To not get the "I have loads of kids so I can claim benefits and have an easy life"idea

[Lancashiregal10]

Taking to my neighbour today who has five kids. Her and her husband claim benefits.
We live in a part council estate/ part privately owned
Today and many times in the past she has took great delight in telling me that they had five kids to claim all the benefits. She admits they would only have had one if they had to work.
Before I had DS 10 months early I just used to shrug and think "each to their own". I know this sort of talk would annoy a lot of people but I was of the opinion that I would not swap places with her for the world and my husband and I get a lot out of our careers.
So anyway talking to her today I realised something.
Taking care of a baby is hard work (never mind five under eight)
This lady is always running round after her kids and always looks completely knackard as does her hubby. They never seem to have any time to relax, the nights trying to get their kids to sleep are awful as they all have to share bedrooms and when one kids wakes it sets the others off.
I want to shake her and say "you do realise working is actually easier then having all these kids" (four if which you did not really want) though I course I have no doubt in my mind she loves them to bits.
I just don't get the thinking of some people!
Can I also say this is not a benefit bashing thread and I am highly in favour of the Welfare state for those who need it. I guess I just don't understand how some people think a house full of kids is easier then going to work. And that you would have kids for that reason.
Also is the amount you get really so fabulous that you would do this?

Lancashire girl a lot of your post was about how she looks knackered running around after her kids implying she doesn't cope....no different to my comment.

I don't think if people really don't like children they could tolerate 5 just for the benefits, I think it's more likely people start having children or rather don't make much effort not to have them, get into that lifestyle and carry on.

People say 26k isn't much, post-tax it is, and more to the point, if you are someone with fewer qualifications, or large gaps on your CV where you had several children, or haven't retraining so have out of date knowledge, there is no way on this earth you are going to be able to earn that type of money, plus pay for childcare (even just 20% of it) for several children. So you are locked into the children/benefit cycle not as a great alternative for a fabby high-paid job with international travel, but as a realistic alternative to working in a high street shop for the minimum wage.

I certainly have several friends who do their calculations carefully when deciding how much to work- which varies from none (although that friend did go back to work when youngest was 6 and I did encourage her to do so) to minimum to claim tax credits- at the time it was the 16 hour rule, but I think that has changed.

However, I would still hate to live like that because 5 is too many for me, and even though I only get about 26k take home (so after tax) myself at this time point, it's likely to increase.

I think benefits are likely to get cut and the rules harsher and given you can't undo 5 children (and most likely they are loved and wanted too) it is a precarious place to be.

This all comes down to how we define 'work'.

We live in a capitalist patriarchy which places social value on paid work over unpaid work. It is no coincidence that most unpaid work is done by women.

Why don't we as a society value the work of childraising?

OP is correct in that looking after 5dcs 24/7 is harder than most jobs.

Personally I think it is more valuable work than being on the counter in McDonald's.

We need more children to be born to pay for our future pensions.

I have no problem with paying tax to allow some large families to raise their children without paid work and without poverty. It is only going to be for 20 years out if a 40 year working life.

We don't need that many extra children as a nation, weatherall. What happens when they get old? We will need even more DCs to provide for them, which is, by definition, a pyramid scheme, which has already started to collapse, as there aren't enough working people paying in to support the current pensioners.

We need a replacement number of children and no more. My parents have 13 grandchildren, far more than the required replacement level of 4 or 5.

Weatherall it's not 20 years out of a 40 year working life though because its very hard to get work after an absence of 20 years! There are lots of threads on MN about people missing 2 years and having difficulty getting back in to a well-paid job after one or two children. People don't walk back into 34k pretax jobs after 20 years out of the workplace.

Secondly, you assume all five children are going on to be positive tax-payers (i.e. paying in more than they take out), again this is quite a large assumption, social mobility has never been lower in the UK so if your parents are low waged/on state income, you are more likely to be yourself.

I think its very hard to bring up five children and I have to say the two families I know locally with five, the mums are both single and both work part-time (in low waged jobs) which I don't know how they do, to be honest. Just getting to school seems a major outing. I don't think either of them chose this life though, I think they had the children when in a relationship and then got left on their own- not quite sure what else they can do other than get on with it the best they can.

