To not understand how some people afford to have so many children?

[KiKiFrance]

I mean this as a genuine question, but how the heck do they do it?

We have 3 DCs as that was all we could afford, yet I know families that have only one very average income that just seem to keep having children, and affording nice things, activities and holidays too.

Someone I know has just had her fifth baby. They are very early thirties and her DH works in a supermarket, and she is a SAHM, so obviously not on a high income, yet they always have nice clothes, the older children to lots of activities, they have a lovely new build house which is decorated beautifully, always eat out, and they bought all new (expensive) baby equipment for baby #5. She has also said to me that they'll have a sixth baby at some point, and possibly a seventh too!

The other person that I know has 4 children. Her DH is a chef but is always in and out of work, but again they seem to have such nice things, and her children to lots of activities and clubs. One of her sons has just had a huge birthday disco in a hall, and she said it cost over £300. They too are planning to have more children.

Our income is good, yet we generally can't afford half the things that they can, and certainly could never have afforded a 4th child, even though I would have quite liked another baby.

Dia: do you believe that tenants are more deserving of financial assistance with housing costs than mortgage payers at times of unemployment?
Do you believe that landlords are more deserving of public money to help pay their mortgages than owner occupiers?

I would quite happily support a policy of providing equal help to both parties whether that means increasing support for owner occupiers or decreasing support for tenants in private lets. I don't agree with the current financially unequal support system.

Well perhaps I should have said that tenants don't have the same level of fear of not being able to afford their rent as what mortgage payers have about paying their mortgages if unemployed. Would that have been a better phrase?

Dia: do you believe that tenants are more deserving of financial assistance with housing costs than mortgage payers at times of unemployment?
Do you believe that landlords are more deserving of public money to help pay their mortgages than owner occupiers?

what?? where on earth are you getting that from? I answered a comment you made about the fear home owners have that tenants don't have. I showed you that tenants actually do have that fear. nowhere did I say anything about either party being more deserving!

If you have a mortgage you should have either have savings to cover mortgage interest for a while should you become unemployed or you can take out mortgage payment protection insurance.

Dia - I Asked whether you felt they were more deserving - I didn't accuse you of saying that. There is a difference between a question and an accusation.

Whatever5 - I do have some savings to cover my mortgage but not everybody does. It could also be argued that people should have savings to cover their rent if they became unemployed. Everyone should take some level of personal responsibility. However, many people (owners and tenants) just don't earn enough to build up any savings or they have to dip into savings for repairs etc. mortgage protection insurance isn't always the answer either as there is often a waiting period before the claim will be paid and a time limit of 12 months after which no more payouts are provided. What happens if somebody doesn't get a job within 12 months or has to take much lower paid work?

totally agree, we now overpay our mortgage but many people can just afford the interest repayments which was the same for us when our dc were small. we were so skint mil used to give us money to pay.

why should home owners be treated differently. if they lose their house then they cost the taxpayer more in the long run.

I think it is a lot to do with what sort of lifestyle you expect. A lot of people tell me they could not afford a third child or to be a SAHM. I have 3 young children and am currently at home. But we have a small house. It is quite old. Our cars are both more than 10 years old. We are happy to holiday in the UK. We don't need or want a lot of things.

We do get child benefit but until very recently so did the richest of the rich. Barely 2 years ago all the people who refer to people who receive CB as 'on benefits' and imply they are in some way scrounging also received CB. In fact many of them received it for years longer than my family has. For instance, someone no longer eligible but with a 10 year old and 8 year old will have received far more CB than we have but they pour scorn now they are no longer eligible. Some people are very judgy and can't even see how silly they are being.

Whatever5 - I do have some savings to cover my mortgage but not everybody does.

They should have savings though. That is my point. If they don't have saving or can't afford mortgage protection insurance they shouldn't borrow money to buy a house in the first place.

Hmm. If you lose your own home, then you've lost the investment as well as the building.
If you are renting then that was never an investment.

Mortgage and childcare are our cripplers tbh.
Although the reason i wouldn't have more than two is because i'm knackered. They're killing me.

Morethan- yes these passport benefits are variable by area.

-whatever- that is ridiculous to say that everyone with a mortgage should have savings!

whatever- that is ridiculous to say that everyone with a mortgage should have savings

I said they should have savings or mortgage protection insurance. I don't see what is ridiculous about that! People shouldn't borrow money to buy a house without thinking/planning for what they will do if they become unemployed.

Ok pardon me for being a bit dim, I'll put it down to infection but.

If you have a mortgage and you default on payment it is quite a while before your house will be repossessed, during which time you could find employment or even a deal for lower payments holidays etc.
You can't do this if you are renting and doubtful if a private ll would be so keen on negotiating lower payments or holidays or even interest only. You have far more protection with a mortgage.

