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...

'so she has three children and has never worked a day in her life'

I hate it when people say that, presumably she has brought up children?

I get you Heartbroken I loved my ex with all my heart - I married the fucker and I never wanted to be married - he left me with 3 small children including a baby - people have no idea how you life can change and you have no control over it

Tetchy, or making a valid point you can't find a decent reply to?

Why is it cynical to make plans for the future should things go wrong. Lots of people have life insurance or other policies re health for that exact reason. Nobody wants it to happen or expects it to but prepare for it should it occur. Its like house insurance, nobody wants to claim but want to ensure they have cover in place just in case.

Likewise lots of parents remain in work so that should one lose their job etc the other still has a salary to pay the bills or care for their child.

Its very silly to believe in a perfect life where everything stays the same and nothing will happen as life is not like that. Thats not looking for bad things to happen but being realistical that life is not the perfect storybook. I have been married for a long time and intend to be for a long time but i dont have a crystal ball to know that we both never be made redudant, fall ill etc so ensure we have sensible plans in place and both working helps with that.

dont think the number of large families matters, its how much it costs tax payers.

Most of the social security bill goes to pensioners, not to people of working age.
? Payments aimed at pension-age recipients (such as state pension, Pension Credit etc.) account for 54% of total social security spend, projected to rise to 58% by 2016-17.xx

www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/Challenging_12_myths_and_stereotypes.pdf

I doubt there are very many that truly self support and suspect that most either claim full benefits or CB and CTC.

I'm not sure as I can't find figures.

However working parents will be paying tax. They will have paid prior to being parents and when their dependents are grown they'll pay again as will the grown DC so may depend if you look at short term while families have dependent DC or over lifetimes.

However I don't think CB and CTC are actually influencing people to have more children - as it's not that much money. It might well be enough to help keep more DC out of childhood poverty - something that impacts over a DC entire life and therefore might well be cost effect in preventing longer term problems - however again no data to support that.

1% of families are made up of more than one generation that has been workless
So, if we actually look at the stats that Gordy provided then it means that even though big families are using school places and the NHS, their children are likely to be working when they become adults and they then pay tax back into the system. They are not any more of a drain than any other family.

And if we're using anecdotes (as WooWoo did) then ime all of my siblings went on to have professional careers, as have their working age children. Not only do we all pay tax, but we have also provided the education system and NHS with 5 teachers; 2 nurses; 2 opticians; and a social worker. We're not unique amongst big families, or families who have had a parent dependent on benefits.

HappyMummy I don't think it is cynical to prepare for the future but even someone who has prepared could still meet unexpected obstacles eg if a marriage fails then your income has halved but your bills have doubled.

Throw in an unexpected illness and we're all just a slip away from having to turn to benefits.

Most people only have savings and insurance policies that can support their lifestyle for a short period of time and the majority of people in the lowest income band, have no savings at all.

www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Social-Welfare/IncomePoverty/CoreAnalysis#a8

I would put a 'like' to KateAdiesEarings's posts if there were such a button.

MrsDV, the point I was making was in response to the one you made about my anecdotal evidence, or experience, being unsubstantiated nonsense.

Unsubstantiated yes. Nonsense, no.

There are people that have more children so they don't have to work, whether you want to call it nonsense or not, it happens.

Thank you monicalewinski

'There are people that have more children so they don't have to work'

I would imagine though if they have 5+ it could well be harder than working so that cannot be the only reason. Perhaps for some there are deeper social reasons why they feel estranged from the rest of society or the workplace.

I have 5 DC and haven't done paid work for 14 years and have no career ambitions while DC are young. Many people are the same and see motherhood as their main job...

I agree, it is embarrassing that grown adults would rather the state support them.

Big families are lovely, but they are a luxury that people should provide for themselves, including having a back up plan incase one partner becomes ill or gets made redundant.

And yes, I do think three children constitutes a big family when all members of it are being supported by the state, because that's a lot of people taking out of the pot. When a family is self sufficient, then it doesn't really matter what size they are.

