Choosing to have a child when you cannot afford one

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/19/2012

And that did it. This thread is getting locked down. There are no personal attacks allowed.



~~DM MOD Little Miss~~

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/19/2012

~~MOD WARNING~~



Please everyone, lets be polite. If this bickering continues this thread will be locked. We all have different life experiences and cultures, and we need to respect where people are coming from even if we don't agree. Lets quit the petty bickering and stop being rude to one another or this thread will be locked.



Thanks

~DM MoD Little Miss~

Jodi - posted on 10/19/2012

There really is no need to be rude, MeMe. The point I was making is that everyone's welfare system is different and I don't think you are in any way taking that into consideration.



Nor is there any need to make such personal comments. I would thank you to refrain from assuming anything about me, when you clearly actually have no idea. There are a LOT of personal things I would never reveal on a public internet forum to strangers, as I am sure neither do you, so lay off about knowing anything about me and making any comments accordingly. You know only what I WANT you to know.

Momma - posted on 10/19/2012

Jodi--- I really don't care. I am not making blanket statements, OK? I am saying that if you cannot afford a child, you should be waiting until you can. Are you able to understand that or not? YOU are talking about where YOU live. So what the hell are you trying to say, here? You are telling me that I am talking about where I live and making blanket statements, WTF, are you doing, Jodi? You sure as hell are not talking about where I live. UGH.



Just because YOU think it is OK to allow a child to go to bed hungry in order to fulfill a persons dreams of being a parent, does NOT mean everyone agrees. Obviously because I do not. People where I live, that are on welfare, disability and/or the working class (up to a certain yearly bracket) receive child payments. They aren't that much, Jodi AND they are NOT assistance. You can say these payments are assistance all you want, I disagree. We receive them in Canada because of what we pay into our taxes OR because a person is too poor. I still receive some and I am far from poor but I get them because I pay a nice heap of taxes. I also get a disability cheque every month for my daughter's ADHD.



Also, my understanding is that in the US, they do not receive child tax. I am unsure how you pulled so much info out of the very little comment, Kelly made.



Jodi---Thank you for that insight MeMe. Not sure what it has to do with anything, but I am thoroughly delighted you recognise that, and given you know nothing about my life experience, that you are not making any half-arsed assumptions or anything. Because that would be kinda silly.



Hmmm - I have been on here for 1.5 years, debated a fair amount with you. I think I know my fair share. Debates tend to relieve personal information and over time, it builds up. ;)



~Meme

Jodi - posted on 10/18/2012

"Disability should be receiving disability, NOT welfare. Sure, some do receive Welfare for being disabled, however it is not long term. They do get moved over to disability cheques within a certain period of time. At least where I have lived. "



Exactly, where YOU live. Here in Australia, there are separate programs, BUT those on a disability program also receive the various child payments. As someone already mentioned, it is the same program in the US. So a blanket statement about people receiving welfare is actually much more complex than your understanding of it. So you can't assume everyone is debating based on YOUR understanding of the CANADIAN system.



"You may have a bunch of education, Jodi (and so do I, it just differs from yours) but education and experience of actually living it, do not necessarily go together."



Thank you for that insight MeMe. Not sure what it has to do with anything, but I am thoroughly delighted you recognise that, and given you know nothing about my life experience, that you are not making any half-arsed assumptions or anything. Because that would be kinda silly.

Momma - posted on 10/18/2012

They are separate resources here...You either get a disability cheque or you're on welfare. Some that are on welfare are disabled but they are moved over to disability if it is long term. You can claim disability here on your annual taxes and receive monthly help via federal gov, too. You cannot do that when on welfare.

Kelly - posted on 10/18/2012

In the US, Welfare and Disability are not separate programs. Disability is a section and department within welfare services. Those receiving aid for a disability in the US qualify for many, and in some cases all, of the social assistance programs through the same agencies as those who are receiving aid for a short term financial difficulty. Also, for most of those programs, such as SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, and many more, there is no indicator as to whether they are receiving that aid because of a disability or short term financial difficulty, because ultimately, it doesn't matter--they need the aid, end of story, they shouldn't have to justify their need.

Momma - posted on 10/18/2012

Disability should be receiving disability, NOT welfare. Sure, some do receive Welfare for being disabled, however it is not long term. They do get moved over to disability cheques within a certain period of time. At least where I have lived.



Disability and Welfare are two completely different services. Welfare recipients are not supposed to be long term or forever. The service is meant to be used to get back on your feet. So, if you start condoning people to choose to have kids while on Welfare, well, they are going to stay on it a lot longer. That IS abusing the system and is wrong! The kids deserve more than to be on the system.



You may have a bunch of education, Jodi (and so do I, it just differs from yours) but education and experience of actually living it, do not necessarily go together. I have seen way too many people abuse the system and continue to have kids to get bigger monthly cheques. They are completely capable of working but choose not to. Their kids suffer and it is not right nor is it fair. They take money away from others that really need it and can't get it because there isn't enough resources to go around.



~Meme

Jodi - posted on 10/18/2012

I think that IF it is the only way that they are going to ever be able to have children (i.e., a family who may be on disability long term), we shouldn't have a problem with it. Everyone should have the opportunity to have a child at some time if they choose to.

Momma - posted on 10/18/2012

Jodi, I am not saying that rape and lack of b/c education is the ONLY reason but I am saying it is a prominent reason. ;)



Regardless, I disagree with you and Isobel. Just because we live in Countries that have resources does not mean we should be running around deciding to have children when we cannot feed their hungry tummies. That is ludicrous and completely irresponsible.



People that find themselves in a less than fortunate situation needs those resources. People that have a choice to have a child, knowing full well that they will need resources and assistance should NOT be having kids deliberately.



~Meme

Jodi - posted on 10/18/2012

I did not suggest that rape is not common in Africa, I am quite aware of the higher incidence of rape (more often NOT by a husband) in many areas of Africa. Believe me, when I was planning a trip going via Johannesburg with a female friend, I was very much aware of the situation.



I am challenging your argument that the reason women in less developed countries have more children is the result of rape by their husbands and lack of birth control. They are two different arguments. Women in less developed countries often have more children for very different reasons.



I don't feel the need to copy and paste from the internet. I know what I have read with regard to peer reviewed anthropological and sociological studies. Carry on. It is irrelevant to this discussion anyway.

Momma - posted on 10/17/2012

Jodi--- You're always good at bullshit. I am not ignorant, I am actually just as intelligent as you are. Thanks for the debate, even if your stance is weak. You are condoning the extremely poor to consider having kids because they live in a 1st world Country, which means their kids are better off than 2rd world Country kids. Arrogant? Most definitely.



Are you trying to say that they do have access to b/c? Are you trying to say that the women are NOT raped by their husbands?



Oh, wait - hmmm, rape in Africa!!



South Africa is reportedly the ‘rape capital’ of the world. According to the Crime Information Management Centre of the South African Police Services 52 160 cases of rape were reported in 1997. This reflects an increase of 10 000 cases since 1994. Unfortunately, according to POWA (People Opposed to Women Abuse) these alarming figures are only 2.8% of rapes that occur in South Africa annually. If 52 000 reported rape cases reflect only 2.8% of actual rapes, it means that actually more than one million rapes take place in South Africa annually.



http://rapecrisis.org.za/rape-in-south-a...



Oh, look. Birth control in Africa.



The studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia and asked young women about their views on contraceptive use. Results showed that overall, the young women had gotten very little information on sex or contraception, and the information they did get was frequently misleading. For example, one young woman thought she only had to take the birth control pill before having sex. The belief that hormonal methods might impair future fertility was widespread.



Many women also feared having others find out they were using contraceptives, because they would be known to be having sex, or thought of as being unable to bear children later on. In four studies, women said their partners would pressure them or even use violence to prevent them from using contraception.



Lack of knowledge and access may be the easiest problems to address, Williamson said. Efforts must also be community-wide to help address negative perceptions of contraceptive use and to encourage older women, as well as younger women, to consider using modern methods, she added.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/2...



