I have never had the opportunity to have a child - I have always had to support myself. What I resent is having to support everyone else through tax.
Where is the logic that says a childless women should support parents, who for politeness sake, sprog without even thining about it/or the consequences? Surely this is yet another slap in the face for childless women who already have to put up with the excessive ‘family’ culture of our society, the probes, the questions, the disrespect of a childfree life?
All the ‘benefits’ that families get and I’m working all hours so my neighbours can sit on their backsides without working, get a free house, get rent/mortgage/ bills paid - I’m sorry I just don’t understand how this system works? Its not even the peoples fault - Of course people will play the system, if it encourages this?

If I don’t work I don’t get paid - end of - as I am on a long term supply contract. Even if I did want to take maternity leave I couldn’t.
Noone supports me, I do everything myself - and yet I pay over thousand pounds a month in tax? This is not for my old age, this is not for my welfare in any way.

I love my job, I do genuinely care for the welfare of children and I realise this is at the root of the system - unfortunately this is played too much.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=BK5OI0NUJWSNHQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/14/nmums14.x ml

Labour’s tax and benefits system makes it more lucrative for single mothers to stay on state handouts than return to work, according to research from the world’s chief economic and social authority.

In Canada we are still being taxed to pay “family allowance” benefits as well as “child care benefits”. The baby bomus program was introduced when Canada was still called “the new world” but regardless of the changing planetary conditions and the conditions in this country we are still being taxed to pay people for having babies.

Canadians have had the opportunity to choose whether or not to become parents for 40 years and yet the opinions of those of us who did not make the choice and who do not wish to finance benefits for those who did are completely discounted by politicians. 34% of what is taxed to provide “family benefits” never reaches the intended beneficiaries. Instead it goes to cover the “administrative costs” of programs that IMO ought not to exist. However, to suggest discontinuing “family benefits” is tantamount to suggesting we slay the sacred cow.

I do not wish to be increasingly taxed at higher rates to provide funding for benefits of any sort for baby production or for child rearing. I wish to have the playing field made level. And by that I do not mean that I would be satisfied to have commensurate benefits with parents, thank you very much. For clarity: I don’t want to be taxed to provide child and family benefits in the first place.

Holding the views that I do always brings forth the politically correct bawling “you have no compassion”. I do have compassion. I have compassion for the planet and the other living creatures on it. That means I’m pro-earth and IMO the best choice the majority of fertile females on the planet today can make is not to reproduce.

The best way to encourage the child-free choice to be placed on a level playing field with the parenting choice is clear. Eliminate taxation of the child-free for all “child and family benefits” and allow those who do choose to reproduce to bear the full financial burden of the choice they have made.

the term THEY, ism a generic term for the establishment, or pressure groups, they are the powers that be, in magical terms, like the government, the pro family pressure groups, the anti abortionists, they are all a version of they.

and i think your wrong with the benefits parents do get, there are the governmental tax breaks, government childcare places, the family tax credits in the UK, (family tax credits that are only paid to families).

and its great you have criticized the parenting of today, but there is no movement, like there was in feminism, we are disorganised at the moment, but that will change.

its not parents per se that we are against its bad parenting, and the pro child natalcentric governments of today, women fought for equal rights, but now women are considered to be able to have it all, have children, have a job, have this, have that, with no mention of men, there are exceptions of course, but its not so much as equality its more a case of what can i get out of it, look at pelosi, she got voted in and showed the world she had kids and grandkids, how that helps her in her job i dont know. but thats the world of today pro child.

we rant about bad parents as there are far more of those than good parents, but a lot of cf people to them their pets are their children, if parents are allowed to show off their kids, why cant we show off animals in our lives that mean more than a lot of humans.

they will only be an alliance, if parents realise that we have made a decision not to have children, and our reasons are ours, and not come up with things like ” you will change your mind when its yours” or, ” mother hood is the most important job in the world”. as soon as they accept that we are our own people and not freaks for not having or even liking children, then we will have an alliance, but even then they will want more and more for their children at the expense of others.

parents, and governments need to understand they cannot rob peter to pay paul, which is what they are doing.

there are many types of childfree like our esteemed blog owner, or me and my fiancee, i dont like kids.. i couldnt be doing with them.. but i would never want to hurt them. but we all agree that parents have far and away more benefits in work, they can go home early for emergencies, we cant they have to have holidays off and we have to cover.

there will never be an alliance unless there is true equality, cf and parents, but a lot of parents want what they can get, look at the politicians, they come up with more and more pro child laws and taxes.. and who are left out. who has to pay more.

