Only the middle class can’t afford babies
Discussion
Interesting commentary from Minette Marin in today's Sunday Times. This is certainly an accurate assessment of the situation many of my friends are in.
Only the middle class can’t afford babies
Minette Marrin
A sociologist from Mars would be mystified by the contradictions with which we torment ourselves in this country. First we are told that not enough women are having babies and that we are close to a disastrous fertility crisis. (“Britain suffers a baby gap of 92,000 a year,” according to a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research.) There soon will not be enough young people to support the old and taxes will have to go up.
Next we learn that some women are having too many babies and the government’s best efforts to discourage them have proved an expensive and scandalous failure: “£150m plan has failed to cut teenage pregnancies” screamed a news splash on Friday, based on official figures. Abortions are at a record high, approaching 200,000 a year, with the greatest rise among women in their early twenties.
It was also reported last week that women are planning to have babies later and later — and are then devastated by predictable problems in conceiving. Presumably younger, more fertile mothers are what we need; however, as reported, the government has been spending many millions to stop very young women having early babies.
Yet although the government is all too conscious of the numbers of teenage pregnancies and abortions and sexual disease here — the highest rates in Europe — it continues to allow sex education books for children in secondary schools that describe anal and oral sex in vulgar, matey terms too rude to repeat. Neutral or positive descriptions of sex suggest permission or virtually encourage. Certainly the explosion in sex education has coincided with an explosion in teenage sex (along with abortion and sexual disease). Surely there is some inconsistency here.
Another constant concern is overcrowding. This is one of the most densely populated counties in the world and many fear Britain’s green spaces, especially in the southeast, will soon be concreted over, not to mention the fact that hospitals, roads and public services are stretched to breaking point. So it might seem that there is something to be said for low or even static population growth.
I am not in favour of the uncontrolled mass immigration we have seen under new Labour, but it is surely inconsistent, in an exceptionally crowded country where housing is short and where hopeful immigrants are many, to see a shortage of native babies as a demographic problem.
If babies are merely seen as providers for our old age it is odd to try to get us natives to give birth to more; it will take at least 18 years to get them out to useful work if it can be done at all, what with their illiteracy and low skills, and they will all need pensions and geriatric beds in the end.
A migrant Hungarian or Pole, by contrast, will be well educated, eager to work and ready to do so at once, without 18 years of investment by the British taxpayer. What’s more, they might (unlike most Third World arrivals and their families) choose to go back home one day without staying on as a charge on the state in their declining years. On a purely utilitarian level, a grown-up Pole is surely better than a British baby.
Underlying all this anxiety seems to be a truth that is awkward to articulate among the bien pensant, but well understood. It’s not that there is a shortage of babies. It’s that there is a shortage of babies in respectable, middle-class, middle-income families. The rich and the poor are having plenty of babies. In upper-middle-class circles it is now a status symbol to have four or more children. Among the poor it is perfectly possible to have babies with or without a man or a job; the state will pay. Although it won’t pay much, it will offer as good a life as any other that seems available.
The women who are not having children are what would have been called in the 19th century the deserving mothers; they are hard working, competent and responsible but have come to recognise that they cannot, as feminism once promised, have it all. They either need to work or want to work, or both, but for those on middling incomes it is not possible to have lots of babies as well. It is too expensive and too risky — expensive in childcare and risky in job prospects. The recent IPPR study put out some rather questionable figures about the high opportunity cost — “the fertility penalty” — to women who have children early, but the point has been glaringly obvious for years.
The call goes up, therefore, for universal affordable childcare subsidised by the taxpayer. A nanny at home is for the rich only. Pressure groups and feminists call instead, with at least a hint of realism, for more institutional care for infants and toddlers in subsidised nurseries. Yet evidence mounts up that this kind of care is bad for infants and young children. Any Martian could look up recent studies which show this inconvenient finding.
Meanwhile, those women who do have more babies are what you might call the undeserving mothers and the extraordinary inconsistency, from a Martian’s point of view, is that they are rewarded for it, just as low-income fathers are significantly better off if they abandon their families.
