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...

Yes doubtless it does happen but as I said before blame policy that allows it not your friends who make perfectly legitimate claims

What amazes me is as things stand any one of us could make those same choices but don't, I wonder why that is ? Could it be because a life on benefits isn't something the majority aspire to as actually it really isn't all that wonderful and as far as I can see is a life of boredom lack of future and with a finite time span as presumably there comes a time when no more babies can be had

How many large families on benefits are there in this country? I thought last time somebody looked, the number was actually very small.

When I say I don't think benefits are generous, I mean that they literally give you enough to scrape by on.

I don't know why anyone would 'choose' a life on benefits, personally. It's not fun, you can't afford any extras, it's just shit. And it knocks your self-esteem down to nothing.

Because there are always people who think that all benefits claimants are work-shy scroungers, when it's simply not the case. And threads like this always bring those ignorant fuckwits out of the woodwork.

I think there is a moral argument nowadays though, even if you don't rely on benefits, you still take a lot out of the system, maternity care, education, healthcare. Not to mention the environmental impact of having large families.

I'm aware that someone else's experience of something isn't more valid, or more likely to indicate a trend than my experience. Thanks.

It's very easy to call stuff 'unsubstantiated nonsense' when there isn't real data available to look at though. We could put that claim on anything people talk about when discussing benefits.

People struggling because of the bedroom tax?

No, can't be happening because there's nothing but anecdotal evidence to back it up. Unsubstantiated nonsense that is.

People killing themselves because they have been taken of disability benefits?

Nah, you can't prove that's what caused it, so it's just unsubstantiated nonsense. After all, there's nothing but opinions to back it up.

See how it works?

I have no reason not to believe the stories people tell on MN, so I believe them if they sound plausible. If I don't have personal anecdotes about an issue, I'm not small minded enough to think that it can't be true.

you still take a lot out of the system, maternity care, education, healthcare.

Would you say that to someone sick or to someone with extra needs?

I pay for all of my children, and god keep them safe they will pay back too.

I also think the horse bolted long ago with regards to the benefit culture. We're now on 3rd generations of people who have never worked & see benefits as a God given right. Nobody wants to see these children starving, on the streets, so I don't see what can be done.

Cory, it depends how you define large families. I think there was some research done, but it was looking for families with really large numbers of children. Three or four didn't count from what I remember reading on here about it at the time.

So naturally, the study concluded that there weren't many families with large numbers of children, but it all depends on how you define large.

Pregnancy is a choice nowadays. Illness isn't.

The child didn't decide to get its mamma pregnant, did it?

Heartbroken, you didn't need to justify anything btw - you are accessing the safety net that is there, that's exactly what it's for.

Glad things are looking up for you, too.

I dont think the number of large families matters, its how much it costs tax payers. I doubt there are very many that truly self support and suspect that most either claim full benefits or CB and CTC.

Its also the cost of healthcare, both to the mum and all the children. Schooling costs etc?

Moaning that you cant work after a change in circumstances as you have x number of children means that no back up plan was in place. Its sensible to think well i can afford x children now but should i be on my own/fall ill etc i could afford x number. Nobody guarantees the future. The number of women who decide not to work and then end up on benefits is astounding. Lots will then claim they can only work 10-2 term time etc. Given childcare is abundant in the UK and thousands of women work, many simply refuse to.

With a few children, benefits easily amount to more than somebody working full time in a standard job. If they purely provided basic food, heat and housing then so many wouldnt choose to live on them. Given in the past some of the christmas lists posted from posters who dont work, i doubt anybody can say they are paid at a very basic level to parents.

14 % of all families with DC have more than 3 DC
from www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/family-size/2012/family-size-rpt.html#tab-One-in-seven-families-with-children-had-three-or-more-children

No idea how they counted blended families and such.

www.populationmatters.org/documents/family_sizes.pdf

Socio-economic class does not seem to impact on family size: the proportion of families with 3 or more children is fairly evenly distributed across all socio-economic categories

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/family-size/2012/family-size-rpt.html
Nearly 9 in 10 couple families with three or more dependent children had either one or both parents working

I found this figure a bit shocking as thought more parents than that would be working who had 3 or 3 + DC- but then it doesn't say how long term the unemployment is, the number that might be lone parents with young DC or number that might be affect by DC with complex needs incompatible or heavily impacting on parental ability to work or even if the parents are retired or independently wealthy.

We had 3 DC - which we can afford this despite cost of living rising quite markedly in last few years and wages stagnating - not sure how I was suppose to predict that.

Separation/divorce, death, serious illnesses, redundancies - would all affect the financial stability of our family - not sure how at time of conception those things can be predicted.

I admit there are people out there who make daft decisions IMO including how many DC to have but that doesn't translate into everyone having more than 2 DC or DC at all hasn't gone in with a great deal of forethought or that decisions made are incorrect because they differ from what others decide or the 'norm'.

Erm, hello. I've already stated that I am on benefits, and I can tell you that they do only cover what is deemed is necessary. As I've said, I'm very lucky in that I have family to help out, but not everyone has that.

There are people having to choose between heating and eating at the moment. Some of them will be on benefits. Benefits are shit. I don't understand how anyone on them has a decent quality of life, because we sure as hell don't.

And stop talking about people making plans for if their life goes to shit. Who is that cynical? At what point in my relationship should I have been thinking 'oh, hang on, what if he suddenly, out of the blue, decides he wants out'? Why would I think that? That's not how people behave in relationships - if you're constantly thinking that way it says a lot about your relationship. I thought we were together for life - so did he until about this time last year. Saying people should 'plan' for that is ridiculous.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths some actually FACTS

Heartbroken you have nothing to explain = you are claiming what you are entitled to

I have 3 kids, planned and funded by ourselves - until my ex ran off with another woman

I work and I rely heavily on tax credits to do so - I am not even a teeny tiny bit 'ashamed' of that - I pay for my kids - the state helps me work

I had the kids I could afford but life changes and that's what benefits are for

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/family-size/2012/family-size-rpt.html#tab-Employment-of-parents-in-the-UK

5% couples with 1 or 2 children have neither parent working.
13% of couples with 3 or more children have neither parent working.

Gordys - thanks, I know I'm entitled to it.

It just amazes me that some people think I shouldn't have had my dc (in hindsight) because I didn't plan for my ex deciding he didn't want me any more after 19 sodding years.

oh an 1% 1% of families are made up of more than one generation that has been workless and of those only 9% has never worked