English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

as far as im concerned they have their kids and dump them on nannys whats the point

2007-05-29 21:02:42 · 19 answers · asked by angela f 2 in Society & Culture Cultures & Groups Other - Cultures & Groups

19 answers

I agree entirely. I stayed at home with my 2 sons, whilst my husband worked. (we had already decided upon that before we had children)

I studied at home, when the kids were older, and didn't go back to work until they were 18 and 15yrs old. The eldest son is now nearly 26yrs, and lives with his girlfriend 3 doors away from us. The other son is 23, and lives here at home.

We are very close-knit, and I would do absolutely anything for my sons. (and the girlfriend of the elder son) My sons have both said how much they appreciated having me at home all throughout their childhood. They never once had a baby-sitter.

2007-05-30 00:55:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

They have kids for the same reasons as everyone else.
I had to work even though my husband worked full time. We wanted to get out of our council house and move on. My husband earned little more than the minimum wage and saving to get a foot on the property ladder would have been impossible with just him working. We looked after the kids between us, he worked days and I worked in the evenings. It was far from easy.
Single mothers (and fathers), I imagine, would find it near on impossible to work without outside help. Most unskilled work does not allow time off for school holidays or when kids are ill. Many of these parents would like to work but even with childcare allowances etc., would probably be worse off financially as well as never having any time with their kids.
Mothers that do not have any financial need to work are probably in the position where they can spend a fair amount of time with their kids too, so I see no problem with that.

2007-05-29 21:51:50 · answer #2 · answered by cananddo 4 · 0 0

Because if we left it to the unprofessionals we'd all be living in council houses you numb nuts.

Call me a snob, call me what you want, but for us to afford good schooling, a house in a nice area and a good standard of upbringing for the nippers, you need money. Plain and simple.

Are you saying that the only people that should have kids are the state suckers that stay at home all day? Hurrah, we can all drive cavaliers and live in houses surrounded by others who bring up their kids in questionable ways.

I agree that you should spend as much time as possible with them, but not at detriment to their upbringing.

2007-05-29 21:24:44 · answer #3 · answered by Steven N 4 · 1 1

I agree, you should only have kids if you can :
1) Afford them without other taxpayers having to subsidise you.
2) Spend time with them as they grow up.

Having said that, Felicity (above ) has a point, if the professionals did not have kids the chavs' kids would be our next doctors, lawyers, teachers etc...perish the thought.

2007-05-29 21:21:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

i dont understand why jobless unemployed people have kids, when they cant provide for them and expect benefits.

Perhaps if the country was not full of mums on hand outs living in council flats, those working would not be taxed so heavily and one professional parent could afford to work part time????

Working parents, pay for their house, taxes, food, education, child care

Non Working Parents, get all the above at the cost of the working.

Go think.

Perhaps a hard working parent, who develops a good career and provides for their family, represents a much better role model, than the sit and home type?

Who would you rather say your parents were, the workers or the shirkers??

Grandad, tell me that great story about when you managed to double claim those benefits? how kids will admire you!!!

2007-05-29 21:06:10 · answer #5 · answered by dsclimb1 5 · 6 1

There are many people who shouldn't have kids, most of all scroungers and layabouts. But, I do agree with your point about dumping them on nannies etc... There are worse though, abusing and cruel parents are allowed to breed unchecked and they are left to carry on regardless, maiming and damaging their children endlessly, time after time. They are the ones we need to focus on.

2007-05-29 21:12:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

I frankly do not see the point of having a child and working full time I do agree, but then I do not like people who rely on benefits having children either. It's the happy medium. Mine you that's the reason I'm child free!

2007-05-30 01:33:42 · answer #7 · answered by Mrs M 4 · 0 0

This question really begs for a snobbish answer, so here it is.
(not my personal opinion - just for laughs)
If professional people, educated in the private sector, ceased to reproduce, who would rule the country? Even the (soon to be departed) leader of the New labour party was educated at a public school.

2007-05-29 21:16:22 · answer #8 · answered by cymry3jones 7 · 3 0

I don't get it, either.

Kids cost a small fortune to raise. What's the point of having kids if you can't afford to spend much time with them?

2007-05-30 05:14:03 · answer #9 · answered by evamariehoople 4 · 0 0

I don't want any kids anyway. Can't eb doing with dirt and smells and loss of personal time. They won't even look after you when you're old anymore. I'm gonna save my money to pay for a nurse.

2007-05-29 22:53:58 · answer #10 · answered by Cpt. Willard 4 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers