What is with the backlash against feminism?

[Quackers]

That's misleading Flying Pig. There are plenty of other benefits families can get like income support, housing benefit and possibly JSA if one member is out of work. If that is too little, you can claim for hardship £££.

There is definitely a rather large state formed hammock if you're too dumb to use contraception.

 

[Flying Pig]

Absolutely, but you get income support if you work but your wages aren't enough, housing benefit if you are on a low income and paying rent and Jobseekers' Allowance if you're, well, seeking a job. Whether or not you have children has no bearing on it. Perhaps you should change that to 'stupid enough to be poor'?

 

[Farm Boy]

Some people simply don't use contraception. And they don't want to. Children are still a good investment for the state. It's just pleasantly long-term enough that people can complain about the cash up front.

 

[Quackers]

You also have the child tax credit too if you're claiming income support. That's £545 + up to £2750 per child/year.

 

[Farm Boy]

~4,400 USD a year maximum under this benefit as the brunt of the social safety net for childrearing expenses? Doesn't the average cost of daycare in England run at about 3 times that rate? If that's intended to keep somebody home rearing children on the government teat then the state is getting a steal.

 

[warpus]

Did you see the figures I dug up? I don't think it's actually possible to game the system in that way - of course there will always be sensational stories in the Daily Mail et al, but it seems from the figures that it's not physically possible to make money from having a lot of children. Even a family with 5 children is only receiving just under £4000 a year, and it's even more difficult now than it has been to get a council house that actually fits a large family in it.

I don't necessarily mean that they're doing it to end up with more money in their pockets. I just mean that they end up unnecessarily burdening the rest of society AND their existing kids.

So I'm not really talking about fraud, but rather poor planning skills.. or whatever you want to blame.

But like I said, there doesn't seem to be a good way to handle this, so Im down with letting people breed as they see fit. It just sucks for the kids and the rest of us..

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Not to mention factoring in the cost for the parents to sustain themselves as well. That gets factored into the cost of raising children as well since if the parents can't feed themselves, pay the rent, and afford medical care for themselves then they can't really take care of their children now can they?

Eh? So as soon as you have children, any bills or costs you previously had to pay anyway, suddenly get added to the "cost of having children"? How does that make sense?

 

[Farm Boy]

Children do increase your personal costs. You tend to upgrade the safety of your personal transportation if you can. You tend to warm the house more consistently in the winter for small children. You have to take time off work when they get sick, your work schedule gets far less flexible. It's myriad.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well he specifically said food, rent and medical care. I suppose rent might increase if you have to live somewhere bigger, but that's not a given, and I don't see how the other two would increase at all. And I don't know about you, but I'm not in the habit of driving around in a death trap or sitting shivering in a freezing house all winter just because I don't have children.

 

[Farm Boy]

I live in an old ass house, it vents some of its heat despite shoring up what can be done without major repairs every Autumn. It gets fairly cold for spells in northern Illinois. I used to let the heat stay cold enough during those periods that it'd hover in the 50s in the main rooms, any lower and the pipes start freezing. Blankets and warm clothes are wonderful. Taking the heat up 10 degrees F in the wintertime with the introduction of a small child is not a negligible expense.

 

[Agent327]

Nevermind

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I live in an old ass house, it vents some of its heat despite shoring up what can be done without major repairs every Autumn. It gets fairly cold for spells in northern Illinois. I used to let the heat stay cold enough during those periods that it'd hover in the 50s in the main rooms, any lower and the pipes start freezing. Blankets and warm clothes are wonderful. Taking the heat up 10 degrees F in the wintertime with the introduction of a small child is not a negligible expense.

Well it's also not a personal expense. It's something you're paying for for the child.

 

[Farm Boy]

But it doesn't neatly fit in with "food for kid" or "medical expense for kid" or "school supplies for kid" that people want to see when they pitch government aid into something like this. Instead, were I taking aid on this, it could easily appear as if I'm taking the opportunity to luxuriate more comfortably with my newfound bounty from the teat. We did also upgrade my wife's car for the same reason. I wouldn't have classified it as a death trap, it had decent safety ratings, but it would break down from time to time and I'd need to come out and fix something minor to get it rolling again. We wanted something more reliable to plunk the carseat in for the winter. Also something that'd get lumped in as a personal expense for her and it sort of is, but it wouldn't have been made butfor the addition of the child.

 

[bhsup]

Well it's also not a personal expense.

You gonna pay that gas or electric bill for Farm Boy, then? I'd certainly call it a personal expense.

 

[Commodore]

Eh? So as soon as you have children, any bills or costs you previously had to pay anyway, suddenly get added to the "cost of having children"? How does that make sense?

