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?

I have no right to benefits. Even if I were doubt I’d ever earn little enough to qualify. The possibility of claiming benefits is so remote that I’ve never factored it into my reproductive choices.

ineedaholidaynow we have 3 kids, 2 earners and a year's combined after tax salary in savings, so if we cut back we could survive 18 months just on savings, but we work in totally different fields so are unlikely to be made redundant both at once, and we have life, disability and unemployment insurance so wouldn't have to drain the savings unless it was a totally worse case scenario - how long could you muddle through for? Is there a minimum time scale in your head? A minimum level of financial security you feel people should have before having a child? What is that level?

I agree with you. I’d love to have had more than two children however, couldn’t afford to do so.

Another benefit bashing thread.

The only thing that the government can do is what they have done (cap the benefits)

They could make businesses pay their way and pay a proper wage that does not depend on the government topping up paltry wages and then demonising the workers who require it? Just a thought?

I was reading in the news about the couple in their mid twenties with seven kids. They were earning over two grand a month on the old system and are now crowd funding to buy food as they have to live on nearly five hundred quid a month after rent is paid. What an absolute disgrace. Two grand ffs!! Where is the incentive to work. I’d bet they smoke and can afford sky though. I’m all for the benefit cap.

I think it would help in most cases. We know that most people who collect benefits are in work. If the government didn't prop up businesses by chipping in for wages then people would have the dignity of earning their whole wage instead of having to rely on the benevolence of the government to give them the rest of it while society points and complain about them sponging off taxes.

Because they chose to have more than two. Why they did is none of your business.

So, what you are telling me is that it is necessary, by design, for the government to prop up business costs and it is still ok to treat the recipients of those benefits like shit.

If the government were less fucking cowardly about the sate of things, they'd give that money straight to businesses and we would demand everyone got a fair wage with it.

And you might be right that people would still go ahead and have more children than they could afford but I still think that would be a reasonable starting position.

Anyway, fwiw, I have three dc and we are high rate tax payers. I'm just clear about the true recipients of those benefits when I pay tax, it's businesses and their shareholders.

What an absolute disgrace. Two grand ffs!! Where is the incentive to work. I’d bet they smoke and can afford sky though. I’m all for the benefit cap

2k a month to bring up 2 adults and 7 kids doesn’t seem like a life of luxury to me!

Financial considerations pale into insignificance when you consider the environmental impact of having larger families. In a few generations' time, it won't matter how much money people have because the planet will have become uninhabitable. That is what people should be thinking about when they're wondering whether to have that extra child or not.

If people don't self-regulate (as far as is possible, allowing that accidents do happen) future governments will have no choice but to impose a strict, China-style child limit - those of you with children, is that what you want for them, or your grandchildren, or great-grandchildren? If not, think about what you can do now to preserve our resources, and that includes showing self-restraint when it comes to deciding how many children to have.

Yetanotherwinter £2000 a month isn't enough to support 9 people in most areas... There's certainly a massive incentive to work if you have any kind of prospects, who'd want to bring up 7 children on that?

The median household disposable income in the UK is £28000 and the average household size is 2.4 people. It doesn't take a genius to understand that 9 people living on £240000 are not doing especially well financially.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/yearending2018

I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting as an alternative - that if the government didn't chip in for wages then wages would be higher? How?

As I said, the government should give the money straight to business and demand that everyone is paid a fair wage. People would collect their fair wage and everyone would be clear that the money given to business props them up and not the people.

Yes, people treat people on in-work benefits like shit. I submit this thread as evidence.

Nonsense to say people can have as many children as they wish providing they are not on benefits. Each child costs the taxpayer tens of thousands for education, plus healthcare/maternity care etc. Do these people also privately educate their kids and use private healthcare? I think not. Rich or poor though, there's little excuse for having a large number of kids these days. Why should there not be a benefits cap? It might encourage some folks to be more responsible and allow the children they do have, to have a better life.

Haven't you just eroded your own point there Tilda? You're right, of course, it costs a fortune to educate each child through state education and accessing state services, like the NHS. So, surely by that logic, you would propose everyone who uses these services should be limited to two children.

But then you say, we should attempt this through the back door with a benefits cap. Why would we apply this standard to poorer parents and let middle income earners fire out as many state service users as they like?

Don't worry about it sedition, my ability to be coherent goes awol when I get pissy passionate about a subject 😁.