Big families

[ActionA]

Before I begin, I want to make it clear that I DON'T think only rich people should be allowed to have big families. In my ideal world, benefits would be more generous, there would be a massive SH building programme, rents would be capped etc. etc. I think the austerity rhetoric is bollocks and believe this ideal world is actually possible.

However. We sadly don't live in this ideal world at the moment and I'm surprised at the amount of threads by people complaining that they can't afford to get by and yet are still planning on having a 3rd, 4th, 5th DC. Again, I understand that sometimes the unforseen happens and a family that was previously doing well hits hard times. But that isn't the case in a lot of scenarios: the family has been struggling for a long time and continues to do so. I'm wondering what makes those families carry on having DCs. They know there isn't much help out there, and know that they are going to have trouble supporting those DCs. So why do it?

I'll repeat again before the people who don't like reading what's actually been said chip in: in my opinion there should be MORE help that makes it possible for the less well off to have big families if they choose. But that help just ISN'T there, so why insist on having a big family when you can't support them? Seems a rather selfish way of making the point that everybody should be able to have a big family...

www.worldometers.info/world-population/

We are at 7 billion - but this site has a nice counting clock which is going up and down - deaths and births, population growth rate and big entire number.

Over half the world's population could rely on food imports by 2050 – study www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/07/half-population-food-imports-2050

so when countries cannot import enough food, people will go hungry.

in the UK we already don't produce enough food to feed ourselves. what happens when war - and there will be one at some point - cuts us off from other countries? Or other nations decide not to sell us their surplus food maybe for their own geopolitical advantage?

I have a large family which has - child benefit excepted - been supported by earnings throughout.

The system is massively stacked against us.

We are in the process with a massive row with the LEA who have allocated us school places at four corners of the city - and tell us that we can't get help with transport 'because each individual trip is under the threshold, and you are not on income support'. When I point out that they are expecting the impossible from us in terms of travel and expense - the same thing comes back "you're earning - so you can play for four nannies in four taxis to drop your kids off" .

DH is feeding 7 mouths - including his widowed mother - on a salary which is taxed by viewing him as a fat-cat wide-boy living it large. A top tax band salary is not a top tax band lifestyle when supporting a family.

We are competing for housing which the landlords prefer to salami slice into bedsits for single 'young professionals'. We have always lived in housing which was smaller than the council housing guidelines for a family our size (eg 2 different gender kids in a 1 bed flat etc).

The 'benefit trap' phenomenon is well known - and these issues are compounded for a larger family.

My mistake

Still, 7 billion is still a way off 10 billion, and if we had the cultural sophistication to effect such a global change, we'd probably sort out lots of other problems too, such as forced marriages, women's rights and women's education across the globe, contraceptive availability. All of which would drop the human birth rate.

DH is feeding 7 mouths - including his widowed mother - on a salary which is taxed by viewing him as a fat-cat wide-boy living it large. A top tax band salary is not a top tax band lifestyle when supporting a family.

I don't see this as radically different from saying, "a top tax band salary is not a top tax band lifestyle when running a huge country pile". And, why have so many kids that it becomes difficult to house your family?

Procrastination. I don't really get your point. How many children do you have? Presumably you realised when you decided to have your children that there is no guarantee that they would get into the same school? School places are so oversubscribed now, precisely because there are too many people having too many children. I think all parents are aware that their kids may end up going to different schools or a school far away that is inconvenient to get to, especially in London. That is what you have to consider when having kids, that the more you have, the more issues it brings up when it comes to things like school places and the logistics of getting to different places, different appointments and who looks after the rest when you need to take one to the dr etc. That's just life I'm afraid.

I don't see why someone having 5 DC in UK would impact on anyone else having to live in cramped conditions.

I never said this was the case. I was responding to the idea that an exploding population is not a problem if we all adjust our lifestyles accordingly.

So it's increasing but the increase has already tailed off so growth has already been checked.

I disagree.

So it's increasing but the increase has already tailed off so growth has already been checked.
I disagree.

With the figures or the projected eventual decrease in world population or whole idea that population growth isn't going to explode?

There are plenty of articles out there suggestion whole idea of population explosion waiting for us is incorrect.

The Population Bomb: How We Survived It

Dubious assumptions prime population bomb

Population Bomb or Population Crash

The population explosion implodes

Food security is going to be an issue but depends on climate changes, crop diseases and a populations access to massive uneven distribution of what is grown as well as total population.
Food_security
Growth in food production has been greater than population growth. Food per person increased during the 1961–2005 period.

school places are so oversubscribed now, precisely because there are too many people having too many children.

Ten - 15 years ago years ago the county I lived in closed many smaller school due to lack of DC. It was a dip in the population. Now the GC of baby bloomers are ready for school and there isn't any excess in system.

They have also recently reduced in my immediate area the number of secondary school places - through a school merge as there was a surplus. There is only 6 years before that changes.

So not sure it is a simple matter of too many DC.

We will move shortly to a new area with a shortage of primary school places - this is due to the local economy having boomed in last decade and workers often with or shortly having DC moving to area and partly natural population mini boom - GC of baby boomers.

People where we were currently live don't believe me when I tell them we could be given 3 different schools.

We'll work round it of course but as my older DC were born and planned in a northern city, now live in midlands and will move to Southern city not sure how I could plan for school places availability in new area not on my radar at any of their conceptions, not even last DC.

I manage the logistics of my family just fine, thanks, but I don't appreciate being sabotaged by wilfully obtuse administration of universal social services, such as school places.

I'd willingly take the other points on board - so long as you don't mind agreeing to waive any future tax revenue from my 'scourge on the land' DC.

If you are equating maintaining a country pile to raising a family - that's fine with me. Which way would you rather cut it: giving the wider public the right to access your land/classic cars/vintage wine/Koi carp - or giving parents perpetual rights to their DC productivity & tax revenues?

My specific point was that the set up of systems such as taxation and housing is weighted against self-supporting large families - hence why a lot of large families end up sliding into the welfare state for support. They are not feckless - but the tipping point at which it is beneficial to work is much higher.

I live my bug family??

As u sit here in my big cosy home drinking champagne.

One a banker, one a vet, my 3rd child A professional footballer...and a comfortable old age for me.

Bish

Bash

Bosh

P.S. Check out China for how well society functions with small families. One wage earner supporting one DC, two parents and four grandparents. 8 mouths to feed for each salary. 8 lives dependent on one career.

First you sharpen the knives for the big families.... Then what? Start euthanising old folk for taking up excessive resources?

I was a stay at home mum for many years

You get back what you give

Ophelia

There are no schools in our borough that are over subscribed and in recent years several high schools have closed and a couple merged.
Primary schools have typically 25/27 children per class.

Maybe it is worse in the South, but not all areas are the same.

Also H.ed is an option that seems to be growing, there are thousands of families choosing this and its also not possible to say just how many of us there are as many aren't known to the LEA.

I think that once you get below a certain standard of living then having more children is not a financial decision as the state is not supposed to let people go hungry.

Which is exactly as it should be. I am proud to live in a civilised country where education, healthcare and a level of benefits are given to everyone.

do you know what? I've got four- all boys so that's potentially zillions of sperm who are one day going to be more people to feed.

But I am bringing them up to be hard working tax paying types. And we do not claim benefits.

Does this make it ok?

Actually - its the single child families that are inefficiently using the planet's scarce resources. All of those new toys, meals-for-one and underoccupied cars.

I propose that breeding be only done with a license. The state can select a cohort of fit and effective parents who can be responsible for producing the next generation, in homesteads of between 10-15 children. They can be transported in diesel minibuses, and benefit from obvious economies of scale in feeding, housing and education.

I don't know if I am going to explain this very well but I have a friend who has 4 children and her and husband are struggling - she doesn't work due to a range of issues do to with health and the cost of child care . She was saying how she wasn't sure how she was going to afford her sons school for secondary school and then she told me she was trying for another child. Her benefits are capped and I don't think another child will bring any extra income .I was a bit surprised but I think that her need to have another child is a really complex issue to do with a need to feel wanted and her desire to have a 5th child is no less fierce than mine to have a 2nd.

