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?

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

That is a VERY sweeping statement.

Until reliable and cheep and safe contraception is available worldwide all of the time with no fear of sanction or repercussions for using it, there will be large families.

sanaya but no one is deprived the basic human right of having as many kids as they want are they? There might be benefit caps but people DO have more kids and manage to provide for them. Some people struggle to do it with two whilst others in similar situations manage to afford more. No one is telling people who earn under 40k they can't have more than 3 kids and people wothout a job can't have any

If we want to limit the number of children people have without an actual law it would be very easy. Taxes could pay for education and healthcare as they do now but then everything else is left to the parents. Take away the benefits and the number of children will dramatically increase. Perhaps then many would think twice about a new child with every man that comes along or use contraception properly.

We need workers that pay tax going forward not more taking from the system. If that means immigration then that's what we do but when people realise that they need to work then they will. Refusing to work as they get more or equal in benefits should never ever be an option. It's lazy and entitled.

And not every crap parent is a poor one!!

We grew up in a 1 parent household in very tight circumstances. My sister had her first two young but worked inbetween and around. One is on the army and the pther is looking into that or something similar. Both are awesome, well behaved kids. I went to Uni and delayed children til i was older. My sister and I were also awesome children.

My ex was raised middle to upper class, grammer school etc and is a distespectful arse with very poor social skills

My sister and I were also awesome children.

If you do say so yourself

Every extra child puts a strain on the system whether the parents are on benefits or not. I imagine there are virtually no children who have never used an NHS service and somewhere over 93% will have used State education at some point, and our country is in debt....... So I think a lot of people are unnecessarily preoccupied with the idea of supporting feckless baby machine parents on benefits. I think it would be wiser and kinder to try to save money / raise taxes in other areas rather than targeting the poor.

I grew up in a deprived area where some women/men started having children young with no means of supporting them because they didn't see anything else in their future. They knew they would be given a home and benefits. Most were second generation benefit families who were never encouraged to want/achieve anything else as they would be given money regardless. Some have GC now.
Then there were the poor families who did everything they could so their own DC's would have more options and potential earnings and better quality of life than they did.

People can end up on benefits for so many, often unexpected reasons. They are there to provide support when needed. Unfortunately the actions of low percentage of claiments are all people seem to see.

I don't think the number of DC's a person chooses to have is the issue. It's whether or not the person having those DC's has the ability to parent them.

My DF was 1 of 9 (Irish Catholic family). All grew up to work/uni etc.
The world has changed in those 70 years since my nana started her family. Contraception/attitudes/religion. IMO there is simply no need to have that many children.

I know 1 person who had 10 kids by 35 all on benefits. She had major issues from her upbringing that were never dealt with and why she kept having them. Now her DC's are suffering from that.

Surely there is a happy medium between breeding like rabbits and having no children. Many rich people stop having children after having two or even one. I don't understand why people on benefits should have five or more children. Accidents do happen, but the uk has excellent contraception services and abortion is available on the NHS.
Not read all of the thread yet, but three or four posts down and this old shite is being promulgated. Get some facts. Look at Refuge. Try the Joseph Rowntree Foundation who can provide accurate figures on the really very few families with more than three children who are in receipt of benefits.

there was a campaign 'two will do'. This planet is already straining at the seams. Not my problem as I won't be around in fifty years when it is really bad, but it WILL be an issue for today's kids.

if you want kids, aim to replace yourself and your partner with two. Some will have none, some will have more - if the average aim is for two for those that want them, it will work out.

making legal limits goes wrong - look at China. It has to be voluntary.

Sanaya - how am I in any way responsible for the amount of children other people may choose to have- or their human rights for that matter? What on earth do you mean? How much tax would be "enough" then for DH to pay, in your view - 80%?

Nobody ever gave us anything by the way and we have never claimed benefits of any sort - not that it should matter if we had. But I just don't get what your point is?

It would be helpful if anecdotes were kept out of it.

There are wonderful and awful parents across the financial spectrum but one can't deny that the impact of poor parenting is more keenly felt at the lower end of the weath pyramid.

There are numerous reasons for this. Firstly and most obviously, if you are wealthy and struggling you can afford a cleaner, a nanny, a car.

Secondly, lack of education is really what impacts rather than finances. Statistically, poverty makes little or no impact if the mother has a degree. While not every well educated person is wealthy, there is an obvious correlation between wealth and education. Someone lacking an education is less likely to parent effectively.

Thirdly, benefits make having a large family attractive. There are other reasons for this: for a variety of sociological reasons a working class person is likely to put an emphasis on family and blood loyalty that someone middle class may not (think Peggy Mitchell and 'fam'lee') and I'll go into those if anyone's interested, but if you hugely value family and there is a financial incentive to have a large one, you will.