What (broadly) distinguishes those who don’t have babies from those who do is the real cost of housing. Rich women and poor women on benefits are protected from it and it does not affect their decisions about having babies. By contrast, the middling sort of mother is burdened with a high rent or mortgage. On top of that she is highly taxed (unlike the poor or the rich) and increasingly taxed to pay for less deserving mothers. This is ludicrous.
If we want such deserving women to have more deserving babies to pay for our old age — if it is any of our business — there are two radical solutions. One is to allow the building of lots of new homes for sale to bring property prices down so mothers will not be forced out to work to pay the mortgage. The other, in tandem, is to give a tax holiday to cohabiting parents.
This would mean that two-parent families where at least one parent works would be much better off than welfare parents who either don’t work or pretend not to. They would nonetheless have an acceptable basic income. Neither is politically possible, of course. We prefer to live with cowardly, mind-numbing inconsistencies.
www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2058787,00.html
Only the middle class can’t afford babies
Minette Marrin
A sociologist from Mars would be mystified by the contradictions with which we torment ourselves in this country. First we are told that not enough women are having babies and that we are close to a disastrous fertility crisis. (“Britain suffers a baby gap of 92,000 a year,” according to a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research.) There soon will not be enough young people to support the old and taxes will have to go up.
Next we learn that some women are having too many babies and the government’s best efforts to discourage them have proved an expensive and scandalous failure: “£150m plan has failed to cut teenage pregnancies” screamed a news splash on Friday, based on official figures. Abortions are at a record high, approaching 200,000 a year, with the greatest rise among women in their early twenties.
It was also reported last week that women are planning to have babies later and later — and are then devastated by predictable problems in conceiving. Presumably younger, more fertile mothers are what we need; however, as reported, the government has been spending many millions to stop very young women having early babies.
Yet although the government is all too conscious of the numbers of teenage pregnancies and abortions and sexual disease here — the highest rates in Europe — it continues to allow sex education books for children in secondary schools that describe anal and oral sex in vulgar, matey terms too rude to repeat. Neutral or positive descriptions of sex suggest permission or virtually encourage. Certainly the explosion in sex education has coincided with an explosion in teenage sex (along with abortion and sexual disease). Surely there is some inconsistency here.
Another constant concern is overcrowding. This is one of the most densely populated counties in the world and many fear Britain’s green spaces, especially in the southeast, will soon be concreted over, not to mention the fact that hospitals, roads and public services are stretched to breaking point. So it might seem that there is something to be said for low or even static population growth.
I am not in favour of the uncontrolled mass immigration we have seen under new Labour, but it is surely inconsistent, in an exceptionally crowded country where housing is short and where hopeful immigrants are many, to see a shortage of native babies as a demographic problem.
If babies are merely seen as providers for our old age it is odd to try to get us natives to give birth to more; it will take at least 18 years to get them out to useful work if it can be done at all, what with their illiteracy and low skills, and they will all need pensions and geriatric beds in the end.
A migrant Hungarian or Pole, by contrast, will be well educated, eager to work and ready to do so at once, without 18 years of investment by the British taxpayer. What’s more, they might (unlike most Third World arrivals and their families) choose to go back home one day without staying on as a charge on the state in their declining years. On a purely utilitarian level, a grown-up Pole is surely better than a British baby.
Underlying all this anxiety seems to be a truth that is awkward to articulate among the bien pensant, but well understood. It’s not that there is a shortage of babies. It’s that there is a shortage of babies in respectable, middle-class, middle-income families. The rich and the poor are having plenty of babies. In upper-middle-class circles it is now a status symbol to have four or more children. Among the poor it is perfectly possible to have babies with or without a man or a job; the state will pay. Although it won’t pay much, it will offer as good a life as any other that seems available.
The women who are not having children are what would have been called in the 19th century the deserving mothers; they are hard working, competent and responsible but have come to recognise that they cannot, as feminism once promised, have it all. They either need to work or want to work, or both, but for those on middling incomes it is not possible to have lots of babies as well. It is too expensive and too risky — expensive in childcare and risky in job prospects. The recent IPPR study put out some rather questionable figures about the high opportunity cost — “the fertility penalty” — to women who have children early, but the point has been glaringly obvious for years.