Ignorance? Who is ignorant? Not I. ;)



~Meme

Momma - posted on 10/17/2012

Hey Monique - read all my posts... thanks. ;)



~Meme

Monique - posted on 10/15/2012

Hello momma , so are you saying people that are medically disabled my the doctor shouldn't have kids either ? Some people can't help their situations .

Jodi - posted on 10/13/2012

Ugh. I am not even going to deign to respond to that post. There is so much obvious ignorance and lack of knowledge and awareness, it isn't even worth debating.



The following comment alone shows a total lack of true understanding of cultural norms and the way we try to so arrogantly apply our westernised understanding to them:



" Those in Africa and other extremely poor countries get pregnant because they are raped by their husbands and they do not have access to B/C."

Momma - posted on 10/13/2012

Jodi--- Actually, Isobel is right. You could look it up. There is starving, and then there is starving. Starving in North America does not mean the same thing as starving in the Congo. And I don't think anyone in North America knows starving in the same way that MANY other parts of the world do. I also believe it is arrogant to believe that they do.



Ahh, so it is just fine then for people that live in North America or any other Westernized Country to keep popping out kids, even though they cannot feed them. Simply because they have access to food banks and welfare (of which, I have already stated is often still not enough to ensure the child does NOT go to bed hungry) and are no where near as bad off as underdeveloped Countries children. Arrogant? Yeah, I think that defines it right there.



You can try and get me to believe your stance all you want. Hungry is hungry. Starving is starving. You go tell the kid down the street that she is NOT as hungry as her fellow companion in Africa because she has access to SOME food. What crap that is. So what? Because they aren't skin and bones and have to live in dyer straights they are OK and it is fine for the parents to keep having more? That's quite the story, if I have ever heard one.



I am not debating who is worse off, here. I am debating that if one cannot properly afford a child they should not get pregnant. Those in Africa and other extremely poor countries get pregnant because they are raped by their husbands and they do not have access to B/C. If they did, I would bet your bottom dollar they would use these tools and do their best to not bring another child into this world.



You are trying to compare oranges to apples, here. The OP asked about having more than 2 kids while on welfare (or state aid), not is it OK since suffering Countries do it. Meh.



ETA:

Which btw, the more selfish and irresponsible we are, the more kids will suffer. Why would anyone condone having suffering kids, regardless of where they lived? Seriously, that is just pathetic. The more kids on assistance the less money there is for them. The less money, the more they go hungry. I am unsure if that is understood or not by some....



~Meme

Jodi - posted on 10/13/2012

Except that in North America, they have access to welfare, food banks, charity. In most parts of the world they don't. I don't think it is comparable.



"Isobel is trying to say that if you live in North America, even if you are completely broke and on welfare, your kids are still better off than 75% of the worlds population and well, I disagree. Hungry is hungry - starving is starving...."



Actually, Isobel is right. You could look it up. There is starving, and then there is starving. Starving in North America does not mean the same thing as starving in the Congo. And I don't think anyone in North America knows starving in the same way that MANY other parts of the world do. I also believe it is arrogant to believe that they do.

Momma - posted on 10/13/2012

Well, I think we have a lot of completely broke people in North America and we are a part of the "entire global population". We have our fair share of starving children - there are 300 000/month that visit food banks in Canada (and you do NOT get enough food from a food bank for a month). It is terrible and people should not be having children if they cannot feed them. Welfare barely gives you enough for food. Most people on Welfare must also use a food bank and they still do not have enough to properly feed a child, never mind several of them.



The underdeveloped Countries more than likely would have a lot less kids if they had available birth control. I seriously think they would choose to NOT have more children while living in the circumstances they do.



Isobel is trying to say that if you live in North America, even if you are completely broke and on welfare, your kids are still better off than 75% of the worlds population and well, I disagree. Hungry is hungry - starving is starving....



~Meme

Jodi - posted on 10/13/2012

I guess it depends on your opinion of the term completely broke. I think Isobel does make a good point, because most people on this earth struggle to afford the basic necessities, and by your definition, WOULD be completely broke. She was referring to a global situation, where a majority of the population lives, not just Western society. *Affordability* to have children is a very westernised concept.

