Children born out of wedlock suffer financially, according to an official study released yesterday, with married parents less likely to claim income support and more likely to own a property.

The study of 18,500 babies shows that married parents are less likely to claim income support.

They are also more likely to own a property and live on an income of at least £20,000 a year.

Only 7.8 per cent of married couples were classed as "poor" compared to 76.4 per cent of parents who did not live together, and 25 per cent of co-habiting parents.


More info: click here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/12/nwed12.xml)

Nice one t020, you, actually quoting a source. I'm not sure why you've posted it though. If it's become detached from a relevant thread post a reply here and one of the mods will move it.

done me no harm coming from a single-parent family. Your point is?

Married parents more likely to own a property - and it took a report to work that one out :loopy: I can't believe the things some people get paid to do.

As above though what exactly is the point of this thread?

I wonder what the age correlation is on this. Teenage single parents evidently will fall into the lower bracket as they have not had time or opportunity to build their nest, but a woman in her thirties who has already built her career and paid off her mortgage who chooses to start a family and has made provision for motherhood, could financially be quite secure and the child could be well provided for.

I love official sources.

I read one a couple of years ago stating that 40% of people living within the UK were living below the poverty line.

I agree that a balance of male/female parentship increases your chances of a balanced upbringing.

But it does not mean that two bad parents are better than 1 good.

And of course it`s not just about the money!

I heard that 73.67823487% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Wow, I never realised that the act of getting married instantly transformed you from a poverty stricken unbalanced loser into a happy white middle class Victorian family gentleman. Must give it a try sometime.

On a less sarcastic note, I can see why a lot of people get married, as a symbollic act of union and stability. But I think government facts and figures can be misleading in this argument. You don't need good, loving married parents in order to get the best start in life; you just need good, loving parents. Ok, a lot of "unfit" parents (by that I mean parents who neglect their children, or those who raise them with antisocial, "hooligan" values) aren't married, but this is due to a variety of social and economic reasons. There's no reason to make all unmarried couples or their kids feel like an underclass just because the figures have put them in a certain bracket. I'm sure there are figures out there that show us Sheffielders to be poorer than southerners, uglier than Americans, tighter than Scots and lazier than the Chinese (and don't ask me to quote sources, I'm just pointing out that it's pointless to lump people under a certain category, it only leads to bitterness and resentment).

Stuff the statistics. Each to their own. :thumbsup:

Speaking as a single woman who is professionally employed, owns her own home and car, has a good pension plan and life insurance, I consider myself financially well-placed to have a baby

Originally posted by Belle
Speaking as a single woman who is professionally employed, owns her own home and car, has a good pension plan and life insurance, I consider myself financially well-placed to have a baby


Ditto !!!

How can you have a baby if you're single?

Originally posted by Sidla
How can you have a baby if you're single?

Parthenogenesis you idiot :)

Failing that, a sperm bank maybe.

What do you think turkey basters are for? (Apart from basting turkeys natch).

Originally posted by Sidla
How can you have a baby if you're single?

Dear Darling Sidla who is obviously naive

As long as some sperm meets an egg, anyone can have a baby with anyone

If you went back 30 years, how much do you think Dads had to do with their kids?

Change nappies now and again if you were lucky?

Exactly!!

Not much really - cos Dad was out working all the hours.

Its not all about the money though. A child needs loving parents of both genders. The gradual downfall of society has a strong correlation with the downfall of marriage.

Rubbish in my opinion, t020 :loopy:

In the past terrible injustices have occurred in the name of Marriage and Family. Many men and women were destined to wasted years of loveless marriage. Women were forced to give up children born out of wedlock no matter how much they may have loved and wanted those children. Families have suffered terrible abuses behind closed doors in the name of upholding marriage.
What a child needs is love and support, and it can get that better from, for example, one well-adjusted parent than from two who fight and argue constantly. What about large supportive extended families? Doesn't that make a difference?
You simply cannot make such sweeping generalisations.
Or then again perhaps it is worth accepting that any society that would turn a blind eye to all the misery that can be perpetrated in the principle of upholding marriage before all things, deserves to fall.

Late night musings from Cosy. (From a split-parent family)

Originally posted by t020
Its not all about the money though. A child needs loving parents of both genders. The gradual downfall of society has a strong correlation with the downfall of marriage.

Not all about money - ha! that's rich coming from you.

Yes a child does need loving parents, but this not mean they have to be married nor of different genders.