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:
HesterShaw · 13/12/2013 13:14

The population is not shrinking though. Who on earth told you that? There was a report out yesterday saying it could be well over 100 million in 2050. All those people on this little island.

Hell.

Lifeisaboxofchocs · 13/12/2013 13:15

Seff, not exaggerating. Those of us who work or have worked in the City, know that the salaries are unbelievable. Expenses though are very high. DH pays £4.5k a year for train fare alone

jellybeans · 13/12/2013 13:16

'Why the hell should it be redistributed amongst those too feckless to do the same?'

People on low incomes or minimum wage aren't feckless though?

DontmindifIdo · 13/12/2013 13:17

I think the question is a good one, you will have people who could afford a large family then something happens and suddenly they can't, that's rather different to not being able to afford to give a good lifestyle to the DCs you have and then deciding to have another knowing that doing so will make an already shit situation worse.

But I would imagine that in every case there's a slightly different answer, be it religous, moral, selfish, or just not thinking it through reasons.

So far we're on 38 posts and no one has answered the question, you probably won't get anyone who honestly will.

ItsIgginningToLookALotLikeXmas · 13/12/2013 13:18

Flogging only, do you really believe that those who work the hardest earn the most? The people I see around me putting in the most graft are often in poorly paid jobs. I don't believe the link between work ethic and income are in any way as straightforward as you suggest.
Or perhaps you were being ironic, with your use of the word "feckless" in particular!

jellybeans · 13/12/2013 13:19

At the end of the day if people were less selfish and we shared more it would be a nicer world to live in. Some of the upper classes don't want equal chances and good education for all, they want their child to have an advantage. We should be aiming for and want great life chances for all no matter what the parental income or background.

angelos02 · 13/12/2013 13:19

No MrsDeVere I don't have children.

Lifeisaboxofchocs · 13/12/2013 13:20

Those advocating redistribution of wealth are advocating Communism.

Communism may well marginally bring up the destitute (BUT there are very very few true destitute in the UK), but at the same time squashes entrepreneurial spirit, culture and arts and has many other negative features. China? Stalin Russia? No thanks.

WooWooOwl · 13/12/2013 13:21

People have answered the question.

The answer is that people will have big families they cannot afford because they know that other people will pay for them, and they have little ambition or motivation to do much else. The point has also been made that having more children you can't pay for may increase your income because you get more LHA/HB and child tax credits.

HesterShaw · 13/12/2013 13:22

The main problem in this country is shit pay. Why should someone working very hard full time need wages propped up by the government? It's immoral. "Feckless" indeed - what a Victorian concept. "You would be better off if only you tried harder" - what bullshit. That's why it's called the poverty "trap". Most poverty in this country is in working households.

(slight aside)

Seff · 13/12/2013 13:25

But it's a chicken and egg situation lifeis. Are expenses higher because people earn more or do people earn more because expenses are higher?

I'm not saying anyone should, but if you're on JSA and can't find a job that suits you, you'd be advised to retrain. If life is that expensive, despite the ridiculous salary, people could move and get a new job.

Once again, I'm not saying it's that simple. I'm trying to think of other things to say here but I simply cannot comprehend that a tiny island like this has people living in such vastly different circumstances. Maybe when you even it all out, our lives are similar, but I just can't get it - sorry!

We live on less than £30k, so where does that £100k go? Who's benefiting from it, if it's not the person earning it?

(Not having a go, genuinely trying to get my head around this)

Seff · 13/12/2013 13:26

China and Russia are/were communist in name only. True socialism would be very different IMO. Unfortunately, society is so greedy that it wouldn't be allowed to happen that way.

MrsDeVere · 13/12/2013 13:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DorothyParker1 · 13/12/2013 13:28

*Those advocating redistribution of wealth are advocating Communism.

Communism may well marginally bring up the destitute (BUT there are very very few true destitute in the UK), but at the same time squashes entrepreneurial spirit, culture and arts*

Well, not necessarily. The British government redistributed wealth much more than they do now up to the early 80s and I wouldn't call that Communism. In addition to which, I wouldn't describe Stalin's Russia or Mao's China as in any sense genuinely Communist. To suggest that genuine Communism "crushes the arts" is pure guess work.