Fid in the UK it is compared to other less developed countries where there is no state.

However getting back to OP

I think your neighbour is maybe trying to justify her choices a bit much by mentioning this a few times. I agree, I find my two hard work - I always thought a big family would be lovely Look forward to going back to work and getting my brain back.

Most people are smart about it and if they have lots of children they space it out so they can stay out of work for longer in rl. Most are not going to work full time if at all ever again

Most people are smart about it and if they have lots of children they space it out so they can stay out of work for longer in rl. Most are not going to work full time if at all ever again

Defiant, I recognise people have many reasons for friendships, so I hope I soften my statement a little by saying it was a rhetorical question. It just seems really shortsighted of those people, and hesitantly I wonder if they are envious of the fact you are a contributor because you are in the right place in your life and made proactive choices on how you want to do things. All assumptions of course, but they probably see your life path is ultimately more desirable and are masking it with negativity, which is a shame, but there you go. Good that you are carrying on regardless and maybe they will come to respect you, not beat you down!

We do need some families to have 4 or 5 children to make up for the 1 in 5 women who won't have any DCs.

The replacement level is over 2. Everyone having 1 or 2 isn't enough.

With the cost of childcare it just isn't practical to work with 3+ DCs. Obv there are a few exceptions.

Out of 5 DCs I would assume that most of them will work most of their lives. Most people do.

People who are in the benefits trap usually in my experience go back to work once their DCs are older. So they would be working for 20+ years after child rearing. Especially as a lot of these patents tend to be younger. It is mist likely to be low paid work but for lots of people that is the only work they will ever have, DCs or not.

Has anyone actually got off their arses and looked at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation figures for larger families on benefits...

thought not.

I believe my comment was very different Itsjustmeagain
I not point did I say I was laughing at her not being able to cope. I did not even use the word cope. Just because someone is knackard does not mean they are not coping. Yet you seems to think it was funny and condoned that she could be on another board laughing at me "not being able to cope with my one child"

Has anyone got off their arses and looked at the statistics on WORKING people with many children and the (lack of) help available to them?

No, thought not.

ICan
I referred, strangely, to the subject under discussion. Something you were complaining about me not doing earlier.

Goodness me, you are, despite what you claim elsewhere, an arrogant little madam. I'm awfully glad you're not one of my students.
Now, I would suggest that you go back a few years and try to read some of the old benefit bashing threads. They are deeply unpleasant, hence the derailing here.

I'm not arrogant, I just retain the right to converse with people how they choose to converse with me. As many people do. Perhaps if you focused on your methods Dawn, you would not find yourself getting into these positions quite so often.

Neither have I 'suggested differently elsewhere' which basically means you have searched my precious posts for a stick to beat me and not found one. How pleasant of you.

Anyway hopefully one day we can all be allowed a proper conversation about all this. I am not into the mud slinging so I am off.

My methods? This position often.
DFOD.

Oh, and somewhat unfortunately, I have an eidetic memory.

Itsjustme

You would impose a benefit cap after two children on the poor so that non benefit people with large families like yourself don't get criticised?

Great sense of logic there. Clearly a Tory policy adviser.

I'm completely with weatherall on this subject.

My daughter has found herself in a benefit trap with just one child. Her boyfriend pissed off soon after the baby was born; renting a two bed flat privately in the south east, she cannot afford to go back to work.

I grew up in a deprived town - my mum is a teacher so always encouraged me to do well and go to University. Most of my peers from school stayed in the area and had babies in their teens.

I did well academically and got a good job in London. My husband and I can only afford one child, because being in London is so expensive in itself.

When I go back to where I grew up, to see my parents, I often see the girls from school who now have large families of 3-5 children and live off benefits. Whilst I have a stressful full-time job and only one child who I hardly ever see.

I do wonder who actually did better in life? I am very envious that they are able to afford so many children and can live off benefits.

However, my mum pointed out that many of these girls never really developed themselves or had life and work experiences that accelerated their wisdom, maturity and personal development. My mum has taught some of their children and says that the children do not get support at home or encouragement with education - mostly because their parents are not confident, don't know how or just can't be bothered or don't value education.

It's swings and roundabouts... Is it quality or quantity that counts?