"I'm a full time Mum"

[.....]

Whilst drinking an over-priced pint down the pub last week with my hard-earned money with my equally hard working friends I bumped into someone I worked with briefly.

After the usual mindless chit chat she told me she now has four kids, good for her. I then asked where she was working now, not a loaded question, I was vaguely interested as we worked together before.

She replied "I don't work any more, I'm a full-time Mum".

Now I understand that being on your own with four kids is going to make working nigh on impossible but is "being a full time Mum" a justifiable thing to say?

I can't decide really. Is it reasonable to expect everyone else to pay for your decision to have children?

For instance, I would love to stay at home all day playing with my four motorbikes paid for by the tax payer but it's not really on is it?

I'm struggling to see how this is really a good enough reason.

I'm all for the welfare state. We are a civilised country and as such I think it's reasonable to offer support to those who need it. I don't mind paying into it because at some point I may need to take something out of it.

But is making the decision to have children and then not intending to work a reasonable decision to make? Maybe it is in most people's eyes but I'm struggling to see that it is. I'm willing to accept that maybe it is and I'm missing the point.

Sorry for the ramble it just got me thinking.

[lilredmachine]

I take it she's on her own? No working partner?

To be honest it's a bit sick. We live in a country where having a job is pretty much necessary. To be a perfectly well, working person and then have 4 kids, then sit around taking money off the state for no good reason other than you haven't got anyone else to look after the kids is a bit much.

She knew exactly what was gonna happen, so it's a pre meditated decision that I admit she is more than welcome to take, however her decision in taking it may not be so defensible.

If on the other hand she's living with a partner/husband/whatever in a house that brings in an income then fair douse, plenty of couples have one stay at home and one work.
____________________
Bikes: too many, too much for one man to maintain anyway.

[hellkat]

Gosh, what a loaded question.
____________________
Not nearly as interesting in real life.

[Itchy]

Thats funny at work there is somebody who has 3 children (around 5-10 YO) yet still works 4 days a week , ok she leaves earlier than us BUT she takes no lunches and starts 830 too.

Anyway in the past it was semi justifyable in that they could say that their children would pay for our pensions.

Not anymore though, for 2 main reasons ;

That people in their 20s and 30s now and probably 40s even won't get a state pension as Tyler Durden would put it, we are the lost children of history man,

Due to the effect that we have to pay for current pensioners , and pay for our own pensions too*


Paying for pensions implies that they will actually amount to something, ie Chavs tend to sprog more chavs who virtually all will amount to nothing this means the pension thing won't wash.



* in 2005/06 there was this article which I forget where the 2SP or some other pension scheme the government had set up was to be axed, quietly, the problem was the contributions and the extra taxes to pay for it were not axed, I'm no actuary and I do have the article somewhere, and the tories made a lot of capital about it then it was conviently forgotten.


The problem is that you have a child and get certain benefits, it eventually runs out when they grow up, so to continue the said benefits you must in effect have more children, thus it is a self perpetuating cycle.
____________________
Spain 2008France 2007Big one 2009 We all die. The goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will. In the end, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.

[yzf750r]

My GF says this, but I do work to support the family.

Yes we do get a little bit of Tax credits, and our little one is only 10months and my GF is gonna go back to work when she starts nursery!
____________________
04 zx10r with mods - 187.4bhp at the wheel! :o

[hellkat]

Given that I don't like the idea of being stuck indoors with many mewling brats and not enough time or money to do the things I want to do with my life, and am quite glad that the 2nd world war and women's lib have meant that I can actually go out and work if I want to ... I don't quite know where to start to defend any woman's right to decide to follow her biological make-up in a modern world.

I can't say I like seeing these articles when there are women who have 27000 children and it says how much they get paid by the state to do so, either.

So I think I'll just go away and wait to see what sort of responses your bumptious little thread dredges up, before I make any more decisions about how to defend your friend's right to do what she's perfectly entitled, and indeed, born and moulded by nature to actually fucking well do.
____________________
Not nearly as interesting in real life.

[hellkat]

And especially as I am likely to be quite rude and shouty whilst doing it.









Be calm, hellkat!
Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
____________________
Not nearly as interesting in real life.

[.....]

[hellkat]

I will admit to getting quite cross when some women have LOADS of kids and sit around expecting the state to pay for it, or when young girls get pregnant just so they can get a council flat (which is less and less likely these days) ... and the welfare state is not an ideal situation.

Because I went out to work when Anita was very young (because I wanted to be able to have holidays and a mortage and nice things for us), I personally find it difficult to understand why a woman would want to put herself through the skintness of staying home and NOT earning decent money.

But I can't agree that its unreasonable for them to do so when they choose to do that.
____________________
Not nearly as interesting in real life.