Momma - posted on 10/13/2012

Completely broke and poor are not the same thing. Completely broke is when you can't even buy milk, clothing or any other necessities. Poor, is when you cannot afford extra's but can still sustain the essentials. Perhaps we have a difference of opinion of what the two mean. ;)



~Meme

Jodi - posted on 10/12/2012

"You simply should not decide to have a child if you are on welfare or completely broke. "



Isn't that the same as saying poor people shouldn't have children? Completely broke is poor.

Momma - posted on 10/12/2012

No one said poor people can't have kids - well, not that I recall (I am not going to go back and read all the comments from a month ago). It is being said that if YOU are on welfare and have no desire to work to get off of it BEFORE you have a baby, than you are being selfish. You simply should not decide to have a child if you are on welfare or completely broke. You should be bettering your life first and then having a child. If circumstances occur thereafter and you need assistance, fine. Shit happens, life is not a field of roses but for goodness sake why would anyone bring a child into the world knowing full well that they can't afford them??? Now, of course, the youngens don't always get this, I know I didn't but I sure do now. ;)



I don't know where you get your statistics Isobel but I wonder if you realize how many starving children there are in North America. Schools have to have breakfast programs, just to help feed the poor children.



~Meme

Cass - posted on 10/12/2012

For me I think a topic is pretty simple. If you genuinely need help, stuck in a rut, disabilities (baby or no baby) - welfare is acceptable. If you abuse the service because you are too lazy, yet capable, of finding work (baby or no baby - ESP that whole planning birth for extended welfare bs, brutal.) its unacceptable.

Isobel - posted on 10/05/2012

just by being in North America (even if you ARE on assistance) your kids will be better off than 75% of the world's population...I think that saying that poor people can't have kids is ridiculous

Morris - posted on 10/05/2012

Yes! I feel it's irresponsible to have children if you cannot afford them. We cater to too much public assistance. I had two children I wanted more but I could only afford two. Same thing with animals I'd love to have several. I can only afford one dog and one cat.......It's life! I don't understand people's way of thinking. If you cannot afford yourself don't have children!!

Kristi - posted on 10/03/2012

Monique--



I don't think you should take this post personally at all. I don't know if you read through any of the comments but there are many of us who have needed and some who still need help from the government.



I would be proud of your mom for doing everything she could to further herself, and she did. No one will ever be able to take that from her. Same for yourself. You're working hard to provide but we all know sometimes no matter how hard you work or try, it just isn't quite enough. There is no shame in that at all.



This OP is generally referring to women who are already on welfare and not working who bring another mouth to feed into this world knowing full well they cannot provide for that child nor will they ever try. I also wouldn't consider you a "generational welfare baby." I believe that term is referring to those children who don't attempt to do anything with their lives because welfare is all they know and it is all they expect because no one ever expectated anything else from them to begin with. (yikes, there was a lot of "expecting" in there, I hope your mind is not going around in circles like mine is, right now! Lol)



Please don't take offense. Debate forums like this can be kind of tricky when you are new on here. Believe me...I learned that quite quick and in a hurry. I ducked out of them for awhile until I was more familiar with how things worked around here. Generally, we try not to personally attack anyone for their beliefs or their circumstances, although it can sometimes feel that way. In debates people can get intense because they are passionate but unless someone is really being a jackass and making outrageous comments, we try to respect one another. Anyways, I hope that helps a little. ; )

Monique - posted on 10/02/2012

Replying to this post I don't know whether to take it personal or not . I guess you would call me a generational welfare baby my mom had to resort to " welfare " to support our family not because she was lazy or anything she did try to work , she went back to school finished in hopes of making a better life for her family only to come into physical disabilities ordered not to work by her physician . Now that I have children I work and guess what my job has cut backs no medical benefits so assistance has come in to play for me , but this only temporary. Everyone has different situations .

Dove - posted on 09/18/2012

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I was poor, but not on welfare and not planning to be on welfare before I was pregnant with my last child. Several months after conception was when my circumstances changed and I HAD to go on welfare. If I had known about the circumstance change prior to conception of my final child... that child wouldn't exist cuz I wouldn't intentionally bring a child into this life.



