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 repeat: we should not have a system which allows one group to have mortgages paid for with state funds and not another group.

So your argument is that because the tax payer is currently effectively paying the mortgage of some private landlords they should also pay the mortgage of house owners to keep things fair?

We have 3 and are ttc, I work ft, he stays at home. we get cb and I get pip but no tcs. I earn about 15k but keep the costs down and we can afford everything we need/want with ease.

the government only pay interest on mortgage so homeowner would still have to pay capital. as others saay it would cost more to rehouse them if home is repossessed.

also why shouldn't government help it's own citizens if help is needed if they have been taxpayers etc

Dances, it's fine not to feel guilty for having a large family - that's entirely your prerogative. Lots of people don't feel guilty about not recycling or about driving everywhere. But the reason people go on about overpopulation now, as opposed to 100 years ago when many families had 5-10 children, is that 100 years ago, the world's population was less than 2 billion, and had taken millennia to get to that level. Today, 100 years later, it's approaching 6 billion. So then it wasn't so much of an issue... Or at least no-one had recognised it as an issue. Now people realise it's a huge problem.

On the other hand, if antibiotic resistance continues and worsens, people will be dropping like flies from minor infections so the problem might go away all by itself.

the government only pay interest on mortgage so homeowner would still have to pay capital. as others saay it would cost more to rehouse them if home is repossessed.

I don't object to that fact that interest is being paid on mortgages at the moment (after 13 weeks). I object to the fact that some people seem to think that they should receive more than that..

We have 3 and are ttc, I work ft, he stays at home. we get cb and I get pip but no tcs. I earn about 15k but keep the costs down and we can afford everything we need/want with ease.

With 3 children you should be able to claim CTC and WTC, have you actually claimed and been turned down?!

The planet cannot afford more than two children per woman. Preferably fewer.

whatever5 what do you consider a low salary? My mum bought this house on a low salary, and probably would have lost it had we not taken over the mortgage payments when she was ill. I don't think you have to be well off to buy a house. Maybe more so now, but fifteen years ago, when she bought, she bought on a part-time wage!

Some very sad views on this thread!

Apologies, make that the current world population is more than 7 billion ... The figures I was looking at were from a few years ago. Which kind of underlines my point. The world's population has grown by a billion in ten years or so. So, it is kind of a big deal.

With 3 children you should be able to claim CTC and WTC, have you actually claimed and been turned down?!

Yes, on £15k you would be entitled to a fair amount of TCs.How much PIP do you get?

whatever5 what do you consider a low salary?

Minimum wage (or close to that). You have to be on a higher salary than that to buy a house in most (all?) areas of the country now and even 15 year ago.

So your argument is that because the tax payer is currently effectively paying the mortgage of some private landlords they should also pay the mortgage of house owners to keep things fair?

Or they should pay neither and expect both tenants and owner occupiers to take personal responsibility and have savings or income protection. I believe in fairness and equality.

Ok so just googled... the current population is 7.2billion. It is widely suggested that at the current way we use resources the planet could sustain over 9 billion. It is also believed that as that critical figure creeps nearer we develop new resources and ways to sustain a higher population. 100 years ago we could not have sustained today's population. It's an ever evolving entity.

That's the scientific beliefs of some.

Religious beliefs appear to be, in the most part, geared towards reproduction being THE reason for life. Many religions forbid the use of contraception, believe that children are gifts from God.

The idea that women should limit themselves to two children or less is ludicrous. Some may say, in a cold, clinical manner, that if we do have overpopulation issues it is to do with the advancement of medical sciences and artificialy increasing the length of life. The older the population gets, the more young ones need to be born to take care of the elderly.

Many theories, no one truly knows the truth.

Minimum wage (or close to that). You have to be on a higher salary than that to buy a house in most (all?) areas of the country now and even 15 year ago.

15 years ago I bought a house and at the time I was earning £8500. I think minimum wage had just been introduced at the time and was £3 odd an hour so I was earning above it (not by much). Had I been earning minimum wage I still could have bought a house because there were a lot of houses in various areas of the North West for well under £20k.
Even now you can get a 2 bed terraced house in good condition for £80k and much cheaper of you want a doer upper. Somebody just above minimum wage (full time of 40hours per week) could buy a doer upper house by borrowing 4 times their salary.

