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?

@Gogogobo

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.

THIS ^ the welfare state IS meant for people suffering hardship, and is not meant for people to make a career out of having babies.

The 'no more tax credits after the first 2 children' rule HAD to happen; too many people just keep having them to stay on benefits. It may not be very PC to say this, but it's true.

And despite what you think, it's not an attack on them. I know that many don't know how to do anything different as they have been raised with that mindset, often with mothers and aunties and sisters and peers who do the same, so it's normal to them. But people who don't live on benefits don't keep getting extra money chucked at them when they have more children, so why should people on benefits get extra money?

I actually know TWO different young women (21-23,) who went to school with my daughter, who have 2 kids each, and last year, they were both discussing (publicly on facebook,) having another kid to get a bigger council house. My daughter's friend wrote 'you two are the reason people vote for Conservative!'

The only people who support people having loads of kids and staying on benefits, are either right-on lefties, who bash anyone who dares to say anything about people on benefits, even if they are constructive comments and not being horrible. OR they are on benefits themselves, and are massively defensive.

@Nancy91
I agree OP, I used to work for DWP and there are a phenomenal amount of people who have loads of kids despite always having lived on handouts. Many of them have a really entitled attitude and feel that the world owes them something, but they've never worked a day in their lives. Working there really opened my eyes.

This ^ And it is NOT 'utter bollocks' as someone said. It does actually happen!!!

I used to work in housing, and there were a lot of people who were very entitled, and would demand a bigger house if they had an extra child, and moan if a repair wasn't done within 5 minutes. I also knew several tenants who were on full housing benefit, but had a man living with them, and when they were caught and the benefit suspended, and left with a debt of £2K or something, they would sneer and say 'even if you evict me, I will still get housed by someone. I have 3 kids, I will not be left homeless, so do your fucking worst.' Yes, a tenant actually said that to me.

The majority of tenants were fine, (80% - 85% or so,) but there were a hardcore of entitled people who thought the world owed them a living, even though they had never worked a day in their lives. I used to get people trying every trick in the book to get social housing. For example, a tenant of ours (a 40 year old woman) came in with her eldest daughter (who was 19,) and insisted she was throwing her out because she is pregnant. We all knew she wasn't throwing her out, and it was just a way to get a house. Sadly, that was par for the course for some of them. Entitled, permanently-on-benefits mothers, who were raising generations of entitled, permanently-on-benefits daughters - (and sons!)

It may not suit the ears of some on here, but trust me, it happens! And whilst I do know that not EVERYONE on benefits is a free loading chancer who thinks the country owes them a living, they do exist. And I have to say that agree largely with the OP.

Stating facts and things that actually happen is not 'judgy.' As I said only right-on PC lefties think this, or people who are on benefits themselves.

Theres a big difference between cold and hungry and private school

The above are reality. People who work with such people. Who got into the job to help people truly in need and find all their time and energy wasted on this growing number of entitled minded people. It's not the Daily Mail, it's not those horrendous programme, it's unfortunately hands on personal experience.

What gets to me is that they are the one who are getting all the attention, and often they own ways because challenging them demands even more time and resources, and that's more of it taken away from those who truly deserve the system and are grateful for every bit of help they receive.

Well said @swingofthings.

Well basically its not really okay to judge anyone. But you've opened yourself up to it by judging the choices of people on low incomes. Clearly you don't like a taste of your own medicine.

I dont claim benefits nor do i have loads of kids. But i do get pissed off when people who have plenty of money start judging those who don't, and who may not have the same options and opportunities that others have had.

I think you do care considering you're so offended at people judging your choices.

As I said, the majority of the tenants were lovely people who were grateful for their home, and were nice, pleasant people. But there were a hardcore of entitled-to tenants who thought the country owed them a living, and they were also (unsurprisingly,) the ones who were 'nuisance neighbours.'

We would get, at least 2 or 3 times a week, a tenant coming in demanding they are upgraded to a 4 bed, as they had just had a third child! Or someone demanding a 3 bed as they had just had a second child, and they were NOT having the kids sharing a bedroom.

I'm not going all '4 yorkshiremen!' but when I was growing up (70's and 80's,) I knew half a dozen families with 4, 5, and 6 kids who had a 3 bed house, for many years. The parents slept in one bedroom, the boys in another, and the girls in another.

Several of them - who had 7 or 8 kids, made the little dining room into a 4th bedroom. Improvising and making do, and not demanding a bigger house. AND they never got shit loads of extra dosh (tax credits) for every extra child! I know that tax credits were meant to help people initially, but sadly, the tax credits system became open to abuse.

I do agree with @alittlepotofrosie that it's wrong to judge people who have less opportunities and maybe less fortunate backgrounds, but I think everyone is entitled to feel pissed off and irked at people making a career out of staying on benefits.

Again, I know not everyone on benefits is like this, but these people do exist, and it's very naive to suggest they don't.

Well basically its not really okay to judge anyone. But you've opened yourself up to it by judging the choices of people on low incomes. Clearly you don't like a taste of your own medicine.

This.

But i do get pissed off when people who have plenty of money start judging those who don't, and who may not have the same options and opportunities that others have had.

But that's not what is being judged. Why make this issue about income when it is about affordability and responsibility?

@MotherofSausage I have already judged myself for putting finances before having children. It is a decision that I will regret forever. I would be furious with myself if I put a private education before having a child especially when 93% of the population make that "sacrifice"

Again, why is it okay to judge people who use private school (when they will likely pay VAT on fees in future and already pay plenty of income tax?) but not to suggest that being unable to feed and clothe your existing kid(s) should prompt you to think carefully about your reproductive choices?

I don't think you can really compare not being able to feed or clothe a child with having to send them to a state school along with 93% of the population.

I have every intention of making sure my DS benefits from every opportunity that we can afford and if that makes him a spoilt "little emperor" that's just fine with me. Better than being cold and hungry imo

@MotherofSausage going to a state school doesn't mean enforcing cold hunger into your children

Well of course those families exist. I know a few of them. But they don't actually know anything different. Thats the way they were brought up, with lots of kids and neither parent in a career. Those kids grow up and they're stuck in a vicious cycle now, young men and women having lots of children of their own and reliant on benefits. University and private school is so far outside their sphere that it may as well not exist. some of the young women in particular as someone else said, may feel the only thing they're good at is being a parent and don't have the confidence to try and study and get a decent job. They might see their children as their achievements. How will sneering at them help?

Big judgey underpants more like. The biggest judges of social mores are men.

And I have not "put private school before DC2" - I have simply considered the fairness on DS of a second child which would impact on his opportunities and future. I actually think that is a responsible thing to do.

And other people think it's chilling and bloodless and shows messed up priorities, if it hinges on luxuries being considered necessities. And that the proliferation of spoilt, indulged "onlies" will have a societal cost.

Which is why it would be better if EVERYONE kept certain opinions on other people's reproductive decisions to themselves.

See?

You have called me chilling, bloodless, said that my priorities are messed up, criticised me using private schools AND suggested that my DS is spoilt and indulged (and someone else called him a "little emperor"!)

No I haven't.

Interesting that you heard generalities as addressed/applying to yourself and your son personally, isn't it?

I wonder what lessons we could learn from that before we next decide to bitch on the internet 🤔

I said that I didn't understand why anyone would choose to have another child when they were already poor. (I still don't btw.)

Indeed.

I, OTOH, can make a stab at why people in poverty would do that.

But I don't understand why people would do X, Y or Z (including planning to have materially indulged only children, as it happens).

You don't seem to understand that differing opinions have equivalence of validity. You just keep repeating yours. I'm not quite sure why.

@SerfTerf

Very good posts.