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...

Milly, I am 40 and never had the slightest desire.

Also - I do recognise that £1000 a month is a lot of money for a family of 4 to live on. But the point being made is that against a headline income of £130,000 the reality is quite different in most cases.

Well, surely if older people are living for longer, the number of babies being born in the UK needs to increase, not decrease?

If there are going to be lots of elderly people past retirement age, then there needs to be a greater number of young working people so that there is enough money paid in taxes to help look after the elderly people.

Also, whenever tax credits are moaned about on here, it never seems to mentioned that most of that money goes back out into the economy. Families propped up by tax credits are not often in a position to save, so their money goes out to business. Whether it's small local businesses (cafés & soft play for example) or big companies and brands, the money is still going back out there to support businesses, drive the economy & help many people to stay in work. So they 'help' more than just the families who receive them.

Also, for all the people who run businesses & pay employees minimum wage/ have them on 0 hours contracts etc... Those employees are often only able to turn up and work for those wages because they are being "topped up" by tax credits. If they didn't have that extra money, a lot of employees would not be able to buy petrol to get up work or they would actually be homeless.

Therefore, tax credits also benefit many businesses: by providing "cheap" employees & by putting money into the economy so that more families can afford to buy the products or use the services that they provide.

I am not claiming that it is a good system, but there is a bigger picture to look at.

misguided that's what some sources say this open door migration stuff is about - so we don't end up with pensioners and no one to put money in the pension pot.

Additionally, if a family receiving tax credits is living in private rented accommodation, then the money from the tax credits (& housing benefit if claimed) is going into the hands of buy-to-let landlords who often have a portfolio of properties. Another example of people who benefit substantially from the current system.

Personally I'm always rather... surprised at people who are struggling financially but planning on having more children.

It's not that I disagree, but that my world view is just so completely different to that.

Having grown up in a 2 child family with very little money I can say that having money definitely did not stop my childhood being filled with love, and being wonderful HOWEVER I can still remember my parents trying to hide how worried they were about the cost of school uniform, and paying for bus passes and what not just for the two of us so I can't imagine how much worse it could have been for them had there been 3, 4 or 5 of us.

Savings? None of them here. Not possible at the moment. IME it can be easy for people to get stuck in the tax credits system.

Taxing people to look after the pensioners is great in theory. In practice, the pay in this country is so shit that many people don't actually pay any tax, and need top ups themselves.

It's all arse about tit.

And there is the theory that once the current bulging "crop" of pensioners dies off, then the falling birthrate will kind of balance it all out eventually. Having loads of children just as an economic resource was what Ceaucescu (so?) advocated.

We planned 2 dc and dc2 was planned for when dd1 was at school son only one dc in paid for childcare... well pregnancy #2 was twins so now we have 3. Can't really afford them but also not entitled to childcare help so struggle financially as I had to seriously reduce my working hours. I never wanted a big family but now I have 3 I realise that a houseful of dc is actually really fun. Probably won't have a 4th but not ruling it out. I do think if you waited until you could "afford" dc then hardly anyone should have them but I also think expecting the council to provide a larger than average house because you want lots of dc is unreasonable. But I also don't understand some spending choices made by people I know who refer to themselves as poor - won't go without alcohol but also can't afford to provide a cooked meal for their kids. Dh and I rarely buy alcohol as we cannot afford it.
Having s dc has definitely changed how I see money. We always had nice things but now money is tight we have to make clever choices. Going without ipads is okay for dh and I.

If there are going to be lots of elderly people past retirement age, then there needs to be a greater number of young working people so that there is enough money paid in taxes to help look after the elderly people.

The relevant word there is working. Yes, we do need working people to pay taxes, but at the moment we have a high unemployment rate, youth unemployment is especially high, and there is a huge surplus of unskilled workers.

So actually, we don't need any more people than we currently have, because we already have too many that are costing the country rather than contributing because there aren't enough well paid jobs.

Those employees are often only able to turn up and work for those wages because they are being "topped up" by tax credits.

You are talking about working tax credits there, which are an unfortunate necessity so long as the cost of living is so high compared to wages. You are right that there is currently a need for working tax credits to top up low wages, but that doesn't mean we need to pay out child tax credits as well. Child tax credits are paid according to how many children a person has, even when they have never paid a penny of tax to be credited with. We do not need child tax credits to enable people to work. The separate part of child tax credits that is only paid out for childcare to working people could be given directly to childcare providers so that working actually pays.