If you rent and lose your job you get far higher levels of housing benefit support in order to keep a roof over your head than what a mortgage payer gets to help pay his mortgage. Not everybody can look for lower interest deals or negotiate interest only. A lower interest deal requires the person to take out a remortgage which requires a new application (not possible if you don't have a job). An interest only deal requires the building society to agree to it which they won't do if your mortgage already takes you to retirement age and they won't sometimes allow it in other circumstances either.
The point made earlier was that the govt are happy to provide HB to cover landlord mortgages but not anywhere near the same level of support for owner occupier mortgages.

whatever5 perhaps people who can't afford savings to cover their rent in the event of unemployment shouldn't rent a house either. Or perhaps the govt should just have a system which supports people equally.

Re: payment holidays- most building societies do an affordability check before they agree to a payment holiday. Monthly Payments go up a little after a payment holiday due to the additional accrued interest and missed payments so most building societies refuse payment holidays if they don't believe you can afford the payments after the holiday. They use to allow payment holidays quite freely but not anymore since the more stringent lending criteria came in.

whatever5 perhaps people who can't afford savings to cover their rent in the event of unemployment shouldn't rent a house either. Or perhaps the govt should just have a system which supports people equally.

As I keep saying people who have a mortgage should have savings or they should have mortgage protection insurance. Having a mortgage is not the same thing as renting as people who rent haven't chosen to borrow thousands of pounds to invest in a house. Do seriously think the tax paper to pay towards people's investments should they become unemployed?

why should the government pay someones rent though? i think your arguments are ludicrous to be honest. our mortgage is cheaper than even social housing rents. if we lost our house and the council rehomed us in rented accomadation which then we claimed hb for we would be costing the taxpayer more than if they just gave the same help to mortgage owners that they do to renters. in our area social housing rents are a good couple of hundred pounds higher than our mortgage.

Whether- mortgage protection insurance only helps in limited circumstances. I wouldn't have been eligible for it as my work was temp contracts.

Even then it usually only covers one year.

It isn't a solution.

I agree with others that HB should be paid to homeowners at the same rate as renters.

Whatever- I assumed that if I became unemployed I would find another job. I didn't predict the recession, 7 years of unemployment and having to retrain for another job.

also, we are a 'large' family. there are 8 of us living in our house (4 adults, 4 children and 1 on the way). our house is 4 bedroomed but relatively small. if we were in social housing we would be considered overcrowded. we cope. we dont feel that we are so over crowded that we cant manage. we plan, in the future, to build on but if we dont get around to it it eont be the end of the world. if we lived in social housing they would be constantly trying to move us!

the govt are happy to provide HB to cover landlord mortgages but not anywhere near the same level of support for owner occupier mortgages

Yes, this does seem crazy sometimes. A family on my street were unable to pay their £500 per mortgage after the husband lost his job. They ended up selling it to a friend of mine. They still live there but HB now pays their £300 per WEEK rent. The house has more than doubled in value since. My friend is laughing. The state has been paying his mortgage for years, plus a healthy weekly profit for him, and paying for a very impressive investment.

Same friend has bought ten ex council houses in the area (West London) over the years. All on BTL mortages, most paid for entirely by HB. His mortgages total about £500k. He reckons the current total value of these houses is £2 million. He recieves about £3000 per week in rental income mostly from the local authority in HB who used to own these houses. It used to cost them virtually nothing if the original tenants became unemployed. Now they basically fun my friends investments and have made him a millionaire.

Yes. Very crazy.

Do seriously think the tax paper to pay towards people's investments should they become unemployed?

No we can't have this. People could just get the biggest mortgage they could get then just give up work and have the government pay their mortgage for 20 - 30 years while it increses in value tenfold. Then sell up by 2 smaller properties mortage free and have the state pay the rent on one for a nice easy retirement. This would be crazy.

But as in the example of my friend I gave above, the state does it anyway, as long as you are not living in the house you have a mortgage on.

why should the government pay someones rent though?

The government pays the minimum to provide people with shelter because that is (or should be) a basic human right.

but that is my point, if our circumstances changed and god forbid we lost our house they would be paying a damn sight more in rent than we are currently paying in mortgage. if the help was available for mortgage owners too in that scenario we would cost the government less for shelter. does that make sense to anyone?

Whatever- I assumed that if I became unemployed I would find another job. I didn't predict the recession, 7 years of unemployment and having to retrain for another job.

You shouldn't have assumed that you would never be unemployed and would always be able to get another job straight away though.

dance you would not be classed as overcrowded. Lucky for you your mortgage is tidy, aren't you lucky you bought at the right time.

Just because parents of a large family own their house & don't claim hb or tc, does not negate the fact that the 'surplus' of offspring are not draining the country's resources.

Pffft, some people live in a bubble.