I don’t feel what I wrote misrepresents your argument, but I did mention your blog so that anyone can go there and read and judge the discussion there for themselves including any clarifications. If you feel it does it isn’t intentional.I had no intention of rewriting the whole thing in a comment here. I mentioned some key things relevant to the comment and not every single thing.

I have never disagreed that everyone should be compassionate about about people’s needs, highlighting the bias childfree people face in the workplace does not preclude compassion. But as you yourself said on your blog, I thought we agreed to disagree.

Also, by “they” I was not referring only to you but to parents as a group or in the general sense. If I did mean you I would have quoted you directly. And no, many parents don’t get it. If you do, then take yourself out of the ones who don’t.

No, “they” does not include every single parent, just as when references are made to childfree people or the childfree it doesn’t refer to every singe childfree person. Just in a general sense. Whether you like it or not (and we do not, but we’re stuck with it for now) parents as a group carry the day in and out of the workplace.

As I mentioned and as is clear throughout this blog I know have worked with and still do work with many parents. I know very well that not every person on that thread agreed with you, I even quoted some of them on your blog.
And fyi, I don’t write as part of any “movement”. Not sure where I became slotted into a movement. I write as I see things, people are free to disagree if they like.

If you view my comment - about what I feel as a waste of my time as “a nasty attack on parents”, that’s your choice. I don’t recall saying that I SAY to parents trotting kids into the office that they are wasting my time. However I reserve the right to feel/decide that they are wasting my time if I am supposed to be working and they decide to bring their kids in to show me. I am not interested in cooing over their babies or their tots. Period. I may put up with it when I can’t get away or when I know the worker very well. But to say “oh because it means so much to them…” doesn’t cut it. That is my choice and my view. Whether or not you think that or anything else on my blog constitutes “a nasty attack on parents” isn’t really my problem and entirely your opinion. But then I’d ask - why come to a place where you feel attacked?

What you read on other childfree blogs I cannot answer for. There are plenty of parents who think nothing of denigrating childfree people at the slightest opportunity.

And it’s a bad idea to jump so quickly to conclusions. I do not see you or anyone else as “the enemy.” As I’ve mentioned in many of my articles, I talk to people about their kids. In the workplace. I ask after them, I share their photos when appropriate. I know when their important milestones are. I take part in bring your kids to work days if I feel like it…. I know more about the parents and their kids than they do about me - because I take an interest. So please, don’t muddy the waters. Don’t even go there.

To your point about “finding an alliance with the movement” again, I don’t know what you mean - I am not writing as part of a “movement.” That’s entirely your lens. I blog about life as I see it. Among other things. And I’m a childfree person . Necessarily, that entails talking about other childfree people and parents and children our interactions and their impact. Whether or not parents “support” childfree people doesn’t bother me. And I don’t go to other people’s blogs to criticise their blogs either.

Most childfree people spend their lives being bombarded by the pro-natalist parent propaganda driven by parents. I am not in particular looking for parental support… I don’t need their approval to live my life. I would not swap my life for theirs even if I was offered a tax break…

I respect their choices to reproduce, they should respect mine not to.

For what it’s worth, BG, there is no “they” here (as in “they say this” or “they don’t get it” or “they think”). It’s just me. (The commenters on my blog did not fall in line behind me - they agreed with some of my points and some of yours.) I am not part of any parents’ group that is organizing for anything, I receive few benefits, special or otherwise, for having a child (I’m sure that readers of this blog receive far more benefits than I do, in fact, for all sorts of reasons, perhaps even unearned benefits). I don’t have anything personally invested in this - almost none of these issues affect my life and I stand to gain nothing. And I have always been supportive of the choice to not have children and have argued and published criticisms of the whole romanticized notion of parenting and the negative effects that has on all of us. This doesn’t mean that I was without criticisms of the movement, but it does mean that I’m not exactly the enemy, either.

Unless - and this is, sadly, the sense I’m getting, not from you in particular but from other sites I’ve been visiting - parents are always the enemy simply because they’re parents. Since I began writing about this and coming here and having an exchange with you here on my blog, I’ve noticed that there is on childfree sites often a slippage between a critique of the relative treatment of parents and childfree people, and some rather nasty attacks on parents as just in general a group of not very nice people. Even on this blog, which someone recently praised for the quality of the discussion (for ex, your comment about parents who waste people’s time by bringing in their babies to show workers. You know, childfree people bring their pets in to work and ask me to say hello to and stroke the pet, they show me pictures of their pets, they come to my desk and show me pictures from their travels - and of their baby nieces and nephews - and I would never say that they were wasting my time by sharing something with me that means so much to them. And this happens OFTEN.). It’s a bit disheartening, because it makes me feel that parents and childfree people can’t have any sort of alliance, and I kind of had assumed that we could, especially since I agree with so much of the critiques the movement has raised (and with so much of what you have written, BG). Perhaps I seriously misunderstood the movement. Perhaps, just as many childfree people would rather not associate with children, you would also rather not associate with parents and would rather not have parents supporting your movement. If so, then the joke’s on me. I really didn’t understand that that was the case.

