Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Big families

256 replies

ActionA · 13/12/2013 11:57

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...

OP posts:
CranberrySaucyJack · 13/12/2013 12:31

I don't think benefits should be more generous. I think the massive discrepancy between wages and the cost of living should be tackled instead.

A lot of people can't afford to rent or have even one child without help from housing benefit or tax credits, so what's the difference really between that and them then needing to rely on state help to support three kids instead?

If people went out to work all week and earned enough to support themselves and a "normal" size family without state help, then I think they'd put a heck of a lot more thought into having children if the extra third or fourth child was the one that pushed them over the threshold into poverty or benefit reliance.

CynicalandSmug · 13/12/2013 12:32

I have never wanted children, and really couldn't afford even one if I did want any. Is the urge that strong that people must have children even if they really cannot afford it? A genuine question, I really find it all confusing. From my friends I see that raising children is hard enough without struggling for money.

samandi · 13/12/2013 12:33

I don't think there should be endless benefits for having more than two kids. (Would like to see them capped at two.) But then nor do I think wealthier people should be having more than two kids either. Unfortunately, most of the world's population explosion is happening in countries where we can't do much about it though.

But back to the thread ... yes, it's silly to have more kids than you know you can care for. I assume most people doing so are poorly educated and have no or few other aims in life - studies in other countries show that the number of kids women have drops sharply with corresponding rises in education.

samandi · 13/12/2013 12:34

We also need to ensure that people with no kids are looked after in their old age.

And this.

redshifter · 13/12/2013 12:46

YANBU.
I agree with you on redistribution of wealth etc. Many people call me a dinosaur old fashioned socialist.

However in many cases having another child can make it easier to feed and house your family as your income goes up, as does you LHA entitlement.

WooWooOwl · 13/12/2013 12:49

I agree there needs to be better redistribution of wealth too, but that should be done through wages, not benefits. Company wealth is what needs to be shared, not individual wealth that people have earned fair and square.

DorothyParker1 · 13/12/2013 12:51

How have people like George Osbourne earned their wealth fair and square?

WooWooOwl · 13/12/2013 12:55

I have no idea about George Osbourne's personal circumstances, but I don't have a problem with people eating money and then passing it down to their children. All decent parents pass on any benefit they can to their children, that's human nature.

blameitonthecaffeine · 13/12/2013 13:00

I have 7 children. I wanted 5, the twins were a happy accident. I can't really explain why, I love kids.

Was it irresponsible? I don't know. Maybe it's not environmentally/economically friendly but loads of people my age don't seem to want children anymore and the population is shrinking isn't it?

I don't think it's fair to say that money is the deciding factor between responsible/irresponsible though. We happen to be very wealthy. My oldest child has been struggling with anorexia for years. Another has OCD. So it would seem that, despite our money, we have managed to fuck our kids up anyway. I know another large family with far less and their children are very happy and stable. Shit happens, both financial and otherwise. I just believe in helping out the children who are here, regardless of their circumstances.

jellybeans · 13/12/2013 13:00

Great point Dorothy

angelos02 · 13/12/2013 13:05

the population is shrinking No it isn't. It is rocketing up at an alarming rate.

MrsDeVere · 13/12/2013 13:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Lifeisaboxofchocs · 13/12/2013 13:07

People should not have more children than they can afford.

However, if they do, the state should step in and assist, as they do. Why should a child suffer because of their parents' ineptitude?

DorothyParker1 · 13/12/2013 13:08

I have no idea about George Osbourne's personal circumstances, but I don't have a problem with people eating money and then passing it down to their children. All decent parents pass on any benefit they can to their children, that's human nature.

I have a problem firstly with claiming most things are "human nature", although I do think in the world we live in, most people of course want to give their kids the best start in life they can and to be, in that sense, selfish. Which is why I think there should be massive inheritance tax/redistribution of wealth. I just don't think somebody should have an infinitely better chance of living a comfortable, sucessful life just because daddy was a baronet.

angelos02 · 13/12/2013 13:09

mrsDeVere have as many kids as you want...just don't expect other people to pay for them.

MILLYMOLLYMANDYMAX · 13/12/2013 13:10

Cynical how old are you? Believe me the urge to have children when it hits you is like no other. You might see your friends with kids struggling but ask them if they would like to get rid of their children for a sum of money. How many who would seriously take the offer will tell you what you need to know.

WooWooOwl · 13/12/2013 13:10

There's a big difference between controlling fertility, and paying for the fertility choices someone makes.

I wouldn't agree with the state trying to tell people how many children they should have either, but I would very much support the state if it said that it would only pay cash benefits out for two children.

Lifeisaboxofchocs · 13/12/2013 13:10

And focussing on Politicians as being part of the really rich is daft and ignorant.

Anyone who works in the City, knows that a salary of £130k really is peanuts relatively speaking.

Floggingmolly · 13/12/2013 13:11

Or because Daddy worked his arse off, Dorothy? Why the hell should it be redistributed amongst those too feckless to do the same?
Unfair and completely demotivational.

HesterShaw · 13/12/2013 13:12

Eating their money, then passing it?

Interesting concept....

DorothyParker1 · 13/12/2013 13:12

And focussing on Politicians as being part of the really rich is daft and ignorant.

You do understand that quite a large number of politicians are also part of the landed gentry and/or the business elite? Not saying they all are, but certainly a disproportionate number.

Seff · 13/12/2013 13:13

I'd worry about a country where only the super rich had children.

£130k is peanuts? WTAF? I feel sick reading that.

MrsDeVere · 13/12/2013 13:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DorothyParker1 · 13/12/2013 13:13

Or because Daddy worked his arse off, Dorothy? Why the hell should it be redistributed amongst those too feckless to do the same?
Unfair and completely demotivational.

Why should a kid who hasn't worked it's arse off live a life of luxury just because it's daddy did? And the poor aren't always feckless, you know. Hmm

WooWooOwl · 13/12/2013 13:14

I just don't think somebody should have an infinitely better chance of living a comfortable, sucessful life just because daddy was a baronet.

Neither do I tbh, but I have a huge problem with people not being allowed to give what they have to their children. If you took that right away from people, you may as well go down the route of having a one child policy like China's. It would be the state being equally controlling over people's lives in both scenarios.