To think if most people waited until they were earning enough to not be entitled for any government benefits before they had children there'd be hardly any kids in the UK?

[LaWeaselMys]

MIL had an argument with DP last night as she does not want us to have any more children until we are not eligible for any government help and are 'paying for them ourselves' To not AIBU by stealth - After a choppy period we are earning and from next tax year will be entitled to very little bar CB and a small amount of TC.

Tax credits is a bit more complicated to work out, but to not be eligible for Child Benefit you (or your partner if there's two of you) would need to be earning more than £44k pa. That's twice the national average wage!

AIBU to think that by the time most women and/or their partner earn more than 44k - if it ever happens, they would be infertile?

You are very young, your mil is being ridiculous pressuring you about having more children.

Oops, I read the OP wrong.

I do agree with your mil, sorry.

OP - I have to say that you and DH do seem like good people with a good base of common sense.

You've got plenty of years yet to have another DC, although I do agree that it's very little of your MILs business.

My eyes have been opened by some comments on this thread, but in a way I can sit on the fence and see what everyone's pov is.

Riven surely being outraged by RL's comments in the DM is like me being outraged when my cat disembowels a mouse on the kitchen floor. It's horrible, but hardly shocking - it's in both his nature and his job description.

That surely has to be a classic comment fro the ungrateful 'boomer' generation.

Ol people resenting young people while they themselves grab every benefit they can and sitting in the untaxed houses they bought for a pittance with MIRAS on top and yet still demanding some young couple with DCs mortgage themselves to oblivion just for the right to a family home.

Oh yeah, I know it is almost entirely due to house prices. Tony and Gordon should be fucking shot for letting that bubble get off the ground.

I lived in HK for many years - the high rate of public housing there operates in the same way as tax credits do in the UK (though obviously housing is for life - I believe TCs are only for those with children?). Again, it's a subsidy to industry, but then I think it's the case that in HK corporations pay a much bigger proportion of the tax than they do in the UK. Otherwise you wouldn't have anyone to make the tea and drive the minibuses.

The problem with the UK is that it seems to me from what I read here that it's not the bottom third of income earners that depend upon tax credits (to take your HK housing example) - it seems to go much further up the ladder.

Well other factors in the Asian model are that most families have 2 full time wage earners, childcare is cheap because of the amah system and many more extended families live together so these things also explain why people can survive on lower wages.

I really do think housing is the crux of the matter though.The thing about public housing is that it can almost pay for itself as tenants do pay rent plus the government has an asset (so it's a one off cost), whereas TCs are actually cash out of the door.Public housing also gives renting families a lot more stability than private renting.

The other thing about TC's is that if they did it the other way round, and just increased the nil rate income tax band (i.e. so working poor pay less tax rather than pay more and get TC's back) then no-one would be complaining because then it wouldn't be seen as a "benefit"

OP- your DP should'nt be taxed at 20% on his whole income. He will have a tax free allowance like everyone else (approx £7k pa) Just to ensure this included in your calculations...

On the one hand, there is a strong, or at least vocal, opinion on MN that only people who can afford current high living costs without benefits should have children.

On the other hand, it is difficult to see how these high earners could carry on doing their jobs, get to work, keep healthy and have something to eat without drawing on the labour of the lower paid: teachers, roadworkers, shop assistants, nurses, civil servants etc etc. These must clearly not be in a position to withdraw their labour, or society would come to a standstill. And it is also clear that we need more of those than of the higher paid workers.

So are you in effect saying to these people: yes, you must do these jobs because I can't cope without you, but you just have to accept that you can't have much of a life because you don't deserve it.

I don't get all this patronising, 'Oh, OP, you are very young' stuff.

She was 23 when she had her first, not 14. And I assume it was a couple of years ago so she's probably about 25.

She's not a school girl.

I'm 40 next month and know plenty of women who are 25 or so who have more than one child. They are married or in long-term partnerships.

I think it's totally unfair, condescending and patronising to label the OP 'young'.

Cory, I think that is unfair. For a start teachers earn approx £30k so 2 of those in a household is £60k and definately a 'living wage' and one on which people can afford to have children. The OP has said that in her current situation they have an income of 9k, this is the equivalent of 1 person on minumum wage working less than 30hrs per week. They are hardly comparable situations. In fact the majority of the roles you mentioned earn around the 'living wage' or above.

Back to the OP, the decision for your OH to go to uni was a choice you made, as part of that choice you accepted the low income you would have for that period. I made the same decision and as part of that, I accepted that I then wouldn't be having children until I was in a secure (ie I've now been here 2.5yrs and I'm performing well), well paid job and I could afford them.

She's younger than both my children, in my book that makes her young. Not too young to be a Mum just young.

Secondly the OP herself said "We are young (23), and life plan was to buy house get married etc before having babies, but it didn't turn out that way. (we already have DD)"

So having a baby at her age was not her game plan they had plenty of things they wanted to do first but life doesn't always go as planned and I'm sure they wouldn't be without DD now regardless of the circumstances.

40k is a high wage in many areas of the country, and when you're self employed you have no way of knowing what the next year may bring.

Just wanted to make that clear.