Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Questions for those on the "don't have kids until you can afford them" bandwagon:
Does waiting until you are financially able to afford kids provide some sort of guarantee that you won't lose your job, your health, incur enormous medical bills, etc. after you have them?
As people wait longer to have children, often into their early 40s, we see many more parents of young children with health issues related to middle-age - diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure...
Sure, maybe they have some money in the bank, but how will that last in the event of a catastrophic health event?
Is this a suitable trade-off?
It is not ideal for women over 35 to have babies, especially the first one.
Life has no guarantees....but, by waiting you have the best chance.
Or, in my case never having children.
Exactly. But not only are people NOT waiting to have children, but they do it while they are already in a situation where they cant afford where they live, keeping up with the Joneses and such. "Oh well make it work!" No you wont, ever. Lot of people out there trying to one up their friends. I see it constantly where I live, where taxes are ridiculously high. People here try to buy $500k houses with a family on a combined $80k a year - its straight up perceived entitlement, or they really dont know how to budget. They want to stay near the people they know, near NYC, and they cant fathom living anywhere that the houses are cheaper. So when things go wrong, "Ah, put it on the credit card".
Thats why I buy a less expensive house, way outside this area - like normal people, Im NEVER having kids, and Ill be able to save money.
It is not ideal for women over 35 to have babies, especially the first one.
Life itself is not ideal though. You wait until you can afford
stuff. Especially when it comes to bringing another mouth
into the world. Why do some people not understand this.
If you are poor and your yearly income qualifies you for
welfare don't even think about making a baby with
anyone until you get your financial house in order and
start making more money per year.
Last edited by Europeanflava; 01-09-2015 at 10:57 AM..
It is not ideal for women over 35 to have babies, especially the first one.
No, it isn't.
But that is what most are, by default, advocating for when they say that people should wait until they can afford to have kids.
Wait until the student loans are paid off.
Wait until you can buy a house.
Wait until you have X amount of money in the bank.
I was going to respond to your post but read up to middle-aged mom and decided hers began to sum it up better to what I was leading into which is that living is for those that can afford to live. If you're struggling to "live" a life beyond survival then you by definition can't afford to "live". Although technically you're alive and breathing you're certainly not living any kind of fulfilling existence. And if you're in this situation and attempt to try to live a lifestyle you think you should live then you're setting yourself up for failure. But more importantly then that unless your offspring are especially talented in a certain in demand area are setting them up for more of the same.
No the more I observe and get down to brass tacks the more convinced I become that the living should be left to those who can afford to do it. If you can't afford a certain lifestyle but are bound and determined to try anyway you'll be potentially setting yourself up for disappointment on a number of levels and fronts including most importantly any children you attempt to have but can't truly afford. Because they won't be starting on third base with a potential homerun in their future they'll be sitting in the stands without a uniform. And only exceptional ability in certain subjects and areas will get them into the dugout going forward.
Really? So going out to dinner say once every couple of months, going on a week vacation say up north, that's considered living beyond people's means & they shouldn't do it? Give me a break.
Really? So going out to dinner say once every couple of months, going on a week vacation say up north, that's considered living beyond people's means & they shouldn't do it? Give me a break.
Nah..living beyond your means is at the cashier line at Target rotating through 5 credit cards to pay for your "stuff" and the cashier telling you each time.."Sorry that card was refused".
Really? So going out to dinner say once every couple of months, going on a week vacation say up north, that's considered living beyond people's means & they shouldn't do it? Give me a break.
We did not go out to eat much and NEVER went on vacations for years.
We lived in a camper.......started a business.......and remolded an old farm house.
We were the last people I knew to get cable and the internet.
Questions for those on the "don't have kids until you can afford them" bandwagon:
Does waiting until you are financially able to afford kids provide some sort of guarantee that you won't lose your job, your health, incur enormous medical bills, etc. after you have them?
As people wait longer to have children, often into their early 40s, we see many more parents of young children with health issues related to middle-age - diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure...
Sure, maybe they have some money in the bank, but how will that last in the event of a catastrophic health event?
Is this a suitable trade-off?
Is it really unreasonable to expect those who choose to have children to take financial responsibility for those children?
For the record, corporate welfare & subsidies and tax breaks for the uber-wealthy are, by several orders of magnitude, FAR more costly to the average American taxpayer than are social programs (such things as Food Stamps, WIC, day care assistance and many medical benefit programs.)
This thread isn't about tax breaks for the wealthy or corporate subsidies, it's about people not being able to afford a $500 car repair. My post that you quoted was in reference to such people having children, to compound their financial woes, and then demanding that I share in the burden of their choices. FWIW, I disagree just as vehemently with corporate welfare. If a company sucks at business, get better at it or perish, but don't put me on the hook because you suck at business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffis
However, one area where I think we fall down with regards to "welfare" is in people who collect Supplemental Security Income (SSI) after being declared officially disabled by the Social Security Administration.
SSI being different from SSA (retirement that a working person has paid in over a lifetime of work) or SSD/SSDI (disability payments made to people based on what they've paid into the system over a lifetime of work.
SSI is really rampant. In several social services jobs I've had I've dealt with people on a daily basis who never worked (or hardly worked) in their lives but manage to get themselves declared disabled and collect their monthly $733 SSI check, which results in an income so low they are also eligible for food stamps, housing assistance, etc.
I'm not sure what the cost to taxpayers is for SSI nationally, and I DO believe the majority of people on SSI/disability could be considered legitimately disabled, whether physically or mentally, but I believe from years of direct experience that a LOT of people collecting SSI just don't wanna work.
All that said, I feel we should remember that a great percentage of people who are recipients of such things as food stamps are elderly, truly disabled, or are children, and most families who receive food stamps have at least one adult in the household who is in the workforce.
not one thing in the entire federal budget takes up as much money as Social Security. Added to Mediwelfare, those two programs consume 45 cents of every dollar the federal government spends. Add in traditional welfare programs, and you're at 60% of all federal spending going to just cash transfers as welfare. In other words, ~$2 trillion each year goes to what you think we "are falling down on." If we say the poorest 20% are the ones that money goes to, that averages out to $30k per person...not per household...per person. That's not falling down, that's the weight of socialism weighing down the roof to the point that, like every other time in history, eventually the entire structure will collapse under its own weight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
