How much it will cost you to raise a kid . . .

[ColoradoHusk]

Not much is more irritating than people who think they have the capabilities to support a child so they go off and have one. If you can't afford to provide, don't have a kid. I feel the same about those who are 22 and go get married.

The worst is when people cry so much because "they can't afford their 5 kids". You know what, nobody said you needed to have 5 kids!!!

I have 2 kids, and yes they do cost a lot of money. But, I don't complain to anyone who will listen that "I can't afford them".

If you don't want kids, wear a rubber, or make your partner have birth control, or both!!!

 

[husker B-rent]

Not much is more irritating than people who think they have the capabilities to support a child so they go off and have one. If you can't afford to provide, don't have a kid. I feel the same about those who are 22 and go get married.

The worst is when people cry so much because "they can't afford their 5 kids". You know what, nobody said you needed to have 5 kids!!!

I have 2 kids, and yes they do cost a lot of money. But, I don't complain to anyone who will listen that "I can't afford them".

If you don't want kids, wear a rubber, or make your partner have birth control, or both!!!

I have 2 kids and make more than enough to support them. A family of four with an annual income of around $110,000 between the two of us. Our kids were not planned and we used plenty of birth control etc. Personally wouldn't change my life for anything, love my kids. So the bolded part above is one of the most uneducated things you can see or hear in my opinion.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Not much is more irritating than people who think they have the capabilities to support a child so they go off and have one. If you can't afford to provide, don't have a kid. I feel the same about those who are 22 and go get married.

The worst is when people cry so much because "they can't afford their 5 kids". You know what, nobody said you needed to have 5 kids!!!

I have 2 kids, and yes they do cost a lot of money. But, I don't complain to anyone who will listen that "I can't afford them".

If you don't want kids, wear a rubber, or make your partner have birth control, or both!!!

I have 2 kids and make more than enough to support them. A family of four with an annual income of around $110,000 between the two of us. Our kids were not planned and we used plenty of birth control etc. Personally wouldn't change my life for anything, love my kids. So the bolded part above is one of the most uneducated things you can see or hear in my opinion.

You must have super sperm!!! :wasted It's awesome you are able to provide for your kids, but there are people who don't earn good money who continue to have kid after kid.

I didn't mean to piss anyone off, and I know accidents can happen. But, for the most part pregnancies can be avoided (I am not talking about abortions either). Even with married people, men can get snipped or women can have their tubes tied, if they don't want to use birth control pills or condoms.

 

[Ulty]

I work in the child protective business and a hell of a lot of resources go towards working with families who cannot afford to provide for their kids. In fact you could say that a typical case includes parents (often a single parent) living in poverty with oodles of kids, often from multiple deadbeat fathers. I and each caseworker in our office have multiple cases with this situation.

It would actually save a ton of tax dollars in the long run in a lot of our cases to pay for a vasectomy for the fathers or tube-tying for the mothers who come into the system as opposed to the millions of dollars that we spend on services, casework, and foster care. In some cases, an un-anesthetized castration would be appropriate as well and would still save lots of money. But that sort of suggestion would only be caught up in legislative debate for years, I guess.

 

[Ulty]

Having said that, though, if you are able to actually care for your kids, having them is the most rewarding thing in the world, despite the expense, lost sleep lost social life, lost sex, etc. But after having kids, you'll wonder how you managed to blow through so much free time and money without having appreciated it before you had kids.

 

[deedsker]

I work in the child protective business and a hell of a lot of resources go towards working with families who cannot afford to provide for their kids. In fact you could say that a typical case includes parents (often a single parent) living in poverty with oodles of kids, often from multiple deadbeat fathers. I and each caseworker in our office have multiple cases with this situation.

It would actually save a ton of tax dollars in the long run in a lot of our cases to pay for a vasectomy for the fathers or tube-tying for the mothers who come into the system as opposed to the millions of dollars that we spend on services, casework, and foster care. In some cases, an un-anesthetized castration would be appropriate as well and would still save lots of money. But that sort of suggestion would only be caught up in legislative debate for years, I guess.

For as terrible as that sounds, I agree with your theories. Some people should have the capability of having kids taken away from them.

 

[T_O_Bull]

You can't have a total until you are dead.

 

[MLB 51]

Having said that, though, if you are able to actually care for your kids, having them is the most rewarding thing in the world, despite the expense, lost sleep lost social life, lost sex, etc. But after having kids, you'll wonder how you managed to blow through so much free time and money without having appreciated it before you had kids.

Eugenics advocate eh?

 

[Ulty]

I work in the child protective business and a hell of a lot of resources go towards working with families who cannot afford to provide for their kids. In fact you could say that a typical case includes parents (often a single parent) living in poverty with oodles of kids, often from multiple deadbeat fathers. I and each caseworker in our office have multiple cases with this situation.

It would actually save a ton of tax dollars in the long run in a lot of our cases to pay for a vasectomy for the fathers or tube-tying for the mothers who come into the system as opposed to the millions of dollars that we spend on services, casework, and foster care. In some cases, an un-anesthetized castration would be appropriate as well and would still save lots of money. But that sort of suggestion would only be caught up in legislative debate for years, I guess.

For as terrible as that sounds, I agree with your theories. Some people should have the capability of having kids taken away from them.

I should have mentioned in my earlier post that those are things we joke about in the office. None of us would seriously propose castrating our clients, as much as some of them might deserve it!

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

For my twin 4 year olds it costs my wife and I right around $13,200 a year just for daycare...................it's fun to see the tax guys response to that every year! :lol: Going from zero to two kids in a snap will send a shock to the financial system to your household. Diapers were also a fun expense, when they were babies we went through 14 to 20 diapers a day depending on if they were sick or not. Thankfully we're basically out of that stage besides pull-ups at night just in case.

 

[BigRedBuster]

When do you determine that you can't afford to have kids?

I know people who don't have a pot to piss in and they are raising wonderful happy kids. Then, I know people who have good paying jobs who struggle every day and their lives are a mess.

It is more the mentality and maturity of the parents that are the problem....not always financial.

Kids are honestly the most wonderful thing in life. AND...the most frustrating thing in life. This morning, I was ready for both of my daughters to head off to college and move out. one is a senior and the other one is only a sophomore.

 

[NUinID]

I work in the child protective business and a hell of a lot of resources go towards working with families who cannot afford to provide for their kids. In fact you could say that a typical case includes parents (often a single parent) living in poverty with oodles of kids, often from multiple deadbeat fathers. I and each caseworker in our office have multiple cases with this situation.

It would actually save a ton of tax dollars in the long run in a lot of our cases to pay for a vasectomy for the fathers or tube-tying for the mothers who come into the system as opposed to the millions of dollars that we spend on services, casework, and foster care. In some cases, an un-anesthetized castration would be appropriate as well and would still save lots of money. But that sort of suggestion would only be caught up in legislative debate for years, I guess.

Yes, but this would violate their civil rights. They have the right to have sex with whoever they please and have as many children as they please.