Granted, I'm VERY glad that I didn't know about the circumstance change prior to conception because I wouldn't want to change having my little one for anything in the world, but my CHILD deserves a better life... so for that child's sake... conception wouldn't have happened. And that thought makes me very sad to think about since my children are my world. ♥

Aleks - posted on 09/18/2012

Dove, I didn't miss that line. Also, hope that you know that I wasn't having a go at you, nor was I trying to throw things back in your face as a counter argument. That wasn't my intention. I essentially used your sentence (in quotes) just to illustrate a scenario such as that (ie, needing to go on welfare AFTER birth of one's child, not necessarily through changing of circumstances other than just having said child and not working). So, not necessarily of what happened to you specifically. Which, I might add, I have no idea, as your comment re changing of circumstances and using welfare was not all that clear cut to me when I read it. I couldn't tell if you went on welfare with one child and then again due to changed circumstances with another, or it happened all in the one go, or what.

Hence why I tried to just use a scenario you alluded to, but not necessarily referring to *your* circumstances. Sorry if that sounded like this to you.

Thats all I was doing. Hope that my explanation makes sense.

Laura Zoey - posted on 09/16/2012

Eh, I sort of can't afford the child we are trying to conceive right now, we do get state insurance and food stamps and wic but I'm also a stay at home mom who brings in money by babysitting and working part time from home. We are on our way up and my husband will get a promotion to district manager in December and then his new office should get up and running and be making plenty of money soon. It is sort of a gamble, but it is planned out and we do plan on being off food stamps and wic at some point, we don't want to stay on assistence forever.

So, yeah Ithink it's fine what we are doing lol, but I can see how others might judge us. We want our family the way we want it and even if it means a few tough years when our kids are small we feel it's worth it to not have them all so spaced apart.

We are not trying to live off the state or anything, we are just willing to accept help when it's offered!

Dove - posted on 09/16/2012

I didn't intend to rely on welfare after my child was born.... my circumstances changed WHILE I was pregnant..... Which I specifically said my circumstances changed. Perhaps you missed that little line. ;)

Aleks - posted on 09/16/2012

Hmmm... I guess I will have to disagree to some extent with you.... Yes, you can be poor and not be on welfare, but you certainly can only be poor if you are on welfare.



Poor is poor, and going by Stiffler's Mum's logic, either way its not fair to have a child because that child will be missing out. Hence my comments in response.

I don't have issues with people on welfare having children. Whether they have been long-term on welfare or just recently due to changed circumstances.



There are billions of much poorer people in this world, than those living in 1st world countries on welfare, and who am I to tell them that they shouldn't be having kids cause they cannot afford them (and lets face facts here, a lot of these extremely poor people really cannot afford to have children).

Do I like this situations that occur in this world? No. Am I going to say its wrong of them to do this? Hmmm... too hard a quesstion to answer, and the answer would surely be very loaded, if one answered it either way.



And going back to the original question: "Do you think it is acceptable to deliberately get pregnant when you know you will need state aid (lets say welfare or disability) to afford said child? "



If you answer that "No, its not acceptable", then anyone who uses some form of welfare which they know they will after the birth of the child is then being in the "Cannot afford to have a child" bucket, this includes scenario that Dove mentioned " I didn't have to go on welfare until the kid was born". Essentially, making the arguement "only had to go on welfare after the birth of my child" kind of a irrelevant comment because essentially its still saying "you cannot afford to have the child". Basically, (going by the logic of the original question) one can only afford to have a child if one does not need to rely on any welfare after the birth of the child (whether one qualifies under the goverment rules you currently live under, is irrelevant in this).

In such circumstances then, a good proportion of children born (at least where I live, Australia) should not have been as they are not afforded by their parents.