So, no. I guess I don’t get it.

@mercurior - Very good points. I really think they don’t get it. If you read my comments on PlainsFeminists blog “Who Benefits from the Benefits” you’ll see this clearly (among other things They believe that because they have more expenses they are entitled to tax breaks. They complain we are selfish because some childfree people are beginning to question why their taxes should support people’s choices to breed. (I personally have no problem with supporting education, playcentres, healthcare, municipal taxes etc).

Parents have more child releated expenses because they CHOSE to have children. So they feel they are entitled, because they have children. It’s more or less what’s been supported by the government so they are in good company.As you say, you or I may have a relative that we look after, or need to support. WE may have even MORE expenses than the childed. but we don’t qualify. Why? because we don’t have kids. So we must pay out of our own pocket. No tax break for us. We don’t have kids, so it doesn’t count.

And while I am all for supporting people on lower incomes, (although why have several kids if you are on a low income?) they also ignore the fact that parents get all sorts of tax breaks irrespective of income. So even very rich people with kids in expensive private schools get the tax breaks, not because of the expenses, because of the fact they have kids period.

They don’t seem to think planning for or even thinking about whether a child can be afforded is a valid point to make. Nor that they should be self sufficient in bringing up their kids. Instead they quote “shit happens” “accidents happen.” Yes, they do. But as you say, that’s has nothing to do with it, because this isn’t about the “shit happens” stuff, it’s about the rule.

why should they get paid by the government, couldnt these parents actually pay for their own kids, or does that not matter.

i always thought tax was taken from everyone, directly and indirectly, and to be given out to anyone in need of tax breaks, not just one group.

how much money is spent on these family tax breaks, the cf pay in, but we take NOTHING out. is that fair no. can we have the same tax breaks for our parents, no. if a parent wants to have a kid they should pay for it themselves, regardless of expenses, the kids arent the governments kids, they are their parents kids.

why dont the parents pay for all the expenses (perhaps they dont know the expenses before hand but if thats so then they are dumb). they had the kids, they should pay for it, save up first before having that child, is that so hard.. my mother, had no government help with my brother, she saved up and the expenses was paid for by HER and my dad.

accidents do happen but this hasnt got anything to do with the taxes claimed by parents. its far and away more than any CF person would get, (and dont say well their kids will pay for my retirement for when i retire i would get nothing anyway. and i am gonna work till they carry me off in the coffin). is that fair.

“parents get far and away more benefits, direct and indirect (and most of those benefits go to the woman family tax credits for example get paid to the woman not the man not shared). in this culture of today, women are the family and parents, men are not counted as much,”

This is a good point, as we hardly ever hear the men’s views. Everything is loaded in favour of women as parents. As you say, if one cannot afford a child one should not have one.

@ TT - Thanks for this…. You know, reading your experiences reminded me that YES!! I have recognize many of those people too!! How could I forget 1 and 2!! All the time… And what about the parents - especially mothers who bring their babies into the office while their off on maternity leave and waste everyone’s time showing them off where I am working… or young kids, because their sitter has “fallen through…” and worst of all are the ones who dash off early because of some “kid catastrophe,” and then calling back into the office to hand out instructions for things THEY should be doing. And leaving others to explain their bloody absence. Oh, and they of course expect everyone to understand.. “Well”, some have said, “it’s kids, so you HAVE to attend to them. No, you have to do what your employer pays you to do and find some other way to fit in your kids, not the other way round. And why do they never make up their lost time? Or volunteer to stay late or work through lunch, or come in early at least ONCE or twice?

I bet if more of their pay was docked for being absence when they should be at work, they’d find a way to be at work when they are supposed to be.

BUT today, women take time off for a year (expecting the company to hire a replacement and pay them). then they come back to work. ok thats fine in of itself. but they arent spending time with their kids, and they are in essence taking jobs from younger people, or just basically giving them the experience.

i have almost always worked for women, most of the people i worked with were women, only ever temporary contracts, and only ever to cover maternity. i am 33, and i havent had a permanent job. if parents spent a little time with thier kids the first 4 years to give that child a better support system.

parents get far and away more benefits, direct and indirect (and most of those benefits go to the woman family tax credits for example get paid to the woman not the man not shared). in this culture of today, women are the family and parents, men are not counted as much, i want everyone to be equal but the maternity/paternity isnt for themselves and it definatly isnt for me or my partner.

IF you cant afford a kid, simple answer.. dont have one.