Fluffy: World fertility rates are in already in decline, have been for decades, and are now less than 2.5 children per woman. At their current rate, we'll be 'replacement rate' or less globally (2.1-2.3) around the mid-century. Population will grow while we get through the bulge of people already here, but are expected to go into decline after than when death rates catch up which is usually well after birth rates (obviously). Birth control is part of it, but there are a lot more issues at play, mostly what we already have here and making the choice as easy as possible.

I think the ire at the very few big families, particularly the poor ones, is at the wrong place. The why is going to be personal and individual to those families that trying to pigeonhole a why won't ever work and really, the wrong question I think. The real issue is the the minimum wage, a concept meant to allow a single earner to support a family, can now not support a single person in many places, and the current tax credits and benefits directly subsides the businesses that pay these low wages and dodgy contracts. Wages are being driven down by these businesses because they know their workers will still be supported. The benefits aren't just about supporting families, it's supporting the system that thrives on this environment and often goes unquestioned.

I have four children, we're on low wages and some tax credits (and I don't feel the need for more help, those I know who do need more practical help that austerity has cut than anything else). My sister has chosen not to have children at all. The why for either of us would involve a lot of complicated and subconscious thoughts we couldn't express.

I think very few people can actually 'afford' children tbh, you just get by somehow.

When I had my first we could manage (no help from state at all because we both worked ft), but we had no 'extra' money - it was enough to get by.

I planned as much as I could for my 2nd - so that he arrived just as my eldest became eligible for the 3 hr per day funded sessions at nursery (all 3+ kids got this in Scotland at the time). Again, we managed - but almost all my wages went on childcare at that time so we were only just managing (no spare cash for nice things but we were warm, fed, housed and clothed, with a car - so still better off than a lot of people in the grand scheme of things).

I would have loved another but knew if I did that as a family we would always be 'managing' rather than being financially comfortable - this is why I stopped at 2.

My friend on the other hand went on and had a 3rd, because she knew that the state would help - she managed the number of hours she worked very carefully to maximise tax credits etc and as such was on about the same income as me.

I don't know what the answer is, but it is galling when you look around and see other people doing what they want without thinking about how they'll manage - because they know someone will pick up the slack and they won't starve (won't live like kings obviously, but won't be without shelter/food).

And what spork says re minimum wage etc.

It is a selfish act to have such large families in this ridiculously over populated country. It us a strain on schools/NHS/housing. Whether you can afford them or not is not the only issue. As a frazzled mother of two, I am bemused why anyone would want more...its exhausting.

How does anyone decide if they can afford children? I mean, is there a calculation somewhere? Must depend on how much you think you need for an acceptable standard of living I suppose. I would think it very sad if anyone has no children for the reason of not having enough money - not to have even one.
I'm one of a quite large family so I am personally pleased my parents didn't have reservations about being able to afford lots of dcs! Not that I think there was so much choice in the past. We did not have a lot of money due to the types of work they were in, but we weren't on benefits and they supported a few of us through uni too. Not sure what my point is but just to remember these "extra" children are people too with contributions to make to the future.

Big families are not common enough to be such a problem.

It's no one else's business anyway.

It us a strain on schools/NHS/housing

It is not. There are not enough large families to blame this on. Besides, it is not like everyone has their quota of money and time. Would you tell someone with long term illness that they've had enough time spent on them? Or a child with extra needs that they've have enough money now?

I have a big family, but they will do and will pay back in their taxes.

Of course it is other peoples business when there aren't enough school places/long NHS waiting lists/over stretched maternity services.

The real issue is the the minimum wage, a concept meant to allow a single earner to support a family, can now not support a single person in many places, and the current tax credits and benefits directly subsides the businesses that pay these low wages and dodgy contracts. Wages are being driven down by these businesses because they know their workers will still be supported. The benefits aren't just about supporting families, it's supporting the system that thrives on this environment and often goes unquestioned.
^This is a much more interesting question ^

Of course it is other peoples business when there aren't enough school places/long NHS waiting lists/over stretched maternity services.

Child tax credits are paid according to how many children a person has,

But so are Working Tax Credits. It a lot of cases to an even greater extent.

Bigger families aren't to blame for that. There aren't enough of them.

Really? i have 4

On a basic level you are right. We don't need the population to increase at the alarming rate it is doing so.

I won't be around when the world really becomes overpopulated, nor would I want to be. I have an image of hell on earth. People scrapping for a roof over their heads, and food. That may not happen I guess, if there are a few natural disasters or world wars along the way. Otherwise, what will stop my pessimistic view from becoming a reality?