Don’t have more kids if you can’t afford them!

[SportMum1982]

I’m not a raving Tory! But honestly I would have loved more children!!! I would have loved 4 kids but I know we cannot afford 4 kids.

Why do people expect the state to pay for their children? Bar education though! If I’m being really cruel tell me, but I feel I did want more kids but stopped.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67999028

@SummerFeverVenice
The thing is when you have a disabled child benefits are more than enough.
When your disabled child becomes an adult it's not.
As a parent to an adult child I get nothing. If I gave up work I would have to live on carers allowance only.

Oh OP tell me about it - MIL always used to talk about how hard life was because her mum had 5 children, and I used to just think to myself “so why did they have 5 kids then?” It was a choice that her parents made. Why should that be anyone else’s problem?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/31/europe-is-finished-condemned-third-rate-elites/

From the Telegraph, so a bit OTT, but still a slap of cold water in the face.

@Katypp
I agree. Most large families started off on benefits and keep going.

@Naptrappedmummy chlld benefit is not the place to solve the problem of over reliance on benefits and sense of entitlement to benefits

i Think also people seem to be forgetting the huge biological driver that some women have to have children. Which is hardly surprising - women having children is THE fundamental driver of human evolution.

and then there is the issue of uneducated women trapped through origin and circumstances in limited environments. It’s very easy to come at this issue fr the perspective of being articulate and empowered. Lots of women aren’t.

for all of history women have been valued by having babies. And now in one generation they’re vilified for it.

lets have a think about making men pay for their own children would mean that less child benefit is needed - there’s a solution staring in the face…

I agree with you somewhat OP but as pp have pointed out the more educated and financially secure a woman is, the less children she is likely to have. It’s irresponsible to leave children without and continue the cycle. Also as others have said, circumstances can change.

Exactly this. Know when to stop.

Didn't claim any benefits until my youngest was 5 tbh. I do have four kids which I still find shocking ( last pregnancy was twins). I mean I do my best I have two jobs and am always chasing my next payrise. My income is 5k higher than this time last year. I pay more in tax every month than I get in UC. Perhaps everyone on mumsnet knows me

All of my time goes into my children or work, all non essential cash goes to the dc. I cut my own hair and get bits from vinted I cant afford charity shops! Top up benefits are a massive help.

Most other western countries give parents a tax credit or other tax break if they have children. I do wonder if that would be a better way of helping working parents rather than a complicated UC system

If the government legislated more fiercely so that men could not walk away from any financial responsibilities relating to childcare and maintenance then the benefit bill would not be so high. Men can and do opt out of paying child support or actively trying to underpay it. Women have to jump through hoops to get the CMS to take it directly from an ex's pay packet, and many don't claim anything from an ex either due to abuse or pride or not wanting anything to do with that person. Why not put the onus on the man to declare any known children not living with him that he should pay towards. Make it an offence not to declare it, rather than penalise the single mothers left holding all the babies?

If you're mil is roughly the age my mil would be, then her parents would have been in a post war, calm period where people were having more children shortly after a period of great loss, at a time with poor family planning resourcing, potentially no access to abortion etc and where women were really esteemed by having a number of children and running a lovely home? Is it any wonder she was one of 5? The concept of older first time mother's (by choice), career focused women, family focused fathers and tiny families or choosing to be child free is really (on a social level) a relatively new trend- it wouldn't have been the done thing in your grandparents time. And this is where women really cannot win and will be judged by whatever the social norm is of their time.

And the thing about this argument that's also deeply misogynistic to me is that in parts of the UK women who couldn't afford to travel for an abortion would have been prosecuted for trying to access one illegally within the last (I think) 5 years. How can we argue against women having large numbers of children when ultimately we're still existing in a society that's still misogynistic in its constructs. When you include issues like domestic abuse, having lots of children is a way to control and trap women, when you haven't had access to appropriate healthcare in the last decade can you really be held responsible? Again all this argument does is punish and vilify the women with the least resources, the least power and the least support and who are the most vulnerable. That to me makes this entire argument deeply misogynistic at its core.

Great points. To add on, over half of unplanned pregnancies are caused by contraception failure. So it’s also not a case of irresponsible women not taking their pill or not using condoms.

All this ‘don’t blame the individual, blame the government’ is also a bit of a red herring. I blame both. It isn’t either/or. I expect competent adults to take responsibility for their decisions and I also expect the government to run the country properly. Making endless bad decisions and just blaming the Tories is nonsensical. Very few people are truly ‘vulnerable’, the word has been stretched to a point where it is essentially meaningless as it applies to the majority of the population. Let’s reserve it for people who are truly at risk or a risk to themselves, not just the feckless or people who have a suboptimal aspect to their lives.

As for disability benefits, either way this is a large expenditure that was much much smaller even 10 years ago. Whatever happens it’s another worrying forecast for our economy that cannot go ‘up’ from here. It’s anybody’s guess as to how it will end, either the benefits will stop or we will have to borrow even more and increase the national debt further. What’s the alternative?

@BloodyAdultDC I won't waste my time reading your full rant but you seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about your relative's children receiving child maintenance from their fathers, as they should. I have no idea what any of that has to do with the benefit cap this thread is about.

As for disability benefits, either way this is a large expenditure that was much much smaller even 10 years ago. Whatever happens it’s another worrying forecast for our economy that cannot go ‘up’ from here. It’s anybody’s guess as to how it will end, either the benefits will stop or we will have to borrow even more and increase the national debt further. What’s the alternative?

Fix the NHS? Losing your job as a nurse because it’s a 5 year wait for a knee replacement and you can’t work until your knee surgery is done, so you are forced onto benefits while on an NHS wait list is shameful. Or going blind and now needing benefits for the rest of your life because the GP phone appointments missed your health issue and then the 36hr wait in A&E caused your retina to detach beyond the point of repair. Or the fact that if you need your hip replaced but are under age 60, you’re screwed. No hip replacement for you even if it’s caused by wear and tear from a physical construction job. So on to benefits you go for over twenty years and after that, you’re too old to work on a job site.

Why are people against cutting benefits for more than 2 children because it punishes the children but have no issue with stripping child benefit completely from those earning over £50k (who are paying loads of tax that supports child benefits) and punishing the children of those earning over a certain amount?

Surely in both instances the money is for the children?

People need to be told "no" in no uncertain terms. No to benefits. No to a free house. No to Child benefit. Not unless you work. Period

Thats what is has come down to. Tough love.

So no benefits or social housing? No pension credit etc?

"The 2 child cap is seeking to address this as far as im concerned."

Except the research suggests that this policy doesn't push the parents of larger families off benefits and into employment, for a whole host of reasons including the difficulty of finding childcare that works for families with children of different ages. Pushing families with more than two children into deep poverty increases the likelihood of both parents and children experiencing physical and mental illness, which creates huge barriers to employment.

"Imagine not having to go to work for at least 12 years, just because you didnt want to, safe in the knowledge you'd still be housed, clothed and fed. Imagine what that does to the psyche."

You're describing the lifestyle of the majority of married women prior to 1960, including my mother. Not sure it did her much harm.

You could also have a government who apply more taxes to the wealthy, maybe some people running the government who are not, themselves, insanely wealthy through family money for a change would make a difference to that. Much stricter policies around the paying of tax so that the very wealthy aren't able to get away so regularly without paying tax... those large tax black holes that are being utilised by major corporations and large scale businesses and very wealthy individuals would go a long way on a community level if they were more appropriately filled in- but the reality is that for a long time we've had a government which for the most part is comprised of people who don't have it in their best interests to do that. So while that stands, it's left to the middle of the road folks to look after the more vulnerable (however you want to class that) and end up resenting and blaming them as a result. It's not ethical.

And in terms of your definition of the term vulnerable- as a community worker I think more people would fall under that category than you'd expect. And as other posters have rightly said, contraception fails, people have twins, there is still a staggering lack of information around sexual education and resourcing. For example did you know that the %effectiveness of the morning after pill depends on the weight of the person using it? At 36 I only found that out recently. And I'm overweight and have used it and have never been told that. A woman being sick the day after she's had sex negating her pill, or in my sisters case had the implant and still fell pregnant well before it was due to be replaced.

At the end of the day, taking money away from children/ the disabled etc is not an ethical or appropriate solution to the issues you're raising. So that money needs to come from other pots.

As for disability benefits, either way this is a large expenditure that was much much smaller even 10 years ago. Whatever happens it’s another worrying forecast for our economy that cannot go ‘up’ from here. It’s anybody’s guess as to how it will end, either the benefits will stop or we will have to borrow even more and increase the national debt further. What’s the alternative?

its almost as if a global pandemic adversely affected people's physical, mental, emotional and social wellbeing. Not to mention children's development.

My best guess would be that they feel if there is an affordability problem such that the cost of child benefit must be cut, then the child benefit going to those on over £50k should be cut before cutting child benefit to 3rd or later children for those on less than £50k. It’s a if we must save money, cut from the least vulnerable instead of or ahead of the most vulnerable.

Much stricter policies around the paying of tax so that the very wealthy aren't able to get away so regularly without paying tax... those large tax black holes that are being utilised by major corporations and large scale businesses and very wealthy individuals would go a long way on a community level if they were more appropriately filled in

you need a global scheme to target wealth though as it’s mobile.

Which loopholes would you close?

@kirbykirby

You have hit the nail on head.

These are not rational policies. Its also not about "the children".

Its about resentful low earners who want handouts and expect "someone who makes a lot to pay for it".

And thats it. It really is no more complicated than that.

And this is also why the country is getting poorer. These folks keep extracting more and more vs being productive.

you need a global scheme to target wealth though as it’s mobile.

Yes