Too many kids

[OoerBlah]

So I've just watched Cathy Come Hone, the Ken Loach play from 1965. It's heartbreaking, no doubt about that. But it made me wonder if there is ever a situation where people might think that having kids if you can't afford them is just, well, don't do it?

I know accidents happen and not all kids are planned. I also know that life is complicated and consequences can't be foretold. But particularly in this day and age of so many finding it difficult to find homes and provide for themselves let alone children - is there ever a time when we should say if you can't afford kids, don't have them?

RB68 just out of interest, could you all have gotten degrees in the current £9000 a year per child circumstances?

The proportion of truly rich people in this country is tiny

Yes, but they do have all the money. That's exactly the problem.

If 50% of all people were somewhat rich, the much talked of "trickle-down effect" would actually work, as the rich would actually spend their money.

But a person who owns millions and millions ... what could they realistically spend all that money on? Sure, they could find ways ... but thing is, they don't have to spend any of the money.

Same with other things. If a house is owned by a super-rich person, it might stand empty, because the super-rich can afford that - if a somewhat wealthy person owns a house, they can't afford to let it stand empty.

This only goes up to 2014, but still interesting. Shocking how many poor people there are.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503396/Table_3_1a_14.xlsx

We have 4 , it wasn't entirely planned that way but abortion never crossed my mind and we love them all dearly. We have always provided for them , I went back to work part time when each was 6 months old working nights and weekends around my dh. We claim only child benefit. They have everything they need and I hope when they are grown up they will all be close. The main issues for us have not been financial but more the stress of juggling work around each other and the one at home feeling like a lone parent. Fortunately my dh is fantastic even when juggling 4 kids under 7 when I was working weekends. I do often feel overwhelmed with the demands of ferrying them around, sorting homework etc but it's definately getting better now they are older.

I'm another person who is shocked that you watched Cathy Come Home and took away the message you've put in your OP.
Cathy and Reg and doing fine financially when they start their family. Then Reg loses his job due to injury. It could happen to anyone. The message is really an argument for the welfare state to effectively support families before they slide into destitution.

I lived in Ireland and there big families are normal even now. Most of the mothers I knew there didn't work and saw the 'mother' role as almost saintly. In my experience it was always the mothers choosing to have more, not the men, who would be sweating all the way to the next paycheck to feed them all!

In the UK we don't have a growing population, so it's less of an issue here I think.

I do think that if we choose to have children we have a responsibility to make sure that we can financially and emotionally provide. The state is there as a safety net if things go wrong, accidents etc. It is selfish to have a lot of kids if your husband feels it is too much pressure. It is selfish if you are a man or woman and you have unprotected sex without being prepared to have children. And it is selfish to have even one child if you aren't going to care of them adequately.

So it's hard to judge 'just' a big family for being selfish. They might all be well provided for and happy.

Jude the Obscure

Also: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/477328/dwp-stats-summary-nov-2015.pdf

fluffychicken. "What came first the low paid jobs or the tax credits. That is the question. "

Haven't there always been low paid jobs because the rich didn't want to pay? There are still low paid jobs and now a lot has to do with globalisation. We a society are all partly responsible. Why pay £40 for a skirt when they're's one for £10 in Primark? Market forces are therefore keeping wages low aren't they? Think supermarkets squeezing farmers/manufacturers, industry/services relocated overseas for cheap labour.

So tax credits came after low wages. And yes, wages are kept artificially low to feed demand and squeeze.

Surely the sensible thing is everyone who makes a decision to have a child makes sure they can financially, physically and emotionally provide for it. Not necessarily private school and ponies but basic roof over head, food on table, clothes on back. However the emotional side is just as important.

We both worked and earned ok, i was going back to work after he was born and then we'd try for a second a year later. Then we had a medically fragile child and i gave up work to care for him. There'a no other option than for me to now work and therefore we are entitled to benefits because DH doesn't get paid loads - he is looking for better work but its not always thst easy. Financially it would make sense to have baby no2 now whikst i'm off but emotionally and physically i couldn't cope with DS as well atm so we'll wait.

Some people just have more children because they want them and i have met people theough work who "deserve" a larger house, more benefits because they've had more children. It happens but statistically i imagine it's low. I've been in houses where the kids are bare foot on a bare floor but the 40 inch telly in the corner is surrounded by consoles. Again it happens but isn't every family.

There should be a safety net for people who need it - circs change, life happens. What do we do - let them starve cos it's not our problem??

My ex SIL has had 9 kids on benefits (trying for number 10). Social services are often involved as she cannot look after them. 2 were born in jail.

That's rubbish about it being unethical to have more than two children. Many people have no children at all, so just to maintain the existing population some need to have more. Who do you think is going to pay for the actually aging population and be the Drs, teachers, police etc of the future? I have three and I might have another, we can afford it, and I deserve the child benefits for providing future valuable and productive members of society. You're welcome.

You're not doing us a favour. Can you see the big, glaring problem with an increasing population in perpetuity to care for the elderly? Use your math skills.

The people who are doing us a favour are the ones who have 1 child, or none at all. I'll reserve my thanks for them.

vestal not every one who grows up to be a "useless shit" was raised poor. Talk about making judgement calls.

Many interesting points here. It's a subject that is always sensitive. I do think benefits should be capped at two children, but as pps have pointed out, how that is actually policed I don't know. There does need to be an end to being 'rewarded' with more benefits/bigger house for having more kids. PPs have pointed out that the population needs to be maintained, but when it's wealthy/educated having one or two, and poor/uneducated have 5, 6, or whatever, then the demographics are going to change for the worse.

