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.

i disagree, we were considered overcrowded 11 years ago in this very house with four adults and 1 child!

I am one of 5 girls and my parents just worked their arses off. My mum was a nurse and worked nights, my dad was a self employed gas engineer. Never entitled to benefits other than child benefit. We had a good childhood (my 14 year old sis still enjoying hers ) and never went without anything. I have asked my parents how they afforded us, their reply was they had too!
I think if I would have waited until I could really afford children (whatever that definition may be) then I still wouldn't have any now!

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?

Your mortgage may be lower your would pay for rent, but that doesn't necessarily apply to the majority of people. Anyway, I have even less sympathy for the fact that you haven't saved enough to cover your mortgage for 13 weeks (until you support for mortgage interest relief) if your mortgage is that low.

does anyone else feel that the "overpopulation" argument is a bit thin? i mean it wasn't that long ago that 10-15 children were normal, and yes, maybe they weren't all expected to survive but plenty did. sure i'll be flamed but refuse to feel selfish for having a large family.

Yes dances it is, isnt it. Unless you count the cows horses and sheep round my way the population is less than 800, apparently too low to keep my village school open. We need more kids here - not less

whatever5 where have i said i dont have savings? i'm playing devils advocate and trying to show why the current system can be costing more money than a simple change and more equal help would.

also rented property is notoriously more expensive than most peoples mortgages ime. people do not know what is around the corner. situations change. often unexpectedly.

whatever5 where have i said i dont have savings? i'm playing devils advocate and trying to show why the current system can be costing more money than a simple change and more equal help would.

I doubt that the current system is costing more than a simple change though. Your mortgage may cost less than you would get for rent from housing benefit but that is because you have a large family.

not particularly. our mortgage is £360 a month. when we lived in a two bed social housing flat we were paying £430 a month, and that was a decade ago. that isn't unusual. i think your perceptions are unrealistic. rents have risen in our area and a house like ours would be upwards of £900 a month in todays climate. at least. and most familys living in our street, in houses like ours, are mum dad and two children.

dancestomyowntune my perceptions aren't unrealistic at all. I looked into this recently (for a relative) and found that in my area a family of four would get £500 a month housing benefit (three bedroom house). Most people's mortgages cost a lot more than that (in my area).

i think each case must be assessed on individual circumstances.

you could argue that a renter should have savings for the same reason. perhaps the person with mortgage has to pay alot more of take home pay on this and doesn't get hb or tc.

Good luck finding a three bed house for £500 a month. Where I live that's impossible. And no, I am not in London.

Hb is a contentious issue but you seem to think it is fine to punish home owners whilst rewarding renters with full rent payments. This seems odd to me. All people who fall on hard times should get the same amount of help to get themselves out of it, regardless of the way they choose to live.

Home owners are punished enough. If you rent, have no savings and need nursing home care it is paid for by the state. If you own your own home you must pay yourself. Home owners are at constant risk of losing everything they have worked hard for whilst those who rent have fewer worries.

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

What about the basic human rights of owner occupiers?
You dontvseembto understand that the govt has created a contradictory situation where they are happy to pay for one persons investment (BTL landlords) but not another persons investment (owner occupiers).
Perhaps it would be better if neither group could claim help with housing support for more than 2 years and certainly not at vastly different levels of support.

totally agree dance. we have never had alot of money and i am naturally frugal. we have a mortgage and our house is worth alot on paper but we have to live somewhere.

somehow we area always seen as cash cows. i think in some cases buy to let needs more scrutiny particularly when there is dishonesty about pretending someone lives there still when they don't probably to avoid taxation.

Good luck finding a three bed house for £500 a month. Where I live that's impossible. And no, I am not in London.

It would be impossible to find a three bedroom house in my local area for £500 as well. You would have to move to the very dodgy inner city area.

My friend that i mentioned upthread was paying £1300 a month on her mortgage for a 3 bed terrace. My identical house with a bigger garden two doors down cost £450 a month in rent. It's not as black and white as saying mortgages are cheaper than rent.

I do agree the system is fucked up. I would far rather be paying my rent to the local authority knowing it wasnt going to pay for someone else's retirement fund and have some security of tenancy. But there isnt enough social housing. The whole system (i mean the entire welfare/tax credits/tax) system needs a huge overhaul altogether but that wont happen.

What about the basic human rights of owner occupiers?

They should also have the right to shelter as well but that doesn't mean they have the right to own a home.

Hb is a contentious issue but you seem to think it is fine to punish home owners whilst rewarding renters with full rent payments.

Renters don't get full rent payments thought unless they already rent a comparatively very cheap home (for that area). Each area has it's own housing benefit limit. The houses in my street cost £900 to rent but housing benefit is only £500 a month.

They should also have the right to shelter as well but that doesn't mean they have the right to own a home.

But BTL landlords have the right to own houses paid for largely by the state

I am not against the govt refusing to provide public money to pay people's mortgages indefinitely but the same rules should apply for BTL mortgages. Put a time limit on both, put a financial cap on both, but treat people equally and enable them to pay for the roof over their heads to the same value for the same time.
My mortgage = £850pm
Mortgage relief I could get if needed =£350 per month for 9 months (after 3 month waiting period)
Similar house to rent = £900pm
LHA = £180pw (so I would get £720 every 4 weeks towards rent for as long as I needed it)
Is that a fair system?

I work for a call centre organization. People in our business earn 90k. Obviously they are the managers but still, "work in a supermarket"can mean anything. Justin king "works in a supermarket".

totally agree with you missunreasonable. in the long run by punishing people who dare to think they can own their own home the government is going to cost the tax payer more after thier property is repossessed! crazy business.

But BTL landlords have the right to own houses paid for largely by the state

That is wrong as well though. The solution is to have more social housing, not for private landlords or house owners to have mortgages paid for by the state.

That is wrong as well though. The solution is to have more social housing, not for private landlords or house owners to have mortgages paid for by the state.

I agree with that, but we don't currently have that policy or nearly enough social housing to meet demand. In the meantime we should have things more equal, whether that means raising support for one group or reducing support for the other group. I repeat: we should not have a system which allows one group to have mortgages paid for with state funds and not another group. If one group are expected to have savings or payment protection policies then the other group should also be expected to have them. It's about taking personal responsibility and that should not be limited to owner occupiers.

I have 4 children and another on the way. I'm a full time teacher and dp earns about 20k a year in his job. We don't get any benefits other then child benefit and manage fine.
We bought an ex council house so very small morgage even after extending. Kids don't miss out on anything, we don't holiday abroad but go away 2/3 times a year in this country.

But we have very little child care costs, only £60 a month for wrap at school for the two middle children.
So not everyone with lots of kids are surviving on benefits/lottery wins.

what MissUnreasonable said

If one group are expected to have savings or payment protection policies then the other group should also be expected to have them. It's about taking personal responsibility and that should not be limited to owner occupiers.

I would expect renters to also have savings to help pay rent in the event of unemployment if they are renting somewhere relatively expensive for the area that they are living in. It would be unreasonable to expect someone who is already renting very cheap accommodation to have savings though as those people are likely to be on a low salary. Homeowners are not on very low salaries (when they buy the house anyway) and if they choose to borrow money to invest in a house they should also take also steps to cover themselves in the event of unemployment.