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-45377494.html

Just one affordable example

So your argument is that because the tax payer is currently effectively paying the mortgage of some private landlords they should also pay the mortgage of house owners to keep things fair?

Or they should pay neither and expect both tenants and owner occupiers to take personal responsibility and have savings or income protection. I believe in fairness and equality.

As I have said tenants of more expensive houses should have savings or income protection as they are presumably on higher salaries and housing benefit won't cover the full rent if they become unemployed. You can't expect those on very low incomes and living in very cheap accommodation to have savings though. As for "fairness and equality" how would it be fair for tax payers, many of whom are not homeowners themselves to pay for your mortgage and investment? I agree that it's not right that they currently pay the mortgage of so many private landlords but paying your mortgage as well would hardly improve the fairness of the situation for them would it?

Not totally getting your logic whatever5. not everyone who lives in expensive property does so because they are well off but through necessity. and not everyone in cheap accomadation is hard up.

Somebody just above minimum wage (full time of 40hours per week) could buy a doer upper house by borrowing 4 times their salary

Errr. What is the NMW now? Is it still £6.31? That is only about £13k a year for 40 hours a week. 4 x salary would be about £52k. You would have to save a very long time on NMW to get a big enough deposit I think.

our house was bought for 32k. 15 years ago. no deposit. part time wage salary of about 9k. her original mortgage was for 38k. (some home improvement money included in mortgage).

Missunreasonable I said that you couldn't buy a house on minimum wage in most areas of the country so looking for one or two examples where you can't doesn't really prove anything.

As for "fairness and equality" how would it be fair for tax payers, many of whom are not homeowners themselves to pay for your mortgage and investment? I agree that it's not right that they currently pay the mortgage of so many private landlords but paying your mortgageas wellwould hardly improve the fairness of the situation for them would it?

I have to agree with you here.

And I say this as someone who lost my house because of unemployment.

Not totally getting your logic whatever5. not everyone who lives in expensive property does so because they are well off but through necessity.

I meant expensive property for the area

Someone paying a mortgage of 4x their salary on NMW isn't going to have much in the way of doing up money. I would be surprised if they'd qualify for a mortgage in the new stricter financial climate.

They'd need an absolute minimum of about 3k in deposit, probably more like 7-10k to get a better mortgage rate, which they're not going to be able to save up unless given it by parents etc.

Missunreasonable I said that you couldn't buy a house on minimum wage in most areas of the country so looking for one or two examples where you can't doesn't really prove anything.

I only found one example but affordable properties are available in more than one area. Lots of areas in the North West and Midlands have housing stock well below £100k if people are prepared to move a few miles and buy in less desirable areas. Liverpool, Greater Manchester, Nottingham, Derby, Birmingham, Leicester are areas where I know cheap housing stock is available. I'm sure there must be other areas that have cheap housing stock too but I am not familiar with other areas so can't give any examples.

Onilkelymoor it is perfectly possible to save for a deposit on NMW (currently £6.50ph I think). The problem is that in order to save for a deposit on a low wage it really is only possible to do if you still live at home with your parents or live in a shared house. Obviously lots of people don't live in those circumstances and those people will find it difficult to scrape together any kind of deposit, I don't deny that.
I saved £6k for a deposit and legal fees in under two years when I was earning £8500, I could not have done that if I was renting a property but I was only paying my mum £160 a month in board and lodgings so I saved everything that I possibly could. I bought a house before I reached the age of 20 because I realised that once I started renting I would never be able to buy a property. I am not in denial about some people not being able to afford property but I think in a lot of areas people can buy if they are flexible on area and house.

I only found one example but affordable properties are available in more than one area. Lots of areas in the North West and Midlands have housing stock well below £100k if people are prepared to move a few miles and buy in less desirable areas. Liverpool, Greater Manchester, Nottingham, Derby, Birmingham, Leicester are areas where I know cheap housing stock is available. I'm sure there must be other areas that have cheap housing stock too but I am not familiar with other areas so can't give any examples.

You can't get a mortgage for £100k if you are on NMW.