AIBU why do women have more than 2 children

[Gin96]

2 children, Now we have the benifit cap? I see so many women struggling after having baby number 3 after the cut off date in 2017. I don’t agree with the cap but it is what it is. Men should pay towards their children but i’m afraid a lot don’t and it’s left on the shoulders of women. Why do women put themselves in this vulnerable position?

@justasking111

Why have you posted the link?

I'm a taxpayer and I'm more mad about companies and billionaires not paying their fair share than people with more than 2 kids.
But I guess poor kids are an easier scapegoat.

Not everyone can or wants babies anyway. Surely some people need to have 3 or more to keep the average up. Some countries are actually paying people to have more children because of the drop in their birth rates and the negative impact it has on the economy , ....etc. Just because you can afford babies it does not mean that you have the biology to have them. Money is not everything.

I can't understand why you would choose to have 7 kids with no way of providing for them then complain your skint.

I agree with this. Nobody should plan to have a baby based on the amount of benefits you'll get.

I had one child on a full time salary.

It won't be child benefit pepe. That isn't capped at all as long as you're not over the income threshold, so a couple could have 10 children and still receive it. It's other top up benefits, which can come to a lot more than child benefit does.

Why don’t you agree with the cap? Are you happy to fund all these children? Because I’m not, if you can’t afford it don’t have kids.

Let's ignore for a second that a large percentage of benefit claimants are in work and paying taxes and their benefit payments are a top up because minimum wage has not kept pace with the cost of living and unstable contracts (e.g., zero hours) mean work doesn't always pay.

Child-related benefits are only payable while the parent has a qualifying child in their household so they are only paid for a finite time period, even if they had child after child after child (which they don't/won't as not many people have 4+ children). At the end of that finite time period, the money stops because it was for the benefit of the children. It is there to put food in their bellies, keep a roof over their heads, clothe them, make sure that at the very least they have the basics so that they're going to school fed, dressed, clean, and in good health to help give them the opportunity to succeed and do well. Children who succeed and do well then have the chance to escape the poverty trap and find jobs where they dont need benefit top ups.

Remove the benefits, cap them, cut them, and the children suffer. Nond of them asked to be born, they should not be held accountable for their parents choices and austerity does nothing to cut the birth rate.

I want my taxes to go towards helping vulnerable people in our society, to go towards giving everyone a leg up to help them get on in life rather than funding a punitive system that drags them down and keeps them down.

Probably because they are fed up of having to support people who just keep on breeding when they have to rely on the taxpayer to feed their kids in the first place.

So you're happy to have children sitting in school hungry right now? Children who will come home to a cold house, who will have to rely on a food bank for meals, who don't have clothing suitable for the weather, who won't have access to the opportunities they need in order to have a better life as adults? Those kids should be punished for the choice their parents made?

Did you watch the programme last week about Britain’s poorest kids?

None of the families on there were large.

It wasn’t the number of kids that was the issue- it was their parents not working because of depression.

Ultimately the children are the ones that suffer.

That’s already happening @Venger

And that’s with help.

Let's not forget also that there are people who do not have control over their own reproductive choices, people in abusive relationships subject to financial control, people whose partner has died, people whose partner has left them, people who have become ill or disabled, people who have been made redundant, people with an ill or disabled child or other caring responsibilities.

Life can change at any moment and none of us are immune from that.

I saw that story about the family in Liverpool and didn't feel any sympathy for them. I feel a bit sorry for the kids having parents that stupid.

Yabu.
I only have one child but even so I’m not in a vulnerable position because I married a decent man who earns good money to support us. I also work.

I would ask MNHQ to edit your title. If this thread was about the environment it would be suited, though it is abou claiming benefits it needs to say it in the title.
On one hand I agree with it, it isn't enforced in Ireland my neighbour is pregnant on her 7th, OTOH it is the DC who will suffer, I know some people who have extra babies for psychology reasons, they may not have had love or guidance themself.
Then families with strong Christian beliefs who are against contraception.

Sometimes life throws lemons at you from being financially secure to on a knife edge through job loss, health, bereavement. What are you supposed to do the children are here and need care. Benefits are a safety net to tide you over. My friend was left in a mess her OH remortgaged the house, paid off his girlfriends mortgage, did not pay the tax or vat on their business and buggered off abroad with girlfriend. What she went through was appalling. The benefits did not cover a huge mortgage, car payments, repaying the HMRC. It was a wake up call that anyone can end up in dire straits.

I know several women with truly shit lives...single, living in too small council flats, on benefits...blah blah blah. Yet continue to have children...it can't be for the money as benefits are limited to two dc. Baffles me.

If you can afford the children without any assistance from the taxpayer, then have them if you want. Otherwise don’t.

that a 100%

Benefits are designed to help you out when your circumstances change. Not as a way of life.

If you decide to have a baby you can't afford, you shouldn't get any help frankly. Bet the ones who do wouldn't get pregnant in the first place if they didn't have that safety net.

Benefits are a help, and should stay that way. Not a choice.

I have four children, one born after 2017. I don’t receive benefits, my DH and I work FT and earn over the threshold. HTH.

Way too many people in the 'poor kids should suffer for the sins of their parents' camp here.
Yikes.

The link between prosperity and a lower reproductive rate, is, I believe, well established, so that, if there are good, secure, well paying jobs, affordable homes, and a stable economy people self-regulate the size of their families.
They look around and think, I've got it cushy atm. I don't want to give that up to have another child. If you don't have it cushy, you tend to think, what the hell, babies are lovely. Is it logical. Yes and no.
People with financial security are people with choices. People without financial security are limited in the life choices that they can make.
Child bearing being one of them.
When prosperity in the third world rises, the birth rate drops. Same here. Instead of bashing poor people for their lousy choices (again, yawn) why not agitate for real social change that will give people real choices in their lives.
Or, you know... feckless... scroungers... council house... scum.
Ho hum

Perhaps I’m naive and blind to what goes on outside my own world. But do a statistically significant number of people really have children for benefits, or have children intending to live on benefits?

I know the DM is a dab hand at finding the 10-child-benefit-families and whipping all their readers into a frenzy about it but are there really that many in reality?

I’ve never met any. And a measly amount of child benefit strikes me as shit compensation for the trauma of pregnancy and labour and birth and looking after a newborn.

But maybe I am naive.

And a measly amount of child benefit strikes me as shit compensation for the trauma of pregnancy and labour and birth and looking after a newborn

Absolutely this!
I have three children because we wanted, and we can afford, three children. I don’t want 4 children, and a paltry amount of benefit income (were we entitled to it) absolutely would not persuade me to go through pregnancy/birth/having a newborn/sleepless nights/toddler tantrums etc again.

I have three and I'm a woman so I feel qualified to answer your question.......I have a career (which I will say I built as a single parent my first) and do not need a man or the government to suppprt me. If my partner and I split nothing about my finances or lifestyle would change.

I didn't think women supporting themselves was that much of a novelty....

Pretty sure women can't get pregnant alone