The call goes up, therefore, for universal affordable childcare subsidised by the taxpayer. A nanny at home is for the rich only. Pressure groups and feminists call instead, with at least a hint of realism, for more institutional care for infants and toddlers in subsidised nurseries. Yet evidence mounts up that this kind of care is bad for infants and young children. Any Martian could look up recent studies which show this inconvenient finding.
Meanwhile, those women who do have more babies are what you might call the undeserving mothers and the extraordinary inconsistency, from a Martian’s point of view, is that they are rewarded for it, just as low-income fathers are significantly better off if they abandon their families.
What (broadly) distinguishes those who don’t have babies from those who do is the real cost of housing. Rich women and poor women on benefits are protected from it and it does not affect their decisions about having babies. By contrast, the middling sort of mother is burdened with a high rent or mortgage. On top of that she is highly taxed (unlike the poor or the rich) and increasingly taxed to pay for less deserving mothers. This is ludicrous.
If we want such deserving women to have more deserving babies to pay for our old age — if it is any of our business — there are two radical solutions. One is to allow the building of lots of new homes for sale to bring property prices down so mothers will not be forced out to work to pay the mortgage. The other, in tandem, is to give a tax holiday to cohabiting parents.
This would mean that two-parent families where at least one parent works would be much better off than welfare parents who either don’t work or pretend not to. They would nonetheless have an acceptable basic income. Neither is politically possible, of course. We prefer to live with cowardly, mind-numbing inconsistencies.
www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2058787,00.html
another from todays times along the same lines.
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2058517,00.html
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2058517,00.html
Good article MonAmi.
I read in the Telegraph recently that an average cohabiting couple with children will pay (on average) around £7,000 net (taxes less benefits) to the state. If that couple separates they will claim £400 net.
The basic problem as I see it is twofold. Firstly the high taxes in this country make it hard to afford children. Why are taxes high, when public services are poor?, much of this money goes on paying Chavs to breed, and for providing public services to those people.
Secondly high house prices require two incomes to be able to afford a mortgage.
The government claims to be helping working couples with its tax credit system, but really a couple earning average wages will just get a benefit of just over £500. While a working single mum, might well receive half of her income in this fashion. It is a similar story in childcare, again we see lavish support for single mums and those on low incomes and very little for those on middle incomes.
We might extend these benefits further up the income scale, but it would be very expensive. So the only solution to the problem must be welfare reform to produce a tax & benefit system that no-longer penalises co-habiting and married couples and does not make having a baby an opportunity to enjoy a life of leisure for 16 years.
I read in the Telegraph recently that an average cohabiting couple with children will pay (on average) around £7,000 net (taxes less benefits) to the state. If that couple separates they will claim £400 net.
The basic problem as I see it is twofold. Firstly the high taxes in this country make it hard to afford children. Why are taxes high, when public services are poor?, much of this money goes on paying Chavs to breed, and for providing public services to those people.
Secondly high house prices require two incomes to be able to afford a mortgage.
The government claims to be helping working couples with its tax credit system, but really a couple earning average wages will just get a benefit of just over £500. While a working single mum, might well receive half of her income in this fashion. It is a similar story in childcare, again we see lavish support for single mums and those on low incomes and very little for those on middle incomes.
We might extend these benefits further up the income scale, but it would be very expensive. So the only solution to the problem must be welfare reform to produce a tax & benefit system that no-longer penalises co-habiting and married couples and does not make having a baby an opportunity to enjoy a life of leisure for 16 years.
Jaglover said:
Good Secondly high house prices require two incomes to be able to afford a mortgage.
Banks allowing two incomes to be used to fund a mortgage are what pushed prices to the current level, chicken and egg.
So did you all get a letter telling you that you are now middle class because you went onto higher education and now have a job, damn mine must have got lost in the post.
Well, I'm sure the fact that approx. 93% of first-time-buyers - people in their late 20's who would now be buying a property to raise their familes in - have been priced off the housing ladder, doesn't help matters.
