To feel irritated when families have multiple children they cannot afford

[Teddy7878]

First of all I accept that no contraception is 100% foolproof and pregnancy sometimes can occur even when people are trying their hardest to be careful.

I also accept that sometimes people's circumstances change and they could go from being financially comfortable to losing their jobs etc during their children's lives.

What really winds me up though are people who actively try and get pregnant when they already have several children and cannot afford the ones they already have. I sometimes see threads on here where people state they have less than £50 to feed a family of 7 for a week and no money at all for any luxuries whatsoever.

My DP and I will be in our mid 30s when we have our first child and we have decided it might be our only child. We want to be able to afford to give it a great life so have saved up hard for a few years beforehand. Between us we earn 65k so we live comfortably and don't have debts (other than the mortgage). It upsets me that we have to make the decision to only have one (possibly two) children and other people are having 5+ kids when they can't afford them.

Money isn't everything, a loving family home is always going to be the most important thing, but if you can only afford to eat lentils and never take your kids out anywhere fun or go on holiday or afford a car or pay for them to do activities outside of school or buy them a few nice things for Xmas then why keep continuing to have more and more children and making your situation even more stressful for everyone involved?! Why not just stick to one or two children?

*But OP you're being really simplistic in your view that a) everyone has the same cultural background/approach to having children b) everyone has the intelligence and education to realise the financial impact of each child c) people think things might get better for them in the future d) everyone has a social/environmental conscience.

I'm not sure how old you are but you seem to be very black and white in your thinking.*

Completely agree. I work with families who are vulnerable for lots of reasons and some just don't know any different. You keep having kids, it's what you do. No matter how much harder it makes things.

It doesn't irritate me, it makes me sad.

*WHAAAT?? are you seriously suggesting that older kids caring for younger siblings and doing chores is damaging

No. But there's a huge difference between getting your children to do all the farm jobs whilst you tend to baby no8/9/10, and asking them to load the washer for you.

One of the children we know of often has to say no to her mates going out as she has to look after baby no 5 whilst mum takes child no3 who's poorly again to the doctors. How is that fair?*

Exactly. Anybody who agrees that chidren should do the bulk of the household and lots of childcare obviously does it themselves as a parent. I know many children from larger families who have made the decision to not have children or just one as they wouldn't ever want to rob their children of a childhood.

You don't have to be MC to believe that large families or state benefits are wrong, plenty of MNs aren't. They are just ordinary people responsibly paying their own way in life as don't believe others should fund them or their choices.

Like blunt, I wanted a damn better life for my family and would never repeat the patterns I grew up with. Mine will never go hungry, never feel they are only good enough for second hand clothes and they do no childcare and very very few chores. We've worked hard to give them a stable life where they have no worries.

YANBU at all. However the only acceptable view on here is the direct opposite to yours. Therefore you will be given an unbelievably hard time.

Some of the parents spoil their elder dcs chances in life by having more babies so they miss school/college to help out. I have seen this happen.

Definitely, Woodhill. The problem is how to change that. I know a lot of people from the churches I've attended would disagree with me about sex education in schools and free contraception, but I absolutely believe that's the answer. People worry that it encourages young people to sleep around. I disagree, they will continue to do that regardless, but if they have access to contraception, fewer of them will have unplanned pregnancies.

Girls need to know that they have choices, and they will have more choices if they don't end up as single mums to multiple children in their teens.

@ShoutOutToMyEx, yes, it makes me sad too. Particularly for my DDs' birth parents, who can't turn their lives around.

I'm not sure where a couple of you got the idea a workhouse from regarding my previous post?
I said once parents progress to working they get their own home, and any additional help with the cost of living.... in my mind, hopefully progressing further in careers so additional help isn't even required.
Eh, it's only a silly idea from silly old me anyway x

woodhill so we are only talking about unmarried parents being a problem then?

And Pinky it is my understanding that there are far more families with 3+ children with working parent/s than not

My teen sometimes watches my 8 year old while i nip to the shop.

I also bought clothes from charity shopswhem they were small. There was nothing wrong with them.. you would be amazed what people throw away. I know people id consider quite middle class to go in there for a rumage, too

YANBU OP.
Work with someone who is in Mat leave with her 3rd child and now won't be coming back to work as childcare is soooo expensive (generally yes if you have 3 pre-school age together!) She's given up £45 a year. Her DP earns £25k but apparently they will get tax credits so can get by! How fucking irresponsible to go from joint income of £70k and 2 kids to 3 with an income of £25k of earned income by choice! Only doing it because the state will pay.

Oh and a massive downward shift in quality of life for existing 2 children for the foreseeable!

You're quite irate, confrontational and not open to discussing or understanding other views Wallahibillahitallahi.

And despite all your insults, I still maintain (along with other posters) that there is a difference between chores/babysitting and having older siblings propping up the family, working to chip into the family pot, missing college to look after siblings, not getting a wider social life/hobbies because you're needed to sort the house out. The people I know who've ended up being surrogate parents (almost all older girls) have themselves left college with few qualifications, worked a year or so in low skilled jobs before marrying, staying at home and having babies of their own. Tellingly most say they don't want to have families the same size they came from.

Personally, the thread has been interesting with a range of views and thoughtful discussion. Quite glad it's not been shut down.

No not at all needs but that can be the case as the young men move on and this has been mentioned upthread by other posters.

@GogoGobo, judgey much! It's actually none of your business! I'm a SAHM myself with two school age children; I could get a job, but finding something where I can work term-time and school hours. For the moment I'm getting DLA for DD1, who is due therapy for Attachment Disorder and we're waiting for therapy.

Your colleague will no doubt return to work when her children are school age. And in the meantime, her DCs are benefiting from having their mummy at home.

We don't qualify for tax credits because of my DH's salary and I don't claim benefits. I also do voluntary work for a Christian charity.

But we all have paid tax, so it's perfectly proper to claim tax when it's available for whatever reason. You don't know when you might need support yourself in the future, if you're on long-term sick for example.

You will probably end up going to far the other way though RainbowandUnicorn.

The problem isn't the number of children it's poverty. Plenty of larger families (mine including) are self sufficient and high achieving as adults and had a very nice, indulgent childhood.
Plenty of much smaller families in living in poverty whose children aren't so fortunate.
The ideal is children being raised in loving and committed, married families - research shows that to be the case - but it's not a perfect world and humans don't always take the wisest path.
Regardless of family makeup, parental attitude and the number of unplanned pregnancies, a civilised society as rich as the UK should not allow children to grow up in poverty.

I don't think you are being unreasonable in the narrow circumstances you describe. I dont understand why anyone would do this unless they are expecting a change in circumstances.

I have seen an real explanation given on (the first 14 pages of) this thread other than people having biological urges they can't control, disordered thinking or hidden circumstances such as abuse (setting aside all the explanations given for circumstances which are not actually the subject matter of the OP.

Haven't seen a real...

The thing is, life happens and people can't just pop children back in a few years down the line when they mature a bit and objectively realise they may have been better off waiting a few years.

I wouldn't choose to have five dc whether I could comfortably afford to or not. I imagine the average school day morning and shudder. Some of you are braver people than me.

Is it just me who read pinky's idea as more of a nice way to help people up when they are down, provide accommodation and with it support for any issues, help to get qualified and into work etc.
Sort of like what some mother and child hostels do now, but more consistently available with wider scope to support

I didn't get 'workhouses' from it at all.

Why not just gas them instead? Clearly poor people are such a burden to you.

I don't like pinky's idea much, either. But it is fucking insulting to victims of mass murder to say their suffering is the same as supported housing.

No, I didn't get the impression that Pinky was thinking of the poor as a burden, it was simply an idea to try and help them get back on their feet. Much like homeless shelters or women's refuges. I don't know why BabychamSocialist is being so aggressive about it and comparing her idea to workhouses of the Victorian era. Very unpleasant post.

Trouble is, mother and baby units are not supportive environments. They're designed to assess young mothers to see if they're able to look after their babies; if they don't stick with it their child is taken into care. The young mums you would want to help would be naturally suspicious of your intentions, especially as there would be social workers visiting some of them.

You're missing the point mittens1969
My colleague has chosen to have more kids than she can afford on the basis the state will pick up the tab and subsidised her choices.
I think that's wrong. if every tax payer took this entitled view the system would be collapse. And the classic line "I'm sure they enjoy having their mummy at home" is trotted out as predicted. The welfare state is not intended to cater to people's preferences but is meant to be a safety net for hardship.

Which was the question posed by the OP

I get it OP & I totally agree.

I think those who are making shitty comments get it too, but are just spoiling for arguments! X