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

And who is going to guarantee all these jobs with pay that covers the spiralling costs of housing, food, energy, and transport? That also work around child care? And what about the disabled or caters who literally cannot work? Do they just get offered a one way ticket to Canada 🇨🇦 where they will be processed for assisted dying?

I've added facts and and link to a discussion of the research - which support my opinion that the two child cap is a punitive policy that has failed to have any significant impact on family size, and is damaging the physical, mental and social wellbeing of children from larger families.

What effect has it had on the economy?

I agree with the sentiment. We stopped at two because we couldn't afford any more. Every time we had a child it set us back financially due to childcare costs initially, not to mention every day costs of raising children. We are not making mega bucks but enough to not have to worry about rising cost of living. Kids never go without. Having come from a family of 4 kids, living in poverty (mum didn't work, dad in low cost job), I didn't want my kids to go through that. Husband had a vasectomy after our 2nd. We categorically cannot afford any more. I can't fathom those who have 7 kids and neither of the parents work. That's what you are talking about right? Not those who have a few and one loses their job, fall on hard times etc.

And just to add to this, it's fine completely fine to say no to benefits/ no to social housing/ no to pension credits etc

As long as you also accept that that inevitably means you're simultaneously saying yes to increased crime, increased pressure on mental health services, increased pressure on general health services, increased pressure on the justice and policing services, increased addiction, increased domestic violence, increased homelessness and street homelessness, increased child mortality rates and a lower age of mortality for the general public. Because these things go hand in hand. We have a benefits system in place because it helps mitigate these social issues. And let's just remember that the public sector and charity sector services that are working tirelessly to address these issues are being chronically underfunded by our gov and given tighter and tighter budgets every year. This year I've seen so many essential charities I work along side close that I would never have thought wouldn't secure funding.

Ultimately we need benefits systems and gov spending on services like these if we want a nice society to live in.

The EU has one. Brexit happened by a cats whisker in time for it not to apply to the U.K. coincidentally the big donors for the Leave campaign would have been most affected by these new offshore tax laws…

Judging by the poll results so far on very left-wing Mumsnet, the two child cap is a very popular policy.

"but I also don't think it's the states responsibility to pay for people choosing to have 4, 5, 6 children"

Given the evidence that the two child cap hasn't made a significant impact on people's decisions around family size since its introduction, what's the point of it? Other than to punish children in larger families for their parent's life choices?

What do you hope the policy will achieve other than to damage the physical, mental and educational wellbeing of children from bigger families?

"the two child cap is a very popular policy."

It is. Because people are c*nts.

@kirbykirby I think there's a difference between the thread title which is what I voted on and the 2 child cap.

I would recommend that anyone who has the means only has the number of children they can afford within their power and resource. I don't support a 2 child cap. But that isn't what the question in the title asked me.

^^ this
We have a falling birth rate so we need women to have more children, not less.

Probably to increase the numbers of children going into care and on the books of social services since they're so well resourced and have nothing to do then twiddle their thumbs... oh no wait.

We already have more children in care than ever before and social services are on their knees and people can't afford to be foster carers anymore because they cannot afford extra bedrooms so children are being placed in unsuitable placements unsupervised because there is noone else to take them.

Better add to that problem...

i know one person who got 4 siblings and all of her siblings got more thab 5 chikdren. Not one of them working. All with benefits. Wven one of her brother fake depression and got 8 children because he wants benefit. I was really shock yo know this people exist. And she told me lots and lots of people in the uk done these kind of rip off. Cant imagine the children quality of life must be horrible. And when they are big and become adult most likely its going to like their parents aswell. Its a circle of life.

I just think it's really harmful for children to be raised in severe poverty, and all the evidence supports my view that it's terrible for the individual and it's terrible for society.

You can't stop working class women conceiving children they can't afford to raise without help from the tax payer, namely because a reasonable quality of life is pretty much unaffordable for people in the bottom 20% of the income distribution regardless of whether they're in work or not in work.

And again - this policy isn't having any significant impact on family size. It's a stupid, pointless policy which is harming children.

Have no idea why you'd defend a stupid, cruel, failed policy, except that you like the fact it hurts women who you despise for making poor life choice, and you enjoy that.

'What effect has it had on the economy'.

There was no proper modelling done so nobody knows, but as only a small minority of families have more than two children it's unlikely to be large, particularly when we balance it against the long term cost to the economy of pushing more children in larger families into deep poverty. So for example, there's evidence that an increase in severe poverty increases the number of children going into care. It increases the incidence of physical and mental illness in parents and in children, which has big costs for the NHS and long term for the economy.

Where will the workers of the future come from then?
Who is going to be wiping your bum in a carehome when you're old and frail?

Saying 'we didn't have children because we couldn't afford it' is irrelevant. Some people don't have the full capacity to make this choice.

In which case how could they have the capacity to be good parents and provide a stable, secure and happy childhood and make the much more complex choices involved in parenting?

Do we set up some sort of parenting capacity test and forcibly sterilise anyone who doesn't pass? What's your solution here?

It's a moot point. Ultimately there will always be people who live beyond their means either due to having children when they can't afford them or otherwise. There will always be women who fall pregnant who don't have the necessary capabilities to parent safely - its the reason why social services exist to try and educate and empower these families where they can and safeguard the children where they cannot. Forcing poverty onto those families won't benefit anything? It'll just make it harder and more women will fall into the category of neglecting their children because they can't make ends meet. It also majorly fucks over any woman who unexpectedly has twins, who is raped, who is forced into pregnancy, who has a tummy bug that renders her pill useless etc.

It also means that for the people who can afford their children taking into account the benefits they are entitled to, suddenly have no way to finance their lives? What do you suggest they do? Get a job? With what training? With what education or qualifications? With what experience? How do you suggest they live while they retrain or go to college?

Poverty benefits noone. Noone. It is never and cannot be allowed to ever be the solution.

I have very mixed feelings about this issue.

On the one hand, I think state benefits for families can, if not well thought out, have long term negative effects on how people make decisions and ultimately social norms. There is a reason the advent of certain kinds of benefits corresponds to a sharp increase in unmarried parents, for example. Of course in some cases it is better for people not to get married to bad partners, but it's also better if people don't make choices that could lead to pregnancy with a dad that is going to be a bad father. Doing so can become normalized in a culture though, it's completely normal in my partner's culture for example. And it's not great for the kids.

On the other hand we clearly don't want kids living in poverty.

As far as capping at a certain number of children, I don't think that is the answer. We help these kids not just to help the parents, but because even though they are children they are citizens who need the help of society. You can't grade citizens based on their birth order.

I tend to think that the way forward is to think hard about how we want to shape society so people can afford to have kids - housing is probably key here. And also to encourage people to recognize the importance of trying to have their families with a committed partner. of course sometimes that can go wrong, death, divorce, etc. But the number one thing that predicts good outcomes for kids is parents who are together, so if we can discourage poor choices in this regard that would go some way toward reducing the need for benefits.

Mainly though it seems that this is a social value, and not one society is likely to try and make fashionable again.

The people who'd benefit from more child benefit would spend it. That money would go straight back into the economy. It would benefit local businesses, wages and employment. And the children would benefit from their family having a bit more money for them. Win win.
Or just let the government keep it, because their trickle down economy has worked out sooo well for everyone, hasn't it?

Children definitely are an expense especially as they get older

People are saying it's the children who suffer but from what I can see, it's the parents who are complaining about it here. The same parents who chose to have the children.

Many birth controls, when used effectively, are almost 100% effective. Most failure comes from user failure (but everyone will swear they took it correctly)

Circumstances change. Also something to think about BEFORE having children. Absentee fathers should be taken to court and pay for their choices. With interest if they are dragging their feet.

If you're doing so well you can afford a third child (you've got to be pretty well off in this economy), you really should be taking out income protection/life insurance/critical illness cover rather than leaving it up to chance. Life happens. It always has. We all know this.

In theory I see where you are coming from - basically don’t take the piss and have more kids if you are struggling already.

but there is a lot of judgement going on here.

There are so many reasons people may be relying on ChIld Benefit payments and I know it’s easy to say “you should have planned for X” but I don’t think it’s unreasonable that you may not have planned for your husband running off with a colleague and leaving you and the kids you both wanted in the shit.

@CostelloJones there's also a lack of responsibility here is. I think some people just don't want to take accountability full stop. Not everyone's husband ran off though, the reality is a lot of people knew their circumstances were not stable enough and they continued to have more DC. The benefit cap definitely has been a detterant to some degree and I'm all for it. It isn't fair on the DC. I'm 1 on 4 siblings... my mother was a single mother to us all, same father. My mother never became ill or had disabled DC she just made poor choices which ultimately affected me and my siblings as a result.

Same as mine. I'm one of eight- all same parents. Poor choices my mother and father made. Like the majority in these scenarios. Let's stop pretending it's all unforeseen. Most of these families were never well off to begin with.