It really makes my p1ss boil when smug commentators in the media constantly imply that high house prices are a good thing. Good for who, exactly? There are countless people up and down the UK, wanting to start a family, in a state of utter despair at what they are expected to pay for some crappy little terrace. I'm amazed so many of them continue to get out of bed in the mornings.
>> Edited by MeepMeepNeeaaar! on Sunday 26th February 13:09
It really makes my p1ss boil when smug commentators in the media constantly imply that high house prices are a good thing. Good for who, exactly? There are countless people up and down the UK, wanting to start a family, in a state of utter despair at what they are expected to pay for some crappy little terrace. I'm amazed so many of them continue to get out of bed in the mornings.
>> Edited by MeepMeepNeeaaar! on Sunday 26th February 13:09
A good article and sooo true. Who's to blame tho, it's all too easy to blame it on the government? We seem to have developed into a culture where we want bigger and better houses, cars etc and we are prepared to take out loans and live on the limits of our income. This in turn has pushed up house prices, it's meant that both partners have to work for what they "need" to survive, so who's fault is that? It's not the government surely and they certainy won't help you out when the housing market goes thrups up. As long as people carry on accepting that this is the way it is, the problem won't get any better and paying high taxes and mortgages will simply continue.
Tony like previous governments realise that there is a problem with single mothers and other benefit sapping spounges taking the mickey but unfortunately nobody will have the guts to actually do something about it, there will always be "do gooders" forming an opposition.
Tony like previous governments realise that there is a problem with single mothers and other benefit sapping spounges taking the mickey but unfortunately nobody will have the guts to actually do something about it, there will always be "do gooders" forming an opposition.
Oh great yet another scheme to raise taxes. Because that is what would have to happen to give parents a tax holiday. I would favour encourageing more migration from eastern europe. From those I have met they seem to have a superb work ethic and relish the chance to make a sucess of themselves in the UK and by working they decrease the tax burden not increase it.
plasticpig said:
Oh great yet another scheme to raise taxes. Because that is what would have to happen to give parents a tax holiday..
It would indeed, given current tax/benefit policies
plasticpig said:
I would favour encourageing more migration from eastern europe. From those I have met they seem to have a superb work ethic and relish the chance to make a sucess of themselves in the UK and by working they decrease the tax burden not increase it.
More of a short term solution I feel. If the middle classes aren't having enough children, a stabilising force in society is being eaten away.
Do families raising their kids on benefit get the same amount per child? Reduce the amount by some percentage per child for each extra child over 2 that is born (becuase after two that couple is increasing population, not maintaining it). AS you have more children economies of scale must come into it.
Right
As a house developer I would like to put some points right on the state of the housing market. It was upto about five yeasr ago an open market where supply and demand operated and house prices where driven by this requirement.
Then we had PG3 which was a peice of legislation designed to encourage development of brown field sites. This imposes strict densities on all brown field land and at the same time there was no green field land released. This has resulted in not necassarily a bad way in using all the brown field land up(give or take) and we are now in the position that land is in very short supply, again something the govt recognises. This has also been responsible for the non family friendly three story and apartment developments as they increase density.
The problem now is as an industry we are about running out of land which we can develop. The planning regime cannot reach swiftly enough to this issue and the governament themselves recognise they have half the amount of houseing they need per annum.
So what have they done to solve this.....you ask....
- They have lumped considerably more taxation on the landowner/developer in the form of Section 106 requirements and affordable housing, taxing people for affordable has a negative effect as it ultimately pushes prices up as myself and everyone else doesn't work for free so the taxes get pushed onto the customer.
- They are reworking the wording of PG3 such that previously we could sell a "Cheap" house and have it count as affordable. They are removing this wording next year which will mean my affordable TAX can only be met by "selling" housing to a Registered state landlord at between 35%-75% of market value. As you can imagine we don't build for a loss so this gets passed to the customers or we won't develop a site.
- They have change the planning system targets such that councils are now funded based on time taken to deal with applications. You will of noticed that in your council tax leaflet they all proudly claim about 95% of large applications dealt with in 13 weeks....ah heres the trick, they won't start the clock running till you have done all the consultations before under no time preasure, and if they have issues you have to withdraw or they refuse. If you insist it is registered they just refuse. Funnilly enough refuals,appeals and "voluntary" delays don't add to the time. To realistically get planning in a year now is good going, it has also made the process much less predictable.
