Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Too many kids

377 replies

OoerBlah · 05/08/2016 02:42

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?

OP posts:
ATrumpIsAFartCalledDonald · 05/08/2016 12:35

Interesting thread. I basically agree with your premise - if you can't afford children then don't have them.
By afford I don't mean being able to afford Prada nappies or some such, but if you will not even be able to give that child a piece of bread and a cup of milk perhaps you should reconsider.

callherwillow · 05/08/2016 12:38

But assaulting your child's teacher isn't going to help them succeed, is it? Grin

OnceThereWasThisGirlWho · 05/08/2016 12:42

callherwillow if you hugely value family and there is a financial incentive to have a large one, you will.

Perhaps pedantic but an important point IMO - it's not a financial incentive. Perhaps a lack of financial disincentive (though not really now tax credits stop at two).

Any extra money from the state for having another child is to pay towards the cost of that child. They get the money because they have the extra costs.

It's like when people quote the total state benefits a family receives without separating out rent - what sounds like a fortune elsewhere will barely feed a family in London once the rent is paid.

I suspect there is also an element of "we couldn't afford xyz so why should they", when in reality the actual figures do not differ, just perceptions on what is "enough".

OnceThereWasThisGirlWho · 05/08/2016 12:47

mathsmum Perhaps if a woman has a baby before they have somewhere to live the child could be adopted?

Bloody hell.

Just have a think for a moment about how you'd have felt having your firstborn forcibly adopted.

Then have a google and read about how your little plan worked out in the past.

mathsmum314 · 05/08/2016 13:23

OnceThereWasThisGirlWho

I wasn't suggesting adopting babies at birth because of a 'hypothetical' risk of emotional abuse. I was suggesting if a woman doesn't even have somewhere to live and chooses to have a baby(ies) then there is actual neglect of that baby and it is societies responsibility to protect that child.

callherwillow · 05/08/2016 13:25

No, there is a financial incentive. You have a baby and your income goes up. That's an incentive.

Vipermisnomer · 05/08/2016 13:36

mathsmum - Perhaps if a woman has a baby before they have somewhere to live the child could be adopted?

WTAF???

NobodyInParticular · 05/08/2016 13:49

Here's another idea PP, how about homeless mothers are housed by the state!? I'm happy to pay my taxes for that.

callherwillow · 05/08/2016 13:51

They are ...

Vipermisnomer · 05/08/2016 13:56

Is it daily fail trawl o'clock?

OnceThereWasThisGirlWho · 05/08/2016 14:00

willow How is it an incentive if it makes your expenditure go up too?

I could move to London and my Housing Benefit would go up (double I think) but it wouldn't be an incentive to move because I'd not actually have any extra money in my pocket day to day. It would all go on the extra rent.

There may be a slight financial incentive for the first child but not to have a large family.

mathsmum I was suggesting if a woman doesn't even have somewhere to live and chooses to have a baby(ies) then there is actual neglect of that baby and it is societies responsibility to protect that child.

What's your definition of not having somewhere to live? A young person chucked out of the family home when they find out she's pregnant? Someone fleeing abuse? Someone who's been on the streets for years? Someone homeless due to fire/flood etc? Someone who's landlord goes bankrupt or decides to sell up in an area where property is hard to come by? I'm sure you wouldn't include all these situations so where do you draw the line?

Plus there's the whole question of what is best for society as a whole, even if you don't care about individuals. A bit like the temptation to lock up criminals and throw away the key, whereas rehabilitation and actually working on the social issues that lead to crime tends to be more cost-effective.

elQuintoConyo · 05/08/2016 14:39

thisgirlx100 i'm not trying to 'shut down debate' but when people hold disgusting views imvho i challenge them on it.

This all reeks of: you're on benefits? How very dare you have one child let alone 3'. Bullshit. I hate it.

The world is full of people with different upbringings and wants/needs. Can't they just get on with it without being judged to the hilt?

NobodyInParticular · 05/08/2016 14:45

^ it was sarcasm callhereillow! I know they are!

panegyricS1 · 05/08/2016 14:49

I think that tax credits and child benefit are reasonably generous. Couples with one full time worker and one part time worker should be able to afford two children, which is fine. People who want more should be able to fund them.

callherwillow · 05/08/2016 14:52

Once

Coz your expenditure doesn't go up THAT much, or at least it doesn't have to.

I've just done two calulations for a couple with one sahp and one working a 40 hour week. Tax credits entitlements for two children is £675; for three it's £740.

So there is £65 extra from tax credits and around £55 from child benefit. It's not a fortune, but it's not meant to be! Bear in mind there are no childcare costs as one parent is a SAHP so that's £740 p/m for food, toys, clothes, shoes and entertainment PLUS child benefit of just under £200 a month so just short of £1000.

You have to admit, it's pretty good for someone not working.

callherwillow · 05/08/2016 14:52

Sorry, Nobody Blush

HeddaLettuce · 05/08/2016 14:56

The world is over populated. We need to control the number of babies we have. Having more than two children us selfish, even if you can afford it

People always say this stuff on these threads, and it shows a total lack of understanding. The WORLD may or may not be overpopulated, but countries in Western Europe are not, they don't even have replacement rates of birth. We need MORE babies in Europe, not less.
Otherwise you are going to have the developed world shrinking, the developing world ever expanding, and a complete global collapse as the former becomes less and less able to do prop up the latter economically, technologically, etc etc.

callherwillow · 05/08/2016 14:57

We definitely do not need any more children in the United Kingdom.

The point is, people will continue to have babies.

The question is, should we encourage this by providing pretty generous financial incentives for them?

HeddaLettuce · 05/08/2016 15:02

No, there is a financial incentive. You have a baby and your income goes up. That's an incentive

Except your costs go up even more, so not an incentive at all really. Didn't you notice that babies cost money?

callherwillow · 05/08/2016 15:05

Well yes, indeed they do, but I do think after doing the weekly shop, buying a few items of clothing and toys, there might be a bit of change left out of that grand. Don't you? :)

Or does your workplace offer a salary that goes up when you have a child? Coz mine doesn't!

Vipermisnomer · 05/08/2016 15:07

callherwillow We definitely do not need any more children in the United Kingdom.

You do realise you are on mumsnet right?

A parenting support forum?

HeddaLettuce · 05/08/2016 15:10

We definitely do not need any more children in the United Kingdom

Of course you do. HAve you forgotten that they grow up be adults?

callherwillow · 05/08/2016 15:10

So am I to presume you have extrapolated a layer of meaning from my post that wasn't there, Viper? :)

I don't 'need' a glass of wine later but I'm going to have one or maybe a bottle you get me? Wine Grin

I was responding, clearly, to a poster above who had stated we 'need' to replace our ageing population in Western Europe. In the U.K., we don't - levels of immigration (or in other words, enough people wanting to enter the country) mean we don't NEED to have any more children.

That doesn't mean people won't, or shouldn't.

HeddaLettuce · 05/08/2016 15:12

In the U.K., we don't - levels of immigration (or in other words, enough people wanting to enter the country) mean we don't NEED to have any more children

Except you are going to get rid of the immigrants now, and not let more in, wasn't that the idea of Brexit?

And immigration is not enough to replace your ageing population anyway.

callherwillow · 05/08/2016 15:14

No, that wasn't the idea of Brexit :) the idea was we would have control over immigration levels and actually have in some cases more immigration from outside of Europe.

I think you probably already know that if you went to parts of Africa or Asia and invited people to come here, they would, but you won't need to, as people will continue to have babies.

The question is, at what point do we withdraw financial assistance to those having them.