, when you are in your 40s/50s/60s etc etc...

Lack of ability to adapt, as you age, will cause many people to pine for a family... because you will feel like the range of fun things is narrowing for your demographic. That's when your brain tells you, "a family could be fun!?"... (it could be the right option for some people btw) But if you are very adaptable, you can continue to live a very fun and exciting life without children.

You just have to always keep your mind open to new possibilities, activities and ideas... the way I see it, life throws far more exciting opportunities towards us younger folk without much effort required... but when you get older, you just need to work a little harder to create those new avenues in life!!