Momma - posted on 09/14/2012

Exactly, Dove.... There is a difference. Planning when knowing you will be on welfare is completely different than planning and your circumstances changing. You often cannot foresee and/or control the future, therefore if you planned a child without knowledge of your future being drastically changed to the negative, than honestly, you did nothing incorrectly. Since hardships are not something most people expect or plan for but unfortunately do occur. Which is exactly what welfare is meant for. It is not meant to plan on using, it is meant when you find yourself in a shit of a situation and need to feed, clothe and give warmth for yourself and children. You know, unexpected happenings. Just as your situation. You use it as it is intended to be.

Dove - posted on 09/14/2012

There's a difference between poor and being on welfare though. You can be poor and still afford to have kids.... which WAS my situation. Then you 'can' have kids and be on welfare... also my situation, but in all fairness I didn't have to go on welfare until the kid was born. The pregnancy was planned and carried out during the first scenario.... the second was never expected, but my circumstances changed. If I had already BEEN on welfare prior to conception... that kid wouldn't be here.



Edited to add the words :prior to conception. ;)

Aleks - posted on 09/14/2012

If that was the case, Stifler's Mum, then the human species would have died out a long time ago...

From what has been noticed, typically, well off or well to do people tend to have much less children than poorer or just poor people. Generally, if memory serves me right, I have read that the well off tend to have children below the replacement rate. While the poor usually have above the replacement rate.

Essentially, poor people are the ones that make the population grow.



I understand what you are saying, and how it's not fair for the children involved, but if people only had kids if the could afford them, then only the rich and well off people would be able to have them. Poor people would not be able to have kids at all....

Stifler's - posted on 09/14/2012

I'm not a fan of the philosophy that love is all you need and that you can live on sunshine and rainbows. You need money to get by.

Stifler's - posted on 09/14/2012

I don't really care about the tax dollars thing though. It's more the unfairness to the child when they can't afford the things they need but the parents totally need another baby because they have baby fever.

Kathy - posted on 09/14/2012

I think there are 3 issues here:



1. On a personal level, most people would agree that bringing a baby into the world when you might not be able to feed it, is selfish.



2. Do we have a right to be annoyed by people who heavily use our collective tax dollars and get pregnant when they really can't afford it?



3. For some people poverty is transient. For some it is not (the poverty cycle is very hard to break). Should those who are poor (and some of them will stay poor) not have kids because they are going to take more of our tax dollars than the middle class?

Stifler's - posted on 09/14/2012

And yeah I live in Australia and receive FTB and one day my husband could lose his job (he's in mining so who knows) but if we still made $500 a week and lived with our mums or lived together and had $2 after paying our bills and buying bread and eggs there's no way we'd be trying for kids no matter how "ready" we were.

Stifler's - posted on 09/14/2012

Disregarding previous comments because I don't know what anyone is going on about. No it isn't fair to bring a kid into the world when you can't afford food for yourself or to pay your power bill and live with your parents. Just because you can physically reproduce doesn't mean you should. Sure later down the track people can lose their job and become poor, broke or bankrupt but why set yourself up for failure by trying for a baby during those periods just because you feel like it's your biological right and you neeeeed a baby.

Kristi - posted on 09/13/2012

WOW! is all I can say about the 4 pages of comments I just read through. And MeMe--was that an ASS you made out of punctuation? I still only know smile, wink, frown and I just learned how to stick my tongue out but I'm not sure if it used to be silly or if means you don't like what someone else said! LOL



In any event, I would like to chime in on deliberately getting prego while on aid for disability. I am on SSI disability. The amount I receive is determined by my average wage for the years that I worked, as if $7.50/hr now is equivilent to $7.50/hour in the late 80's-early 90's. It is very difficult to get disability and keep it, especially if it is for mental illness and/or you are honest. Which I am both so I struggled (would be an understatement) for quite a few years, trying to maintain employment, trying to make ends meet when I was too sick to maintain employment and trying to reobtain employment after being in a nut hut and having several gaps in my employment history. I finally was "awarded" disability after hiring a disability attorney. You don't pay them upfront, they just take 1/3 of your settlement.



