Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

to expect to reproduce without all the financial burdens humans have to suffer!

72 replies

springbean · 12/04/2007 14:55

Animals don't have to check their finances are in order before they plan a family - why should we have to? Something's wrong with the world we live in...rant rant

Sometimes I'd much rather we all still lived in caves/ primitive dwellings and only had to worry about hunting animals or gathering choice juicy berries. All this worry about paying the mortgage, covering all the bills is getting a bit too much....

Surely society should pay SAHMs more so people can actually afford to have kids before they reach the grand age of two humpty and humpty four...

Thoughts please..

OP posts:

expatinscotland · 13/04/2007 23:00

Mortgage?

Haahaahaaahaaa.

There's a laugh!

The government paying for you to accrue equity in a personal asset.

nightowl · 13/04/2007 23:12

will-not-comment-on-this-thread...will-not-comment-on-benefits....will move away slowly without saying that anyone here could end up on them through no fault of their own and i hope they NEVER have to be slated at EVERY available opportunity because of it.

oops.

expatinscotland · 13/04/2007 23:14

We had to get top up benefits, nightowl.

Not saying there's anything wrong w/benefits of themselves, but as an indefinite lifestyle choice and to pay a mortgage when so many of us are at the mercy of landlords indefinitely, yeah.

kimi · 13/04/2007 23:18

There is nothing wrong with getting help when it is needed but some people think it is a way of life and do not even try to get out of it.

As I said my sister had to claim a while ago and it was hell.
I do not mind paying in to a system that will help those in need when they need it, (there but for the grace of god) but I do not want to finance someone who thinks it is their right to sit on there backside and not contribute in any way.

nightowl · 13/04/2007 23:21

i know expat, i know. i work, have always worked but i got made redundant twice and had no choice but to claim benefit at these times. i am so tired of hearing about this on mn. i feel like banging my head against the wall.

it just seems that its a great subject for people to bring up on any thread purely to have a dig .

expatinscotland · 13/04/2007 23:24

I got fucked over by tax credits, so yeah, I've been there.

But I don't think anyone's having a dig here, tbh.

Twinklemegan · 13/04/2007 23:25

Sorry if this is a bit off the point, but there's a question I've always wanted to know the answer to. You know when figures are quoted about minimum incomes for families with children etc. on benefits, do those figures include housing costs? Because by my reckoning if we'd be due a minimum income of, I dunno, £150 a week or whatever it is and get our rent paid as well (if we were renting) plus all the other stuff you get free, then we'd sure as hell be better off on benefits than we are now working.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here but I really want to know the answer to this one.

SenoraPostrophe · 13/04/2007 23:25

the problem with being really self righteous about benefit claimants is that in many cases it actually costs more to hunt down the benefits "lifestyle" people than it would to just give them the money. as a political issue it is given way more priority than it deserves.

why don't we concentrate on getting all kids an education that is good enough to let them see all the other possibilities available to them instead?

kimi · 13/04/2007 23:26

Well said SP

nightowl · 13/04/2007 23:33

well benefits weren't mentioned in the original post but somehow, once again this turns into a benefit thread. it just annoys me so much when ive struggled and worked my arse off yet the only thing ever commented on is benefits...which i claimed...for a time. makes me wonder why i bother. i worked since i left school, no matter how awkward its been...but the fact i claimed benefits for about 18 months out of 12 years seems im percieved as a low life drain on society, no matter what i did before, or after. perhaps not this thread in particular, but there are so many.

Twinklemegan · 13/04/2007 23:35

I've been on benefits in the past btw, before DH and I got married. Can anyone answer my question?

kimi · 13/04/2007 23:35

Surely society should pay SAHMs more so people can actually afford to have kids before they reach the grand age of two humpty and humpty four...

Why should we pay someone to have a child ?

SenoraPostrophe · 13/04/2007 23:36

OK, well to go back to the op: if you can't afford to pay the mortgage - sell up

Eleusis · 14/04/2007 11:22

Benefits were mentione or at least implied in the OP.