- In 2008 they are bringing in PGS planning gain supplement, read LAND TAX on the gain planning affords land. result has has happended in the past all land owners sell before then say sod it and hold onto the land for ten years untill a new sensible governament gets in and stops it. Note the PGS will probebly fall in at the same time the governament releases loads of grean field sites in a last ditched attempt to increase land development.
- In less well off areas of the midlands an existing commercial use peice of land is now worth the same as residential due to all the taxes result no one is selling.
What the above is trying to say it the bulk of house price increase is due to lack of land supply or raw material. This is solely at the control of the governament and all they have managed to do over the last five years is tax it and restrict it (common story) then they wondor why we have built the least houses last year since records began in the 1930's
I'm trying to do long term budgets for the future and you wonder why you bother when, you can't control your raw material it is taxed and taxed again and you can't even predict the timing for it's supply.
Housing is like everything else being quickly screwed by a greedy short sighted bunch of dictatorial powertrippers in governament.
It makes you laugh when you see Blair saying we are short of houseing but on the same hand I have sites I want to buy, people willing to sell and a Local authority putting a moritorium on houseing to the year 2021!!!!!
Hope this helps everyone.
As a house developer I would like to put some points right on the state of the housing market. It was upto about five yeasr ago an open market where supply and demand operated and house prices where driven by this requirement.
Then we had PG3 which was a peice of legislation designed to encourage development of brown field sites. This imposes strict densities on all brown field land and at the same time there was no green field land released. This has resulted in not necassarily a bad way in using all the brown field land up(give or take) and we are now in the position that land is in very short supply, again something the govt recognises. This has also been responsible for the non family friendly three story and apartment developments as they increase density.
The problem now is as an industry we are about running out of land which we can develop. The planning regime cannot reach swiftly enough to this issue and the governament themselves recognise they have half the amount of houseing they need per annum.
So what have they done to solve this.....you ask....
- They have lumped considerably more taxation on the landowner/developer in the form of Section 106 requirements and affordable housing, taxing people for affordable has a negative effect as it ultimately pushes prices up as myself and everyone else doesn't work for free so the taxes get pushed onto the customer.
- They are reworking the wording of PG3 such that previously we could sell a "Cheap" house and have it count as affordable. They are removing this wording next year which will mean my affordable TAX can only be met by "selling" housing to a Registered state landlord at between 35%-75% of market value. As you can imagine we don't build for a loss so this gets passed to the customers or we won't develop a site.
- They have change the planning system targets such that councils are now funded based on time taken to deal with applications. You will of noticed that in your council tax leaflet they all proudly claim about 95% of large applications dealt with in 13 weeks....ah heres the trick, they won't start the clock running till you have done all the consultations before under no time preasure, and if they have issues you have to withdraw or they refuse. If you insist it is registered they just refuse. Funnilly enough refuals,appeals and "voluntary" delays don't add to the time. To realistically get planning in a year now is good going, it has also made the process much less predictable.
- In 2008 they are bringing in PGS planning gain supplement, read LAND TAX on the gain planning affords land. result has has happended in the past all land owners sell before then say sod it and hold onto the land for ten years untill a new sensible governament gets in and stops it. Note the PGS will probebly fall in at the same time the governament releases loads of grean field sites in a last ditched attempt to increase land development.
- In less well off areas of the midlands an existing commercial use peice of land is now worth the same as residential due to all the taxes result no one is selling.
What the above is trying to say it the bulk of house price increase is due to lack of land supply or raw material. This is solely at the control of the governament and all they have managed to do over the last five years is tax it and restrict it (common story) then they wondor why we have built the least houses last year since records began in the 1930's
I'm trying to do long term budgets for the future and you wonder why you bother when, you can't control your raw material it is taxed and taxed again and you can't even predict the timing for it's supply.
Housing is like everything else being quickly screwed by a greedy short sighted bunch of dictatorial powertrippers in governament.