Anyways, I now receive $1047/mo. and $253/mo for my daughter. If it were not for my generous, loving parents, my daughter would probably be in foster care while I found a storage unit to live in. If my husband (we are separated) divorced me and took us off his health insurance I would have to pay $100/mo for crappy medicare. Many, many doctors and therapists in the mental health field do not accept Medicare because it is such a huge hassle to get paid. Most of my perscriptions would not be covered and the ones that are, still cost an arm and a leg. At one point, my medications were over $22,000/year.



How on earth can the government think that one person could "survive" on that money, let alone 2 people. It's fucking ridiculous! So, our system (US) for supporting disabled people sucks ass. In conclusion and the relevant part to the OP is, I would NOT dream of having a child while on aid from the government. Oh-and I have to file taxes on that income. If I choose to have it taken out when I get my check, I would receive $76 less per month.



As far as my pride goes (can't remember who said that most people in the US on welfare have no pride or something similar), I would give just about anything to be well again and be able to work. It's embarrassing to me when other people ask me what I do (for a living) and I say nothing, I can't work anymore or I'm on disability. People then try to sneak peaks to try and figure out WHY I can't work. I'm ashamed my daughter has to give that same answer when her friends and/or their parents ask what does your mom do. We live on a very weathy island. I feel the same as Cathy Keagan Cook (I think, and I'm sorry if I butchered the spelling). It sucks monkey's balls to have to deny your kid sports, activities, movies, pizza, etc. My daughter got picked on when we moved here because she wore Aeropostle and not Hollister and Aeropostle was a treat when they had clearance sales. At least now that she is in Jr. High she can play sports for free, kind of...you still have to buy the right equipment and proper sneakers. So, in my second conclusion, I do have pride but it is in my daughter and in my family...I have no pride in myself but I would still rather work. I would be a very foolish, selfish person to bring another child into this life. (which again would be truly unsustainable if not for my amazing family)



***editted for spelling and punctuation

Aleks - posted on 09/12/2012

I haven't commented much but been following the discussions here. And as far as stating the benefits given from governtments to families, I believe that one poster actually ASKED for this information.... I think it was on page 2 or so....



"Erika Starman - posted 2 days ago

For all of the Canadian and Australian moms who answered and explained about the assistance they receive: Why does the government do that? Is it a tax funded program? What income tax rates do you pay? What is considered "high income" where you wouldn't receive it? I have so many questions about how other gov't make it work. I know the US is in a financial mess so I don't know how we could realistically provide those types of programs to the population at large. "



In a round about way it goes to show proof of why and how welfare in some countries is STANDARD for most families, and how deliberatelly getting pregnant and relying on welfare is COMMON or even a necessity. Therefore, answering the question of the OP, "Choosing to have a child when you cannot afford one".



;-)

Sherri - posted on 09/12/2012

Ya except Isobel is notorious for starting crap almost always with whomever, got her panties in a bunch that day. It seems right now MeMe is in her sights.

Johnny - posted on 09/12/2012

Perhaps because Canada's national benefit system has little to nothing to do with the original post. The OP did refer to "state aid (lets say welfare or disability)" A few people responded to the assertion that you should not get ANY aid when you have a child to point out that in many places, almost all people get some form of government monies when they have children. But the nitty gritty details of how national benefits work in Australia or Canada is in no way germane to the discussion. Mods repeatedly request that threads at least try to stay on or close to the topic at hand, without one person taking them on a totally different tangent.

Momma - posted on 09/12/2012

Hey Isobel --- I would say that you seldom have much to state in regards to any thread or OP..... This thread has been going now for 10 days and the above is your first comment....hmmmm.



I have provided many comments in regards to the specific OP at hand, where are yours? It is funny how you only come around when I happen to state Canada and not specify the Province of which I live (as I have stated, I often just forget to do so, so again, get over it). Many people reference their Country and not the actual State or Province of which they live, how am I any different? Others have also stated how it works in their place of residence, I am simply commenting as they have.



Truthfully, I could careless if it bothers you, since the way you "debate" (if you want to call it that, I have not seen it in a VERY long time) bothers me.



Does "Get a life" mean anything to you? And what do the Mods have to do with me stating Canada or how our tax system works, along with benefits? As far as I can see, I am NOT the one that first brought up benefits and taxes. Maybe you missed it, since you were sooo concerned about my "Canada" statement. LOL (_x_)



~MeMe



And people wonder why they end up in an argument with me....Ummm, how about taking a fucking pill and relaxing, rather than nit picking for trivial shit? Three people on this thread now, first one freaked because I commented on Canada and not a State (although, she has since PM'd me and apologized), the second one because I said "Canada" and not "NS/AB" and the third one because they like to follow me around and nit pick... yeah, I am the one causing arguments.

Isobel - posted on 09/12/2012

Hi Mods,



I'd say that Meme's been carrying this on a LONG time and that it has NOTHING to do with the op. Perhaps if she would like to carry on about how Canada works, she should start a new thread...ya think?

Momma - posted on 09/12/2012

Our welfare benefits in Canada (at least NOT in any of the 4 Atlantic Provinces and Alberta), CCTB and GST refund, are not taxable, either. Also, if you are on welfare or fall below a particular tax bracket - I believe it to be $24 000, you are not taxed on the UCCB, either. You do not pay taxes on any of the first three, regardless of your tax bracket (although, you do not receive GST once you make over $48 000/year). You still have to do your taxes when on welfare, in order to receive the CCTB and UCCB but you are not taxed.



We have a personal allowance credit and a child allowance credit on our taxes. If when filing your taxes you come out in the negative and you are on welfare or below a particular tax bracket ($24 000 - I believe), you are not taxed for anything and you receive full amounts for CCTB and GST.



My husband and I pay about $25 000/year in taxes and get a $3500 tax refund annually, in addition we get $120/month CCTB (soon to go up to $180 with our 3rd kid) and $100/month UCCB (soon to go up to $200, with our 3rd kid), I also get $130/month for my daughters disability (until she turns 18). The only thing taxed for us, is the UCCB.



~MeMe



**edited to add stuff

Kathy - posted on 09/11/2012

Michelle….I am quite confused.



I am the Op. Are you annoyed with me for bringing up the topic (and somehow think I am welfare bashing (which is a total new one - I am usually accused of being a socialist/bleeding heart liberal ;) ) or are you responding to the article you posted at the end of your post?



You said "So, your topic here has some serious flaws because it fails to justify it's conclusion-"

but I did not reach a conclusion, I simply asked a question on what people thought. If I am to reach a conclusion, I would say I do not care if people on welfare have one or two kids deliberately. It is a hard life and not one I would necessarily pick - but also not my business. I know poverty can be transient for many people, I know people can have enough money when they get pregnant only for their financial stability to collapse further down the road, and I know money is not the only or even most important factor in parenting. I was broke as a child - I bear no real scars from it (probably due to awesome parents and a system that did make sure we had enough to eat)

Mischa - posted on 09/11/2012

Oh one more thing...There is a life time limit of 4 years. You lose at least $364 of that grant because although your children gets it- you won't. So you cannot 'sit' on welfare for very long.

Mischa - posted on 09/11/2012

Okay....hold up there missy. There seems to be a lot of bashing on welfare people in this country. VERY few people understand the Clinton Admin. Welfare Reform Laws. For a family of 2, your grant is no more than $516 a month. That includes no assistance in rent, mind you. You are required to put in 32 hours a week in job-readiness activities. This is not like unemployment checks- where you "say" you looked for a job. These hours ARE verifiable and signed off. You get no more than $150 per kid after the first. So, in order to pay for rent Avg $1000 a month, Gas $250, utilities $70, Cell phone $100, basic TV $13, car payment $350- this alone I would need $1783. That means you need to 'deliberatly' give birth to 9 kids to maintain her lifestyle! Oh wait- there's more!! There is this critical rule: IF you get pregnant AND currently on aid, you have to get off of aid for two consectutive months...in order to get that $150. Otherwise, you don't get bump in pay. So, your topic here has some serious flaws because it fails to justify it's conclusion- especially if refutable by actual CALWORKS (welfare) policies in which I have for you here. So, I cannot say that it is acceptable, but and only BUT, I would have to question her mental health before calling her "a different kettle of fish". http://ca.db101.org/ca/programs/income_s...