SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,794
Oh no mate, you misunderstand, I fully agree with all of that and I did the same as you.GStar said:SWP's back said:It's crazy but I'm not in a position financially to have kids responsibly so I'm not having any at present. call me old fashioned but I tend to think that the responsibility should be with the individual rather than the taxpayer. I'm sure there will be enough safety nets but it shouldn't just be a free for all where they can do what they want and know they will never have to work or worry about financing themselves.
As De Niro points out, they'll have to live at home with their folks and their kids, it may well make them more responsible in the future.
I'm in complete agreement with your first part; having kids shouldn't be a right you can claim on everyone else's expense; it should be a responsibility you work towards being able to achieve.
The living at home i'm not so sure about. I moved out at 18, went to Uni and never looked back (except when Christmas comes around and the foods great!) I'd argue having to budget from that age and continuing to run a house/car now has made me more responsible than if i paid half board at home, had all my meals cooked for me and my shirts ironed ready for the week.
On the other hand, those extra few years would have allowed me to save for a house deposit/be in a position to start a pension. Which is why i now play the Euromillions.
My response about having to live at home was my suggestion when asked what would happen to the children (babies) so they didn't die on the street.