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.

The HB system makes me wish if never bought a house.

We have an interest only mirtgage and bought near the top of the market so we're not accruing any lt wealth. But it makes us in eligible for HB. We would get £600 PCM but instead have to pay this out of tax credits.

If I had stayed renting we would have been tens if thousands better off over the years.

The HB system really pisses me off too. People who have bought homes always have the fear of losing their home if they lose their job for whatever reason whereas people renting don't have that same fear.
We need greater security for tenants but we also need greater security for people with mortgages.

i know it does not seem it but you are/will be better of in the long run

no waiting to see if your lease will be extended,no massive deposits to find,no change of school etc,you can more or less do what you want

i get your point about the HB though,when i had a back to work assessment because i had a morgage at the time they would not help with any of the intrest if i worked and would be £70 a week worse of compared to being on full time benefit,but if i had rented they would of paid a large amount of my rent approx £800 a month for working

so guess what i stayed on benefit and got some of the intrest paid made up the shortfall as i only had a few yrs left on the morgage so just got through

i do feel the system is unfair like that and it should be looked at,if you cant pay your morgage then you get repossessed it land's in the council's lap anyway

Sorry for all the typos!

what gets me is they will pay the rent on a BTL which in turn is not a family home but a money maker/longterm investment,but will not help people with morgages which it's purpose is a family home

blardy madness

If it makes you feel any better we can't afford my dream of 4-5 children without racking up major debt. We're on track to be debt free with a comfortable lifestyle. I'm a SAHM but will be returning to work once the youngest child turns 7yrs. We could afford more children then, but i don't want a 7 and 9 year age gap.

what gets me is they will pay the rent on a BTL which in turn is not a family home but a money maker/longterm investment,but will not help people with morgages which it's purpose is a family home

That so the bit that makes me mad. I suppose I can see the argument that the public purse should not be paying for people to buy a home and that people should have to work and earn to pay for their home, but it doesn't sit with the fact that the public purse funds BTL purchases.
We should either have a rule whereby the public purse will only fund local authority rents (and not private rents) or we should have a system where anybody in need of help with housing costs should be able to receive help.
Perhaps that help should be time limited for both Private rentals or mortgage payers to encourage them to seek work and not have the mortgage paid indefinetley by the public purse but the current system is unfair and penalises people at a time when they need support.

Somebody mentioned that babies and young children are cheap.
They are right. Once you have all the equipment and clothes, you can pass it on to subsequent children.
What they DON'T realise, is that as soon as those young children hit their teens, the costs go through the ROOF!

Some people don't realise that and just want to carry on having 'babies'.

it always penalises those who have mortgages who may have bought because no way would they qualify for social housing and renting is so expensive.

give me a teenager any day compared to a toddler even with the empty purse and empty fridge

Regardless of money, I wonder how big families cope with day to day living. I can't imagine doing reading, spellings, times tables every evening for 4+ children, getting them to and from a bunch of activities and parties.

I was only planning to have three children but I had my DTs! I could probably afford more but I don't want more as they would get less attention. You're not unreasonable to think this as a family in my town have eight children and the parents are a sahm and a primary school teacher but they were nice clothes from GAP and NEXT etc. and our families bump into each other often when we're out shopping. They seem to always have TWICE as much shopping as us.

I dont think teens will cost any more than my little ones tbh. It all depends what costs you factor in.

people renting don't have that same fear.

I can lose my home with as little as 28 days notice. regardless of whether I am on time with my rent, keep it like a palace, do repairs myself etc. I don't need to lose my job, it is entirely out of my control if my LL decides to give notice, he can, for no reason. believe me when I say that I do indeed have that fear.

They seem to always have TWICE as much shopping as us.

maybe because there are TWICE as many of them?

I'm very confused how teenagers cost more than smaller children.
Mine cost me nothing because as soon as they were old enough they started work, became grown ups and funded their own lifestyles.
The few years before this we still had tax credits and cb for them.
Please somebody explain about costs going through the roof as I don't get it.

they cost more morethan than babies. you get the same amount in tax credits for a 2 year old as for a 14 year old but the 14 year old is likely to want gadgets, branded clothes, more expensive presents, make up/toiletries, eat a lot more food, spend 45 minutes in the shower.

never mind phone top ups, cinema trips, petrol/transport to meet friends, activities/sports clubs and equipment.

I dont see how they can be more expensive as when they are little as there is all the childcare, classes, tuition, savings and they still are in branded clothes. Well there is for my lot anyway so cant see it getting more expensive as if anything it will be cheaper.

The one good thing in all of that though is the more you have the more sibling discounts you get so none are as expensive as your first.

Chunderella I wish I had savings. Any at all I lived in a private let three bedroom mid terrace which is considered to be in a bad area of town. The rent was five hundred and eighty five a month.

Whilst working full time I received tax credits including working tax credits and childcare help as well as child benefit and my wage. I was on housing benefit before my full time job and when informing of my change of circumstance and providing payslips etc I did not qualify for housing benefit.