[lilredmachine]

[powelly]

[TheShaggyDA]

I think that benefits should only cover subsistence level food and basic clothing. If little Shania-Burberry wants Nike trainers instead of plain black slip-on plimsolls*, then you can either (a) get off your arse and work for them, or (b) smack the little shit and send her to bed without any broth.

I've heard complaints that the benefits aren't enough to feed and clothe their spermicidal oversights, whilst they've got a fag in one hand and an X-Box controller in the other.




* If they were good enough for me, they are good enough for anyone.
____________________
Current: CB500 Previous: CB100N, CB250RS, XJ900F, GT550, GPZ750R/1000RX, AJS M16, R100RT, Enfield Bullet

[i:6e3bfc7581]But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman...[/i:6e3bfc7581]

[hellkat]

[TheShaggyDA]

[powelly]

[powelly]

[Kickstart]

[hellkat]

Probably I agree with Kickstart, but I am variously distracted by several things this morning and can't concentrate long enough to put together a balanced argument both for and against in this thread.

I shall return, probably later in the week, to see how you're all getting on. LOL

Despite my initial reactionary response, I think this will be an interesting debate
____________________
Not nearly as interesting in real life.

[TheShaggyDA]

[Louise]

I couldnt become a 'full time mum'
I love Joshua to bits, but at times I need my space and he needs his.
I couldnt work whilst I was pregnant as I was quite poorly though out the 9 months. But I didnt claim any money, I lived off of folks providing I did the house hold chores.

Once he was born I got back into part time work when he was 6 weeks old. I felt guilty leaving him, but he was with my parents and I got some dollar at the end of the week.

Now, he is in full time nursery - the government dose pay half (Because I couldnt afford it all tbh £145 a week) And now i work 20-25 hours at the same place.

He is getting what he needs (Social, friends and learning) which I beleave every child needs (You wont get much staying at home)

So, people who are full time mums have a choise to put them in nursery - not necessary full time, but for a few sessions a week and have the time to go work also.

[SoND]

[Shay HTFC]

Its a difficult thing to judge.

I value the fact that my mum was not working and my father was the breadwinner when I was a kid. I always came home to a mother who would give me love and feed me etc.

At times when my mum would not be there I'd get really upset and want to her to be in the house. I couldn't imagine what it would've been like to go home to a nursery after school, till 6pm, then go home and see my parents a lot later.
I really valued having my mum there.

I think when I'm old enough to have a family I will probably move away from the UK to somewhere thats more encouraging of the kids having a parent always with them. I think its important (providing the parent is a good one and shows them a good example) rather than kids being treated as objects that need to be fed.

Its quite a controversial view now adays, but I think having a parent around helps a lot.

[phil2alp]

I think in these days of very effective contraception it is a life choice of how many children to have or whether to have children at all. I know unplanned pregnancies can occur and I have no problem with one or two "mistakes" but to have four children is no mistake.

I am a supporter of the welfare state but as a safety net, not as a lifestyle. (Although it's difficult to know where to draw the line as there is no longer full employment).

As having children is now a life choice I can't see why I should be expected to subsidise/pay, through the taxes which I pay, for other people's life choice to have more than two children whether someone is in receipt of state benefits or not. If you can't afford the children don't have them. Nobody pays for my life choices of where I live, what hobbies I have, riding a motorcycle etc. I think the only exception to this is where a working couple have more than two children and the couple split up. The carer of the children will probably require state help.

The argument of todays children paying for my pension is no longer relevant as I don't think I'll get a state pension when I retire.

[Paivi]

Where does it say above that these four children will grow up to be work shy and living off benefits all their lives? For all we know, they could all end up as higher rate tax payers, helping to pay for our pensions.

Our generation is pretty well screwed, with us having to pay for our parents' pensions (who were the baby boomers, so easily 3-6 children per family, against ours, 1-3), so we need the next generation to have more tax payers. In my family, there's two of us, and the next generation up is 8, a lot of them on final salary pensions, which I won't be entitled to, so there's even less money going towards my own pension.

Also, not all of us can work part-time; I know I couldn't. I could stay with the company but move to an entirely different role, one that has few responsibilities. At the same time, this often places excessive stress and strain on the colleagues who have to pick up the slack.

I'd rather my tax money was spent on allowing mothers and fathers to stay at home as long as they want, instead of allowing unemployed/unemployable men to do that.
____________________
My other bike's a Monster...

[kitty kat]

I was proud to say that I was a full-time mum, but then my husband was working and supporting us, I only claimed what every other parent could claim, child benefit.
I am now a single parent & I work 30 hours a week, earning £5.52 an hour, enough to feed us, clothe us, pay the bills and run the bike.
I disagree with people getting pregnant, then claiming from the state. I can hold my head up high, I have self respect as I am supporting my family with minimal help in the way of tax credits ( I get £40 a week extra). I feel that I am paying my way in this world and hopefully setting a good example to my children.
____________________
Enjoy everyday, tell those you love everyday you love them
Life is too short to fall out with people