What I am trying to say is people don't make logical decisions for their lives and its tricky not knowing their background why they are making choices that we wouldn't .

I think that once you get below a certain standard of living then having more children is not a financial decision as the state is not supposed to let people go hungry.

Yikes. I'm afraid I don't agree with you here at all.

Procrastreation, I assume I'm the right-wing nut you're speaking of. We're talking at cross-purposes. How can taxation & housing be weighted against large self-supporting families if they're self-supporting? Doesn't supporting ones self include housing? And, how can self-supporting large families be self-supporting if taxes are adjusted for children, as that's state support for children?

I am confused by this talk about your children as taxpayers. Presumably, all our children are future taxpayers. Unless you're suggesting that your children are more likely to be high earners than mine? A taxpayer gives; a taxpayer receives.

By the way, my original point was not related to taxes whatsoever. It was related to limited resources.

Children don't belong to families - they belong to society. Once they are 18 there is no particular cultural obligation for them to have anything to do with us - but they are certainly expected to get a job & pay taxes.

So - although it will cost the state 4 times as much to educate my family as yours, the economic reality of it is investing in proportion to future tax-payers, rather than 'giving us more'. That's why education is free/tax deductible - while dog training and fine wine collecting isn't.

The logic behind child benefit/favourable tax treatments for children is the same: to share the expense of raising the next generation of citizens. These are - of course - a drop in the ocean of expense that parents incur.

If people feel concerned about large families who are dependent on the welfare state, then it is not effective to approach this from the point of view of squeezing or shaming the people who are in that situation.

Having many children is not a reversible decision - and laugh at the idea that someone will decide to have a large family for an easy life on benefits.

The part of the equation that can flex is whether parents with 3+ children are working & self-supporting - or whether they are dependent on benefits. I argue that there is a 'benefit trap' making it very difficult for large families to work, unless they are earning very high salaries.

Stepping off the social security ladder may mean that:

• you lose free school meals for however many kids
• your home-school transport entitlement reduces
• you have to pay market rents - at which point you'll find that the housing market is polarised between mansions & tiny flats/ houseshares where the landlord will refuse to house you
• you pay childcare for however many kids - plus backup arrangements for inevitable sickness etc
• plus the usual things of dental care, transport to work etc.
• if you reach top tax band - you lose child benefit. Seriously - 40K supporting 6 people + in the SE is not wealthy.

This isn't meant to be benefit bashing - I don't begrudge anyone a hot dinner - but it's just to point out that it is a very big step to take. Without reflecting the underlying needs of the family within the tax system, the impact of benefit capping/generally moaning at big families will just be poorer kids.

Procrastreation, it's true that on average, your children will contribute 2x as much to the tax revenue base as mine. But they will also take out 2x as much. Theoretically, over an average person's lifetime, they will pay in and take out the same. I don't understand your logic.

Unless you're approaching this from a fuzzier calculation i.e. "every person contributes something to society", in which case any population growth must be good.

the majority of people at net takers from the tax system. only a minority of people contribute not only their own costs but also pay for others.

so its just not correct to say on average, a larger family will contribute more than it costs.

most large families will just cost more.

That makes no sense -wasteoftime - like Crowler said, it's a zero sum game - and there is no reason to think kids from large families are more or less likely to grow into millionaire super-contributors.

Crowler my point isn't that the calculations and judgements always seem to be done 'per adult head' (e.g. Mum gets XXXX in benefits & lives in a 5 bedroom house) . I'd argue that each child is worth the same. The actual economics of it is that child benefit is less for subsequent children, overall benefits are capped, a 2 different gender child family will have the same housing eligibility as a 4/5 child family.... taken in isolation a big family costs the state less 'per child'.

But the issue is that the benefits system is based on your needs & the tax system is based on your income. This creates a benefit trap for larger families, which makes it less likely they will be earning. Politics of hate won't change that.