But again,

You can say you think it is wrong. That is a valid opinion but all this frothing from various posters about it going on all the time, it bringing the country to its knees

I could say the same about people who complain about 'bedroom tax' or austerity on a relevant thread, but it doesn't add much to a debate.

Earlier this year the company I worked for went bust. I was so very worried. How would we pay the bills, survive.

Actually now, although financially about £30 p/w worse off, the overall quality of life for my family is much better.

Instead of being stressed out and totally tired, I can now enjoy my children, help them with homework, read to them, play with them etc, when I was working I hardly ever saw them and was too knackerdd when I did.

My eldest DC has now left home so I am liable for the 'bedroom tax'.

I have worked out all my legal entitlements and was shocked to realise that I would be £200 p/w better off if I had another child. (CTC, WTC, CB, HB/LHA, council tax credit, plus no bedroom tax)
I rely totally on benefits at the moment, so not benefit bashing, just pointing out my individual circumstances.

I will not have another child, I don't want to. I think it is extremely rare for someone to have another child just to increase benefits.
When we were both working we decided not to have more DC because we couldn't afford it. 7f I was in in the same financial position then as I am now we would probably had another DCmif we really wanted one because we would not have been worse off, we would probably hace been better off, both financially and in quality of life and housing.

Qute an incentive to have more DC if you really wanted to and couldn't see any positive future for your job /housing situation.

I would have seen this as morally wrong on a societal level but morally right on selfish personal level in doing what is best for my family.

I agree with OP's sentiments but disagree with her wondering whybpeople would have more DC if they were struggling. In some circumstances it is a fecking 'no brainer'.

"happy what are you plans?
The ones that will cover you for all eventualities?"

We have life insurance, redundancy and illness cover. Not exactly rocket science Its important to us that we both have the means to support ourselves and DS should something happen to either of us so we both work.

I think its important for many reasons to carry on working after become a parent not least to finance that choice but for many others. Becoming a SAHP with no earnings puts a person in a very vunerable position.

If we abolished child benefit and tax credits and people had to fund their children themselves, it would make for very interesting reading to see how much our birth rate goes down. Everybody would be on the same footing rather than some getting, in effect, a payrise for every child or an excuse to not work.

and if your partner left you what 'insurance' do you have for that?

oh and if you abolished CB and CTC I would BECOME a lone parent ON BENEFITS because I couldn't afford to work

Gordy, should that happen i work so have an income. Its not that hard to understand surely?

Working is for many second nature, sadly for others benefits are. Its no longer seen as a welfare state but a lifestyle choice or top up system for peoples choices.

Thank you DazzleU , those are some interesting statistics.

It seems we are fed a big exaggeration by the media on the "Wayne and Waynetta" benefit claimants when the larger proportion of Benefits goes to pensioners.

Interesting.

I know that they account for the age group with the title of most likely to appear in A&E due to alcohol related accident.... And yet we are still fed the media stereotype of the hoodie teenage binge drinker when they are not the majority in this category.

My view- they make up a hugggggge amount of the electorate. Expect to see more policies aimed directly at them in the next 18mths before the next election.

I think there should be a benefit cap at two children, meaning that benefits are paid for the first 2 children and those that want to have more can do so but will need to provide for them by themselves. That is much fairer since two is the replacement rate and it means families are not stopped from having as many children as they like but after two it will be their responsibility to budget for more and not the taxpayers. It will stop the incentive to have more children for the extra money and stop the perverse situation of those in work on middle incomes having to think about whether they can afford to have children whilst those not in work get more benefits for each subsequent child.

Either that or just change the system so that instead of getting a cash payment for children (child benefit/child tax credits), more is invested in things like childcare, education, healthy meals for kids (give a man a fish etc).

so do I - do I win I hope you income is enough to cover your mortgage, childcare, transport costs, bills, and feed and clothe your selves

Mine wasn't - hence the need for CTC - it's not that hard to understand surely :)

Yanbu. People are stupid and selfish, cramming multiple children into one bedroom etc. As long as mum and dad get what they want......

People who don't want to have children should be offered an alternative like being able to have as many cars as they want, all funded by the state. Much cheaper over 20 years than children and why shouldn't they get something back if they are paying tax to subsidise other peoples wants ?