Should having children be a matter of income?

Question

I imagine it would be hard to raise kids on a $ 25grand/year income. Do you think you should base the number of kids people have on their income? (Not salary alone, but any supplemental income as well).

What should that income be for 1 kid?
For 2?

Answer 1

i think people should have to be evalauated before they even are allowed to have children. I dont think it is a matter of an exact amount, but about showing responsibilty, of course you need to be able to provide them with all the necessities.

Answer 2

I definitely think that people should have children when they don't make enough money to raise them. It would suck to let them grow up having not enough food, no clothes and stuff. I mean kids certainly don't need expensive brand clothes but if your income can not pay the bills you have plus put food on the table for the kids, then DON"T HAVE KIDS. I know some people who have kids and they have a hard time even taking care of themselves. It's just not good for the kids.

Answer 3

We can't let the government regulate how many children we have - and the number of children we have cannot be based on our income. You know, a lot of kids don't need a college fund - they are smart enough (or taught well enough - at home and school) to get scholarships.

It is different if we choose not to have children - but the law must not be allowed to choose for us.

Answer 4

Yes, it should be based on income. Do you want the government to raise you child as in welfare?? do you want your child to have the best of things or second rated hand me downs--I had hardly nothing with 5 others siblings but we did not want either, my dad worked 3 jobs-so we could have some nice things but nothing fancy and not once did he nor my mom did welfare-- my kids are doing a lot better than me but at my pay scale. I make between 40 and 60 k and living paycheck to paycheck with two kids and all the usual bills and taxes thanks to the government

Answer 5

It would be the responsible thing to be sure children could be afforded before having them. The required income would probably depend on the cost of living in the particular area of the country. This is all hypothetical, of course.

Answer 6

There is no wright or wrong answer but doing a budget to your personal needs is best. Everyone is different and sometimes people are unprepared and have more children than expected. There is no 100% in birth control. Most people who are in a financial bind find a way to make it work and pay for all their children. If there is a will there is a way.

Answer 7

I have to be honest here, and I had my first son well before we could have afforded it. However, what it did was make us strive to do better and succeed and advance further in our careers, for the good of our son. Sooooo, in a nutshell, I guess it shouldn't be an issue for having kids as long as you intend to make enough to be able to support them sufficiently. We now have 2 children and gross about $55,000 a year together, and do just fine.

Answer 8

income should be part of it. you want to be sure you can provide for a child before you have one. you could make any salary work. 25 is fine for one kid. but here is the thing: if you've reviewed your income and expenses and have the money for a child, have one. keep track of your finances and if there is enough money to provide for another, have another.

Answer 9

it is verry hard but i have 7 and i want 3 moor but i cant find anyone that will give them to me and disapear i make about 37 a year and thats not much but i make do as long as i am a lone
the money dont matter it is the love u have for the kids

Answer 10

Why end with little ones. provide it to anybody. in basic terms enable me understand the way you will pay for it. i'm broke so do not come to me any with new taxes. in my opinion, (and it is the reason i'm here after all), If we decrease the fee of wellness care we can furnish it to extra those with out spending money we don't have. I strongly suspect there is as plenty waste and duplication in the wellness care marketplace as there is in government. till now we enhance it, we could desire to bathe it up. Derek above neglected the full factor. Bush vetoed the law because of fact taxes on Cigarettes is a shrinking source of revenues. very promptly you're transforming into yet another mandated federal application with out investment. at present, one hundred% of the county assets tax that I pay is going to federally mandated courses. The county has to place self assurance in revenues tax and different expenditures to run the county. this is in basic terms incorrect. at present, my month-to-month contribution to my wellness care plan at artwork is larger than my month-to-month mortgage charge. upload in what the business corporation contributes and it is virtually double. it is in basic terms incorrect too.

Answer 11

I think income is a factor. Some ppl manage money better than others. There are lots of ways to get government assisant also.
Without welfare.