It makes you laugh when you see Blair saying we are short of houseing but on the same hand I have sites I want to buy, people willing to sell and a Local authority putting a moritorium on houseing to the year 2021!!!!!
Hope this helps everyone.
D_Mike said:No, for some benefits the first child will get them more but it's often the same increment afterwards, no limit. Round here, the largest doley families get replacement modernised housing, detached or semis with five bedrooms - largest has outdoor pool - as the tower blocks are coming down as our council tax goes up. The ones that had 'free' upvc fitted everywhere a matter of months ago.
Do families raising their kids on benefit get the same amount per child?
plasticpig said:
I would favour encourageing more migration from eastern europe. From those I have met they seem to have a superb work ethic and relish the chance to make a sucess of themselves in the UK and by working they decrease the tax burden not increase it.
I agree entirely.
Although I would go further. A line needs to be drawn to prevent chavkids following in their parents footsteps ie. getting up the duff and getting everything for free.
My idea, is that on a rolling basis withdraw benefits for all kids that turn 16 and then subsequently get pregnant.
This has the advantage that it doesn't mean withdrawing existing benifits (which causes genuine hardship and gives bad media coverage) and its puts the emphisis on the individual not to get pregnant. No longer would their be an incentive to get up the duff with no apparent father.
If a girl over 16 gets up the duff then she should not automatically be looked after by the state. In extreme cases (eg the girls family throw her out) then the child should be looked after (by social services) but not neccesarily the girl.
I'm sick to death of chavs having kids knowing fine well that the state will not let them starve to death. It makes me doubly mad that my girlfriend and I cannot have kids due to the hugh financial pressure of having to have a mortgage just to afford a tiny little on bed house. I mean its not like I'm trying to live beyond my means and live in a mansion or anything.
I'm sick to death of paying for those that can't be arsed and don't take any personal responsibility.
So sick and tired of it all, that I'm entirely prepared to vote anyone into office no matter how evil their DSS reforms might be
And if, one day, voters like me are the majority, then the chavs had better watch out.
Andy
andytk said:
I would favour encourageing more migration from eastern europe. From those I have met they seem to have a superb work ethic and relish the chance to make a sucess of themselves in the UK and by working they decrease the tax burden not increase it.
I agree entirely.
Although I would go further. A line needs to be drawn to prevent chavkids following in their parents footsteps ie. getting up the duff and getting everything for free.
My idea, is that on a rolling basis withdraw benefits for all kids that turn 16 and then subsequently get pregnant.
This has the advantage that it doesn't mean withdrawing existing benifits (which causes genuine hardship and gives bad media coverage) and its puts the emphisis on the individual not to get pregnant. No longer would their be an incentive to get up the duff with no apparent father.
If a girl over 16 gets up the duff then she should not automatically be looked after by the state. In extreme cases (eg the girls family throw her out) then the child should be looked after (by social services) but not neccesarily the girl.
I'm sick to death of chavs having kids knowing fine well that the state will not let them starve to death. It makes me doubly mad that my girlfriend and I cannot have kids due to the hugh financial pressure of having to have a mortgage just to afford a tiny little on bed house. I mean its not like I'm trying to live beyond my means and live in a mansion or anything.
I'm sick to death of paying for those that can't be arsed and don't take any personal responsibility.
So sick and tired of it all, that I'm entirely prepared to vote anyone into office no matter how evil their DSS reforms might be
And if, one day, voters like me are the majority, then the chavs had better watch out.
Andy
Ironically, you are being outbred by the chavs, better hope they dont vote
Jaglover said:
More of a short term solution I feel. If the middle classes aren't having enough children, a stabilising force in society is being eaten away.
I thought we lived in a classless society these days?
I must admit I am not totally sure what people mean by middle class. I see people define themselves as middle class pureley on economic grounds where as my understanding of middle class is a socio-economic one. For instance I know a plumber who describes himslef as middle class and in economic terms he certainly is. In terms of education and backgroung he isnt. There are also kids from middle class backgrounds with degrees working as burger flippers at McDonalds. I am not sure that this stablising force will exist much longer in any event.
>> Edited by plasticpig on Sunday 26th February 14:46
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff