Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To feel irritated when families have multiple children they cannot afford

559 replies

Teddy7878 · 31/07/2017 10:41

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?

OP posts:
Mittens1969 · 01/08/2017 19:43

@GogoGobo, maybe so, but why is it your business? Yes, I probably would work if my DH didn't earn enough to support us. But it's really nothing to do with you. It may have been an accidental pregnancy for all you know.

Mittens1969 · 01/08/2017 19:46

Anyway, the oldest will be in school soon and she will be able to work then.

Other countries have better systems for financing childcare for working parents. That's what should be looked into really.

Increasinglymiddleaged · 01/08/2017 20:06

If you "need" school fees, skiing trips and a live-in nanny it becomes difficult under £70,000.

Under 150k more like.

Yanbu op, the principle needs to be that people at least try to take responsibility for themselves in the first instance.

gillybeanz · 01/08/2017 21:24

GoGo

I think you and your colleague are both ill informed.
Tax credits will soon be UC and when children are a certain age you won't get paid anything for being a sahp, you need to earn 70 hours per week at min wage/ equivalent, between a couple to meet the requirements.

I do wish that some of you would remember that people are trying to take responsibility for themselves, there is so much poverty because the min wage is not enough for many to live on.

OCSockOrphanage · 01/08/2017 21:30

Gobo makes a valid point when writing that the welfare state is supposed to be a safety net when things go wrong, rather than a trust fund to make dreams come true. It is somewhat churlish not to have read the OP's post. They are making the same argument.

Mittens1969 · 01/08/2017 21:33

@gillybeanz, I agree with you. I think the issue is, it's awful that GoBeans's colleague can't afford to go back to work because of childcare costs! It should not be the case. It's not a case of her wanting to rely on benefits. She would be working if she could earn enough to pay for childcare.

OCSockOrphanage · 01/08/2017 21:34

Until the tax and benefits changes proposed with the introduction of UC come into effect, companies will continue to offer min wage/PT work. When a living wage is demanded for people to accept work, and there are no migrants to take up the slack, wages will rise and profits will decline.

gillybeanz · 01/08/2017 21:35

How is the welfare state being used as a trust fund to make dreams come true?
If this is true there are a lot of mugs working when they needn't then Grin
I don't believe anyone who makes such a ridiculous comment knows jack about benefits.

notgivingin789 · 01/08/2017 21:36

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...."

Yes ! Completely agree. When I was a single teenage parent to DS, I met many other young mums who were placed in baby units and this is what the majority of them went through. I'm so glad I declined to stay in one when SS offered me a place there. Though, of course, all MNBU are different.

BabychamSocialist · 01/08/2017 21:52

Sorry, but that post didn't come off like supported housing to me, it came off like the workhouses of old. Maybe the "gas" comment was too strong, but it genuinely sounded like a horrible suggestion that made the poor sound like a burden.

OCSockOrphanage · 01/08/2017 21:54

The welfare state is not intended to cater to people's preferences but is meant to be a safety net for hardship.

This was the statement I was referencing when I said the welfare state wasn't designed to make wishes come true. A safety net for hardship to me indicates six months or a year to get back on your feet after redundancy, longer in the event of a catastrophic illness/lifelong disability. Bigger picture, work needs to pay, properly, so that indolence through choice is not an easier option than getting up and going to work.

Mittens1969 · 01/08/2017 22:00

@BabychamSocialist, you were talking rubbish there, sorry. It didn't come across well, but she was just making a 'silly suggestion', as she put it. Workhouses wouldn't have been in her mind. You've made far too much out of it.

Mittens1969 · 01/08/2017 22:02

And she was only thinking of something that might work, as a short-term solution, until they got back on their feet. Workhouses were prisons the poor didn't escape from.

delilahbucket · 01/08/2017 22:10

I haven't RTFT but my ex has five children. He can't afford a house big enough to fit them all in. He has found every reason he can to not work over the last few years and yet despite constantly moaning about how poor he is, he and his girlfriend decided to have not one but two children. He couldn't afford the three he already had. It wasn't like there was any rush to have children either, she was still a teen when she had the first. It really pisses me off that I work my arse off to provide for my ds because he won't and I also have to pay for him and his other offspring through taxes.