Allow me to demonstrate the state's logic on why it makes sense: When my wife and I were having financial difficulties after I separated from the Army our daughter got her medical care through CHIP. Even though we were struggling we still made too much for Medicaid, so my wife and I did not have medical coverage. We then found out that parents are also eligible for medical coverage under CHIP as well, even if they make too much to receive Medicaid. The state's logic for this is to ensure parents are healthy enough to care for their child they must be guaranteed some sort of medical coverage.

This logic extends to all other forms of public assistance for assistance groups that involve a child under the age of 18. This logic is the reason the 20 hour per week work requirement for food assistance does not apply to parents. That is why income verification for parents applying for assistance is not as stringent as they are for those who have no children. Also this logic is the reason why those who have children are allowed to make more money and still receive public assistance than those who have no children. That is also why cash assistance for bills is virtually guaranteed for parents and near impossible to get for those without children.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You gonna pay that gas or electric bill for Farm Boy, then? I'd certainly call it a personal expense.

So anything the child doesn't pay for themselves is a personal expense? So basically... everything then?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Allow me to demonstrate the state's logic on why it makes sense: When my wife and I were having financial difficulties after I separated from the Army our daughter got her medical care through CHIP. Even though we were struggling we still made too much for Medicaid, so my wife and I did not have medical coverage. We then found out that parents are also eligible for medical coverage under CHIP as well, even if they make too much to receive Medicaid. The state's logic for this is to ensure parents are healthy enough to care for their child they must be guaranteed some sort of medical coverage.

This logic extends to all other forms of public assistance for assistance groups that involve a child under the age of 18. This logic is the reason the 20 hour per week work requirement for food assistance does not apply to parents. That is why income verification for parents applying for assistance is not as stringent as they are for those who have no children. Also this logic is the reason why those who have children are allowed to make more money and still receive public assistance than those who have no children. That is also why cash assistance for bills is virtually guaranteed for parents and near impossible to get for those without children.

Well I must have misunderstood because I thought you were saying that parents somehow incurred more costs for themselves in things like food and medical care, but now you're saying that they actually get HELP in those areas? So you were talking about a cost to the state, not to the parents?

Anyway, I apologise if I'm getting everything wrong here, and this isn't an area I know all that much about anyway other than anecdotal evidence of some friends and family, and I feel I've derailed the topic enough for now, so I shall bow out.

 

[Rashiminos]

I just don't know what they would do if there ever was a controversy involving an actual gate. So I want there to be one.

Gateception, obviously.*

You could have expressed your point quite well without using a reference to anatomy. The thread if five pages long and I do not seen any moderator actions - and given the sensitive nature of the subject, this is surprising.

EDIT: Added the quote after finding this post at the top of a page.

Regionalisms can be fun.

Your "true" meaning is dumb. Death threats deserve more than a light reproach and feminists don't deserve to be compared to fascists.

How busy was your reproaching last June?

Clear as muck, I'm afraid.

All of us have lines that we will not cross. Things we are absolutely and unconditionally opposed to. Slavery, for example: most people would say that slavery is simply and flatly wrong, that there is no discussion to be had, that they are under no obligation to respect opinions to the contrary. They want their way, they're right, end of discussion. Are they, then, extremists? And if they are, what use is the term?

That would be most people with the caveat that the would-be slaves are members of the human species.

 

[Commodore]

Well I must have misunderstood because I thought you were saying that parents somehow incurred more costs for themselves in things like food and medical care, but now you're saying that they actually get HELP in those areas? So you were talking about a cost to the state, not to the parents?

Anyway, I apologise if I'm getting everything wrong here, and this isn't an area I know all that much about anyway other than anecdotal evidence of some friends and family, and I feel I've derailed the topic enough for now, so I shall bow out.

Yeah that's what I meant. I must apologize for not making it clear that I have been articulating my points from the perspective of the state. From the state's perspective, once you have kids you all of a sudden become eligible for assistance you wouldn't get otherwise because your financial security no longer just affects your quality of life, but your child's as well. And since a child really has no choice in the matter of whether or not it is born and who it is born to, it would be kind of unfair to cut off assistance and put the kid in a bad situation.

 

[Farm Boy]

So anything the child doesn't pay for themselves is a personal expense? So basically... everything then?

Pretty fuzzy when everything in a household gets used by its members and some upgrades are in order with the addition of children. Like moving out of a dive and into somewhat nicer housing, which I think you brought up and is an excellent point. Or maybe just moving slightly farther from a busy road or turning down overtime and possible career advancement to take the kiddo to a park. It's hard to argue that those changes aren't a quality of life issue for everyone involved rather than a simpler transaction like me buying infant formula would have been(weird side note, a store clerk tends to be way nicer to you after you ask her to unlock the formula case then before).