Aibu to advice my friend not to have a third child because she does not have a career?

[Rebecca2014]

My friend leads a nice lifestyle with her husband and two children, they have been discussing having a third child. With the thought of the 2015 budget in my head, I told her I would not personally have a third child because you never know what could happen in the future (separation etc)

Her husband is the high earner in the family. If they split, most likely she will end up on welfare. Even if she gets a job, she will need tax credits and obviously we all know they are going be cut and limited to two children. Is it wrong of me to think women who do not have careers should not have three children? due to the risk of being in poverty if the relationship fails or something happens to the husband career.

I know you cannot go through life thinking what if...however I feel women who rely on their partners income are at risk. Am I overthinking this?

I think that the new legislation means that you will not get any additional financial help if you have a third child

That only applies if the third child is born after April 2017.

Is it wrong of me to think women who do not have careers should not have three children? due to the risk of being in poverty if the relationship fails or something happens to the husband career.

Since you asked, yes.

For now.

Given the slavering joy with which people insisted that it was outrageous for people to have any more than two children if there was any chance they might need to claim benefits, I wouldn't be counting on being able to claim for any children at all in the long term.

The voters of England don't want to live in a country that supports people who are down on their luck.

Being unlucky is the least palatable of "lifestyle choices".

The chances of a marriage splitting up are statistically high, so being a SAHP is now the choice of a would-be scrounger, unless the person making it is independently wealthy.

Hmmm perhaps we should be worried re women with careers having more than 2 children.Can we comment and judge?After all it is well known that time is what children crave above all else.Surely trying to juggle a career with several children is selfish.Who knows what is round the corner,mental health issues,resentment?

Love the way it's always mums without careers that are allowed to be scrutinised.Methings an op trying to feel better about her own life choices.

Keep your beak out! Wtf

YABVVVU and more than a little offensive to anyone not hellbent on maintaining "career" and "independence".

Not many women manage to have any DC without a significant impact on their career whether or not they continue to work full or part time. Given the sunk cost of having the first child the marginal cost of more gets lower and lower, especially if you have them in quick succession.

Running your argument to its logical conclusion your friend might as well have a dozen DC as she does not have a "career" with which to support herself!

(I may be being unnecessarily offensive myself in order to illustrate the point)

YANBU to tell her what you think if she has asked you to do so.

YABVVVU and more than a little offensive to anyone not hellbent on maintaining "career" and "independence".

It's not the OP that dreamt up the recent budget.

But that's what it says - that you should not have more than two children unless there is zero chance of ever falling on hard times and needing help.

In an ideal world then parents should be able to have the children they love, and know that there is a safety net to help them if they need it. However, that is not the real world. There are various safety nets to keep people safe if their relationship ends/job disappears/illness hits etc.sadly, around half of the population will experience one of those scenarios before they reach pension age (not necessarily while raising kids).

To ignore the possibility of needing a safety net and carry on blindly is optimistic, and perhaps naive, even irresponsible. But certainly when people plan things like having a child, they should recognize how they are increasing their vulnerability and try to offset that.

In this case,is theDH paying into a pension and savings? That could provide some extra support in the case of something happening which changes their current situation.

^I think that the new legislation means that you will not get any additional financial help if you have a third child

That only applies if the third child is born after April 2017.^

Thats incorrect

relevant bit from budget
Limit Child Element in tax credits and Universal Credit – The Child Element of tax credits and Universal Credit will no longer be awarded for third and subsequent children born after 6 April 2017. This will also apply to families claiming Universal Credit for the first time after April 2017. Households who have been in receipt of tax credits or Universal Credit, with an interruption of less than 6 months, will be protected.

I think it's about time the state stopped paying out when a wealthy parent leaves. That needs to be tackled by deduction at source from income.

I am expecting our third and am a SAHM.

We are mortgage free. DH had a large inheritance and half of it is in my name. This serves to reassure me of his commitment to our marriage, but also will give me a nest egg to start again if ever needed. We have income protection insurance for if he ever becomes disabled or unwell and unable to work. It is a decision we tpok seroously andbhave made provision for; YWBU to judge your friend or offer advice withoit knowing the nuances of their set up, but since you just expressed an opinion thats fine
I have a few friends who I can be very candid with too.

That is terrible meddie. As a sah with 3dc I would be affected by this if the worst happened. Fortunately we do have life cover etc but it is sad that part of the safety net has been removed for people who have never claimed anything in their life bar smp and child benefit but have more than 2dc.

I think it's useful for women being sahm to have some kind of independent economic plan or back up for sure. However, 1, 2 or 3 kids doesn't really matter I don't think.

I agree with you OP but then I'm of the the belief that women are daft not to maintain their own independence financially and have their own pension.

Every child brings an incremental cost so of course having more has financial implications. It is odd and counter factual surely to suggest this isn't so? I can see with childcare costs not relevant the immediate costs may be less significant than if you are working and need nursery/CM etc, but most people do go back to work at some point so there will be a deferral of that by at least a year for any new baby.

Also people seem to forget that children go on being expensive. I have two teenagers. One was away this week. Our food bill was significantly less. They both have out of school activities, if we had three those costs would be increased by a third. They will both go to university, so that's another very significant cost. Three children probably means a bigger car, perhaps a larger house. All expensive.

Yes, anyone who relies on their partner's income is running a risk that something might happen and that income could get lost. Illness, redundancy, separation or death are all possible. Thinking about the what-ifs is not a sign of past trauma or mental health problems but a normal sensible part of planning your life. Giving your opinion to a friend who asks for it is pretty normal too surely? Not much point in asking if you don't get a straight answer, and all the OP said is that if she were in her friend's position she'd not have a third child. Not that big a deal surely?

To the OP

It is great that your friend is being so responsible as to consider her financial situation before having another child.

If the partner is on a good enough wage (and likely to remain on one), then I would say go for it. Even if they split he would be reposnible for the financial maintenance of the family.

Perhaps any career mother not able to pay their full child care bills without whining should perhaps stop at 2 too.

With the change in legislation every woman needs to consider the implications of having a 3rd child tbh, whatever your current circumstances, in the full knowledge that the state will only help with the first two if anything goes wrong.

And help with childcare can be pulled at any time so frankly if you struggle to pay childcare on 1 any parent should consider the implications of both having a career and more children. For some reason the op conveniently hasn't been sweating over this.

It is certainly something to consider. 50% of mumnet marruiages will break down although the original post assumes if the marriage breaks down the children will live with the mother! That is incredibly sexist. The father migh instead have the residence and the mother could be child free and having to work full time to pay for the children. Don't assume only women have the children after divorce.

YABU. It's her family, which means it's their choice.

She's not "sweating"'over that because it isn't her friend's situation.

Of course it would be insane to count on help with childcare lasting long term.

Or to rely on free healthcare.

Or being able to send your children to school for free.

It's all up for grabs and the English voters have bought into the "hardworking taxpayer" bollocks, so soon we will still be paying tax but getting nothing for it.

Just like people under 25.

The father migh instead have the residence and the mother could be child free and having to work full time to pay for the children.

As she is a SAHM and the primary carer of the children, it's hard to see how that would come about.