PortiaCastis · 01/08/2017 22:17

For balance here's the gov rules on UC

PortiaCastis · 01/08/2017 22:18

www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get

greylove · 01/08/2017 23:07

Yes I believe you are right
Myself and DH both work pay taxes we are on lower income than 65 k but after waiting to have our DD now 1year old for 9 years my husband was made redundant when she was six weeks old and we all we had to live off from Dec to April was my maternity pay It was awful

While he is studying for another career and working our income is not what it was We would both love to have one more child but it's not financially compatible for the forceable future and Then it took us 9 years to have our DD it makes s me feel sad she will be our only child
I strongly believe it is wrong to
plan a child knowing you have to rely on benefits

NotMyPenguin · 02/08/2017 09:09

@greylove

"all we had to live off from Dec to April was my maternity pay It was awful ... it makes s me feel sad she will be our only child
I strongly believe it is wrong to
plan a child knowing you have to rely on benefits"

While I have the greatest sympathy for your situation, I do just want to point out that maternity pay is a benefit too.

As a society we need to accept that benefits are often supporting non-economic functions (caring work, pregnancy, maternity leave, early years parenting) that are not paid and yet are of tremendous social value. There should be no shame in 'benefits'. After all, the sweeteners paid to companies to get them to stay in the country are a kind of 'benefit'. So are tax deals. Why demonise women or assume that parenting isn't socially valuable enough for us to subsidise it? Do we not need a stable birth rate in order to continue to function as an economically viable society? (I'll give the answer away - yes, we do).

NotMyPenguin · 02/08/2017 09:10

I'm all for more benefits -- but universal benefits. Better maternity pay. Really good paternity leave and pay. Fund child care properly for the early years. I believe that we should all be paying more tax when we work in order to make sure that we are also investing in the crucial aspects of society that are valuable in ways that are not immediately financial.

woodhill · 02/08/2017 09:14

I'm much happier with that penguin but not happy about the people who never contribute to begin with who are perfectly capable of working as discussed in this thread but ooh we have to support them.

Also think families from other cultures should be cutting down too on dc numbers unless they are self sufficient.

Andrewofgg · 02/08/2017 09:24

woodhill We are all taxpayers - think VAT.

As for your second paragraph - forgive me but what colour are your flameproof undies?

RainbowsAndUnicorn · 02/08/2017 09:31

Not everyone is a tax payer by far. Yes there is VAT on a lot of items but if the money you are spending comes from benefits then the person isn't paying the state is.

I'd vote for the party that got rid of all child relatated benefits and instead put the money into childcare. That way, careers don't have to suffer, we create more jobs and if a person doesn't want to work then they opt out knowing that they need to self fund it. One fair playing field for all and a better future for the children.

Peanutbuttercheese · 02/08/2017 09:33

I am one of six dc
My parents had extremely well paid jobs
I grew up in a slightly shabby but huge beautiful house, it's been changed in to 5 two bed flats now
No benefits claimed

You cannot give children the attention they deserve when you have six dc. It is irrelevant how and great a parent you are. My favourite memory is going out with my Mother for the day with just her and me and that was the only day it ever happened.

One of my siblings has 3 dc and the third was an accident, 2 have one and 3 have two.

I saw a harassed looking Mother with 5 small dc a few days ago, all very close in age. I looked at the older ones who were about 8 and imagined all the help they are going to have to give and probably do already and just felt sorry for them.

Mittens1969 · 02/08/2017 11:14

@woodhill, yes that would make sense, and it would in fact empower the women themselves to make different choices, but it won't just happen. The work I do is to help Central Asian women, the culture is very similar to Afghanis, a lot of whom do reside here. The women have absolutely no choices; they are not allowed to decide not to get pregnant, they are stuck in the home, they wouldn't even be allowed to use birth control. And of course they don't even speak English!

Obviously not in all cases, but it's very common sadly. It really is like being in a different country when you pass through their streets.

So yes in an an ideal world you're absolutely right. But we need to start by focusing on illegal child marriage and FGM.

Mittens1969 · 02/08/2017 11:19

@Andrewofgg, sorry but your argument doesn't work at all! Yes we pay VAT, but if you're on benefits where does your money come from in the first place?? You don't earn it, do you?
I'm not assuming you're on benefits btw!