"Surely society should pay SAHMs more..."

How, other than benefits, might society pay?

chocolateface · 14/04/2007 11:41

Our parents generation accepted that if you gave up work to have children, you had less money comming in to the house hold, and couldn't have treats, nice clothes, forein holidays, etc. I'm a SAHM, it wouldn't be cost effective for me to work, not all my children were planned. I just have to accept that I can't have everything I want, like I could whan I worked. And yes, we sold our house and moved into rented to avoid being reposesed. We're dealing with it. I don't expect to be payed to stay at home with my children for a few years. I do expect free schooling, health care, etc.
And my 8 year old will survive without a Nintendo DS lite

OrmIrian · 14/04/2007 11:48

But if we didn't need money we'd still need to find food, shelter etc. Babies only fit into lives where there is enough of that - whether you hunt it, gather it or pop down to Waitrose. And whether you want a 6-bed house with a pool or a damp cave with a river view it still has to be found or nicked off someone else. Animals don't tend to breed where food/shelter/water isn't plentiful.

If you find this utopia where everyone looks out for everyone else and plenty of food grows on trees all year round, please let me know.Or where SAHMs get paid for Staying at home - 'cos I'd like to do it too.

ebenezer · 14/04/2007 12:57

Good point chocolateface. I think part of being human is learning to accept that there are lots of different ways of doing things, and there's no right or wrong. There's also usually a plus and a down side to most situations eg if both parents work, there's more money but other pressures. If one parent stays at home, there's less money but more time. We all make decisions, within certain constraints (eg my DH can't run to save his life so is never gonna be a millionaire footballer!) and then get on with our lives. No one is owed a living by anyone else. We're fortunate in this country compared to many others in that people aren't starving on the streets. The benefits system is there to provide a safety net so that people can live - not to necessarily provide them with a lifestyle of their choosing.

3andnomore · 14/04/2007 21:12

Maybe we all should just go back to basics....
maybe aslong as you have a roof over your head, food on the table and are in a reasonable safe place...the we are not at all unlucky...especially if we are healthy we have got it all going for us!
I have decided o do more positive thinking

Blondilocks · 14/04/2007 21:19

Yes. Just in the same way I would be unreasonable to expect to have a nice place to live in for free (animals get this for free).

Blondilocks · 14/04/2007 21:19

Or free travel. (Birds can for free).

williamsmummy · 14/04/2007 23:44

I have four children, and am soooooo glad that we started early. Our first child was born , in the early 90's, a time when our first home was worth less than the mortgage were paying.
It was the cheapest home we could find or afford.
I went back to work 20 hours a week when our baby was three months old. It was incredibly hard. As i had lost a history of miscarrage and near miscarrages, we started early for our 2nd child, thinking it would take years like the first.

Somehow we got by, but did struggle.

But IF we had considered our money situation, and waited until things where easier, we would not have had ANY children.

Its only in the last two years that i we can scrape by on one wage, without me juggling 4 kids, a home and 2 part time jobs.
I am now 40 and have endmetriosis,I am not fertile now.

ebenezer · 15/04/2007 09:05

williamsmummy - so glad for you that you got to have your family. Your post highlights that really unless you're incredibly well-off (and let's face it, that rules out most of us!) the family thing is always likely to be a struggle. Whether to just bite the bullet and go for a family when younger, or wait for possible financial security and then risk other complications through being older. Like you, our first child was born in the early 90s, when mortgages were sky high (makes the current situation look like a breeze doesn't it?! though I know for young people now it's also a struggle). Our house ended up being repossessed despite us both working - i too returned when DC1 was 3 months old, which again, makes the current situation of 6 months mat leave plus up to a year if you can afford it, look wonderful. We dealt with the situation by putting off DC2 longer than we would have liked. No right or wrong way is there - it;s a massive struggle. The main thing though, is that we too got there in the end and had our family.

Flip

1 2 3