The poorer you are the more likely you are to suffer ill health (NHS money) more likely you are to need intervention at school (money) be excluded from school (money) and need a specialist place (money); you are more likely to commit a crime and go to prison (money) and be reliant on benefits when released.

We can't ignore the fact that large (anything over two children) families have a detrimental impact on the country's bank balance. It isn't a personal criticism of anyone but it needs discussing without the 'well I am one of eighteen and we all have PhDs!' posts.

I'm not comfortable about limiting the number of children people can have. I think a lot of families do it automatically anyway as larger families just aren't the norm in the UK.

In some countries large families can often be due to women being denied access to contraception and education so their only role is to be a mother.

As for limits for people on low incomes, that's tricky too. When I had my children, I was earning 50k + a year. I'm now on welfare due to ill health. Also, money doesn't make someone a good or bad parent. Someone living in a low income household with parents who are loving and invested in the wellbeing of their children is much better than a child living in a high income household where there isn't much love or attention.

someone lacking an education is less likely to parent effectively

Evidence? There isn't a qualification on how to love and care for your children.

large families have a detrimental impact on the countries bank balance

I'd disagree - the children will grow up and work and generate income for the economy.

poster KeemaNaanAndCurryOn Fri 05-Aug-16 11:50:49

someone lacking an education is less likely to parent effectively

Evidence? There isn't a qualification on how to love and care for your children.

large families have a detrimental impact on the countries bank balance

I'd disagree - the children will grow up and work and generate income for the economy.sadly this is not correct if your parents do work or have never worked your more likey to go on to be on welfare your self

That's why social service and the police take about breaking. The cycle as they pretty much deal with Diffrent generations of the same family

Try the Joseph Rowntree Foundation who can provide accurate figures on the really very few families with more than three children who are in receipt of benefits

As you can see on this thread, there's quite a lot of concern about three children. I'm sure it's true that more than three comprise a minority.

specialsubject - that sounds really logical, I agree.

Sanaya - how am I in any way responsible for the amount of children other people may choose to have- or their human rights for that matter? What on earth do you mean? How much tax would be "enough" then for DH to pay, in your view - 80%?

Well, in a kind of fuzzy way you are. We're all here in a world with too many people. Those who believe that it's irresponsible to have more than 2 and would actually love another kid but don't do it - it's understandable that they might feel that those with larger families are free-loading on their sacrifice.

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

its very simply when you apply for welfare of any sort you provide the prof of how many children you have you get money for the first two then nothing for any others that's it and also we stop giving ever bigger housing to people-

Also I would be getting people back to work after two children no exues.

If your education is basic you are less able to access help when you need it. Think for instance about complaining to a school about the way a teacher is delivering a curriculum. Think about challenging a doctor on his diagnosis for your child.

No one is saying people with a low education don't love their children. What I am saying is that when a family run into problems, an educated parent or parents can negotiate around them.

It's a bit of a fallacy that having been brought up in poverty, these children will strive to better themselves and ALL become higher rate tax payers, serving the country they once took from. A minority will. Most won't.

making legal limits goes wrong - look at China. It has to be voluntary.

Pretty horrible, yes. Hands up please for anyone who actively wishes that we had another 400 million people on the planet.

I do think we have a problem with overpopulation, but I imagine families of 4 and over (which I would consider large) happen most with the very rich who can afford as many children as they want (there are staggering numbers of families with 3/4+ children at our private school, with only 5-10% sibling discount and high fees even for the SE.

I have known someone at the other end of the scale - religious objections to contraception, 26yo with 5 children and trying for number 6 (said she would try to stop at 8), living in council house in central London, had never worked and never intended to. I don't think this is very common though.

I think for most people there is a certain amount of drop in quality of life they are prepared to accept when they have an additional child.

I don't want to live in a society where only those who do not need to claim income support / tax credits can have children (though I do think people do have a certain amount of responsibility to consider the impact on others and of course the future child.)

I dont know where i really stand on this subject. Husband is a high earner and we have 3 kids. All this would be fine and dandy however my kids all have sn. So one hand my husband is in a high tax band on the other we use nhs and additional education services. We do employ childcare so i guess there are people earning money from our situation. Oh i dont know. Its never clear cut is it?

poster callherwillow Fri 05-Aug-16 12:06:13

I have found that parents with Less education have no issue with challenging schools

Assaults verbal and physical on teachers are up On last year

OP life can't be overly planned, there is a whole lot of luck involved too.

You could be rich today and poor tomorrow or vice versa.

Expecting child planning to fall in line with your naive belief that everyone makes their own fate is a bit silly and a lot unkind.

Definitely agree that people should not have children they can't afford and know they will probably never be able to afford, without benefits. Its irresponsible and selfish.

I am sure there is more we can do as a society. Perhaps if a woman has a baby before they have somewhere to live the child could be adopted?