So many are finding it hard to provide because the rich are hoarding assets and treating human rights like housing and food as commodities to profit from??

This drives me nuts. Human rights by definition cannot cost money, because that means that they cannot be inalienable.

could you all have gotten degrees in the current £9000 a year per child circumstances?

Surely the answer is yes, since the £9000 is not paid up front but taken as a loan. For those from low income backgrounds, £8000 loans are available to over living expenses as well.

However, for families on slightly higher incomes with several children at university at the same time, the situation would be worse, as they would be expected to contribute a few thousand per child i.e. full maintenance loans are not available.

know a Muslim family with ten kids because they don't believe in contraception. Surely such beliefs should be challenged in the 21st century.

Ffs...that's it. Blame the Muslims for the increasing population aswell now.
What a fucking stupid comment. There are Catholic Christians who don't believe in contraception aswell you know?

And FYI, there is a very very small minority of Muslims who don't believe in contraception; most actually know when enough is enough and Islam also allows contraception.

The more important question in my mind is do we want a stable population or a decreasing one? Especially given the issues of a decreasing one with reduced tax receipts etc.

At the moment the UK has a total fertility rate of under 2 children per female resident. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2015

A replacement rate would be just over 2 (to take into account children who don't grow up and people who never have children). We are actually bucking the trend in Europe. In Germany and Italy for example the total fertility rate is 1.4 and this is a real issue. That's why you get an increasing older population and fewer nurses, doctors, etc to look after them. www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

If you look at things that way then those large families are doing you a favour because they are raising the generation who are going to be looking after you in your old age.

The more important question in my mind is do we want a stable population or a decreasing one? Especially given the issues of a decreasing one with reduced tax receipts etc.

Given that the population is set to climb to 11 billion, we need a decreasing one. All other problems, no matter how pressing, are secondary.

I know two large families very well.

Family one, survives entirely on benefits. Dad is very, very ill. They have 5 children together, she has 2 from a previous relationship, he has one from a previous relationship. So 8 in total. She is a brilliant mum. Those children do not go without in any way. She takes them all to different activities, she cooks from scratch every night, the kids are clean, tidy, ironed clothes, well spoken and polite and all doing really well in school. She's also a full time carer for her husband. Looking at them on paper you'd think they would be a case study of poverty and neglect/deprivation. In reality, they are a happy, functional family doing very well.

Family two have 5 children. Dad works the minimum number of hours to get tax credits. The children always look a mess, hair dirty and unbrushed. Clothes dirty and smelling. Old tatty shoes or trainers. Two of the children can't read or write (aged 12 and 7) and parents have made no effort to look into why they can't. The house is disgustingly dirty and messy all the time. The kids have very few clothes and yet they have dogs and horses which both cost money. The kids don't do any activities, none of them can swim. Only the oldest can ride a bike (teenager) and they don't do homework because mum and dad don't have time. The girls have no privacy at all and the youngest two are allowed to just do whatever they want in the house so everything gets wrecked. Parents moan that they can't afford to do things because they have five kids.

I don't think you can generalise on large families. I am constantly amazed and feel like I'm lacking when comparing myself to family one, the mum is quite frankly, a superhero. Family two I stopped associating with a while ago as I was fed up with how the kids were just not having a decent childhood. Yes they are fed and cared for on a basic level but I feel they miss out on so much when their parents prioritise the animals and takeaways over the kids having any kind of childhood which doesn't involve sitting in a muddy field while they groom their bloody horses.

So many are finding it hard to provide because the rich are hoarding assets and treating human rights like housing and food as commodities to profit from. Unless we want only the rich to be able to have children, and I'd rather not just have a braying herd of shite Etonians in the world, we should be trying to have a normal job available to people which pays for a roof, food and a good life.

That makes me a radical in some quarters

I think this what mrsterrypratchett said at the start pretty much sums it up for me.

I think that deliberately having more than 2 children is immoral and selfish, given that the planet has limited resources. Having said that here, I wouldn't dream of saying it to anyone's face - it's just my privately held opinion (I chose not to have children). In my lifetime the world population has increased from 2 billion to something in the region of 8 billion. What sort of world will there be for future generations if we don't act responsibly now? This should be more of a concern for those of you who do/did choose to have children, as they and their descendants will be the ones affected. I'll be long gone!

I think that deliberately having more than 2 children is immoral and selfish

I have no patience for those who insist that they have something short of complete autonomy over their reproductive fate in 2016. If you don't agree with abortion, get very serious about your contraception.

Other than this, I agree with your post.

Madinche1sea - going back to your post. Your DH may well pay 50% of his income in tax, but this is not enough. It is still families like yours that are the reason for division in society and the fact that other less privileged people are deprived of the basic human right to have as many children as you.

This is a very interesting thread, the Cathy Come Home misunderstanding aside.

I am working class, living in South London, my choice to have only one child was partly physical (hated the experience of childbirth, never again) partly financial (We live in a two bed flat, trying to save up for somewhere bigger), partly emotional (rocky marriage) and partly social (no one in my circle has more than three kids).

I think it comes down to a mixtures of factors. Some poor families with large families do fantastically well in climbing social ladders and some don't. Some family attitudes are wedded in culture and/or religion. Some fall back to knowledge and education. It's a very complicated issue, not solved by restricting benefits, housing, or medical intervention.

The simple question to ask oneself is, "Can I cope?" I couldn't, so instead of having more kids, I bought a cat . And made sure my contraception was sound.