Fluffytent · 13/12/2013 13:29

genuine question-

Can someone explain why the population is growing? (I know it is)...but how does that fit with the advent of birth control in the 60s... For which you would have thought there would be a decrease or stay the same?

Thank you!

redshifter · 13/12/2013 13:29

DontmindifIdo

I think I have answered part of the question the way I see it. The OP said ". But that help just ISN'T there, so why insist on having a big family when you can't support them?". Well I said in many, many cases the help IS there and IME in some cases having an extra child can actually improve the quality of life for your family.

DontmindifIdo · 13/12/2013 13:31

WooWooOwl - to be fair, you assume that's the answer, no one has come on and said that. There might be some that assume they'll get more benefits than they do, or that there is a greater stock of social housing than the reality, but so far, people who have a large family are only saying either they can afford it themselves, or they could at the point they had the DCs then things changed. It just seems odd that when things are already bad, some people chose to make it worse.

ItsIgginningToLookALotLikeXmas · 13/12/2013 13:32

Lifeisaboxofchocs - or socialism, surely, not only communism? Also any kind of taxation is an example of redistribution of wealth, so it is practised by all parties in UK. So, I guess David Cameron must be a communist then!

WooWooOwl · 13/12/2013 13:35

Fluffy, the population is growing because people are living longer, because there are lower child mortality rates thanks to medicine and vaccination, and simply because if two people have three children, and they then go on to have their own three children, and then each of those goes on to have three children, then the population is going to grow.

DontmindifIdo · 13/12/2013 13:38

Redshifter, that's a good point. I guess in the sort term it might make things worse for a long term improvement...

Fluffytent - people are living longer and we are able to keep people alive who would previously have died of various illnesses. Remember when state pensions were brought in you were expected to only live for under 5 years after getting it. We are growing as a population because not enough people are dying to balance out those being born.

Fluffytent · 13/12/2013 13:50

Thank you, that makes sense. Not as simple as just a birth control thing.

nonmifairidere · 13/12/2013 13:56

I just despise the entitled attitude to having children. It is no-one's right, nor an absolute need.. Not having children or restricting family size doesn't kill you. The obsession that drives the multiple IVFer is just another demonstration of I'll have it because I want it attitude. My parents just had me because it was what they could afford. I had no children
because I could not afford a family - I love children, by the way. The world didn't end, I didn't suffer a nervous collapse, I just got on with my life.

HesterShaw · 13/12/2013 13:56

Populations grow exponentially.

HesterShaw · 13/12/2013 13:57

The obsession that drives the multiple IVFer is just another demonstration of I'll have it because I want it attitude.

I really think you should leave that out of it, on this thread.

oscarwilde · 13/12/2013 14:02

Seff - a pretty hefty chunk goes straight to the Inland Revenue, and another chunk on National Insurance.
Take home pay will be circa £78,500 or £6,500 per month (not allowing for health insurance or other deductibles)
Most jobs with incomes at this level exist only in central London necessitating a ludicrously high mortage and/or very high transport costs, and childcare anywhere between £12k-£30k a year.
Mortgage @£2500 per month
Transport @£200
Childcare @£2000 (assumes two children)
Household bills excl food @£500-800
Remaining disposable income could be as little as £1000 to cover Food, holidays, presents, entertainment, savings etc etc.
Believe me, it gets eaten up very quickly.

I don't think there should be more help. I think that there should be a level of assistance for all to cover a reasonable sized family of 2-3 children. Any more children than that is at the choice of the parents and down to them to fund.

The problem with this (which I fully acknowledge) is the poverty trap of families that fall on hard times, "the accidental extra child" etc etc. It would not behove us as a society to punish children who had no choice to be born or have economic need. As a society however, I do think we should encourage people to be responsible for ensuring they do plan their families to ensure a reasonable standard of living.

In a reasonable society, there should be sufficient funds to ensure that all children should have a reasonable level of education, housing, nutrition and healthcare. As someone who grew up within an extremely large family, I don't think that the state is obliged to satisfy a current level of self-entitlement that children should have their own rooms etc. provided by the state.