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

Many people on this thread would disapprove of their child working in a care home. They’d look down their snobby noses at their low paid, low earning offspring.

Clearly, I don’t think the above. Care work is extremely important and under valued but it’s also poorly paid. Carers will be likely topped up by state benefits unless they have another source of income. I also don’t think we should stop having children but I have to smile when the care home example is used - not at you! Just at the situation. MNers are sooooo dismissive and snobby.

MNers are sooooo dismissive and snobby.

You're posting on MN. You are a Mumsnetter.

I agree with you OP, but the benefits are for the children.

It is a hard balance to strike as we don't want to make things so easy that we encourage people to have lots of children who they can't look after or provide for, and yet the number of children in poverty has increased exponentially in the last 14 years- largely not due to people having lots of children but due to wages falling behind the cost of living, Tories being the usual Tories and many people who actually work cannot afford basic things and need state hand outs. Work should pay and this is fundamentally wrong. The state is effectively subsidising employers. Things have started to catch up a bit in the last year or so but there is a lot of catching up to do, and the energy prices have been and are still utterly ridiculous.

One change I would personally make is come down a lot harder on absent parents who don't provide for their kids, go self-employed, hide money etc. The state is picking up the pieces in many cases for feckless (mostly) men.

At the same time the birth rate is 1.1 or something. Clearly the global population is huge but in actually only a small minority of countries now it is high. This should change if women and girls are allowed to stay in education longer - a number of charities and NGOs are trying to make these long term changes. While so many people mean a lot of resources are used/will run out most countries also have a young/old imbalance.

Then there is a question: Who should have kids? My answer would always be whoever wants them.

Then there is the perpetual elephant in the room - immigration. We do feel like a crowded country sometimes, and successive governments have not invested in enough infrastructure to deal with the growing population. But if lots of young people do come here, live and work, form countries with a young population that kind of sorts out the age imbalance. Then again building more infrastructure impacts on the environment and are we not then just contributing to climate change. No easy answers.

Other than pursuing feckless fathers- that could be done. Likely MPs are among them though so it would be turkeys voting for Christmas.

Majority are not though

That woman above, has 8 children - sure she may have had them as a 'stringing out the benefits as long as possible' - but where will she be in 5 / 10 /15 years when they have grown up and left - she will be left on pension credit and shit all prospects. Possibly shes not intelligent enough to realise this, but there is also the possibility that she has a first from Oxford (very unlikely though)

I'm working now, not just for now, I'm working so when I cannot work, or want to retire I can and not have to choose between eating and heating

She wouldn't be able to claim UC as a full time student (except in some exceptional circumstances) though.

A school mum friend was telling me that when her youngest turned 3 she'd have to job hunt under the new rules. I recently asked her what happened, and she said she just keeps repeating to her work coach that she has school runs to do so can't work. Child is now 4,so they obviously don't enforce this too much. Her dh does have to go up to FT hours now though, he'd been doing 16 hours only for the last lot of years.

It's really tricky and I don't envy the people who have to make these decisions.

On one hand, it's not the child who exists fault that their parents are irresponsible, and child benefit exists to try and close the gap of deprivation a little and ensure the basics are provided for.

On the other... if we offer it to people who have any number of children, the existence of support might incentivise people who can't really afford to have a child to have one anyway, safe in the knowledge the state will provide.

She wouldn't be able to claim UC as a full time student (except in some exceptional circumstances) though.

You can with children and studying as I was able to, but you definitely want to check first.

For environmental reasons alone, I don’t think anyone should do more than replace themselves on the planet.

And generally people should financially support their own kids, not expect others to do it, although I do see circumstances where they might need help. If they’re in those circumstances they really shouldn’t have any more.

Even full time the OU is still a part time degree and you can claim full UC. It's flaw in the system but a lovely one and means more parents can, if they choose, study without the pressure of finances worrying them.

I work with people who ‘fall through the gap’ when it comes to employment (learning difficulties, past Prison sentences, poor mental health and physical disabilities). However, as someone mentioned earlier, it is a human need to procreate, some people are not thinking about the consequences of having several children, it just isn’t in their thought processes.

This human need to pro-create. It’s not an excuse though is it? I had that need for more. At one point in my late 30s it was a crushing need. However, I knew it would not be the right thing to do for my family. I knew we could not support beyond two children. I had already made physical and career sacrifices to have the two I have.

Blimey yes, imagine the horror of having to work to earn money to feed your kids when you’d rather be reading books in the library!

You had a brain capable of thinking that way. Lucky you.

The OU is designed so you can get a degree while working and managing a family life, even full time the idea is you're doing "normal life" around the course. Tutorials are in the evenings and weekends, everything is set up on the assumption you work full time. It's why for UC purposes it's classed as a part time course.

@OriginalUsername2 i know I had choice and capacity and some people don’t. It’s those that do have choice and capacity but rely on the state for those decisions.

Where does it say this? From what I know it is deemed PT/FT depending on what the institution consider it. So for eg IF you sign up to FT OU it is a FT course as they recommend it takes 36 hours per week (not sure on actual numbers).

Some people go through a drastic change of circumstances and need help. If we prosecuted parents that refuse to pay for their children the way they do in the states, we'd be better off.
Others have never worked a day in their life and have been popping out children since they were 16. I think the latter is the minority.

I have lived in deprived areas and seen how children are treated. The benefits that come to those kids don’t go on the kids, they’re the last to see the benefits. The adults fund their lifestyle.

Blimey yes, imagine the horror of having to work to earn money to feed your kids when you’d rather be reading books in the library!

There are people who have a problem with parents studying so they can get a better job and not rely on UC? This is new to me.

I’m one of 6 dc, Catholic parents in the 1960’s. Imo my parents were stupid and immature. They prized religious beliefs above common sense decisions.
Being a dc in a large family is not like The Waltons, it’s shit.

In 2023 anyone having dc without thinking carefully what is best for that dc is irresponsible.
So many feckless absent fathers.
So many women who have to have a baby with every new man.

I worked with a woman who had 5 dc with 3 different men and was talking about having another with the latest idiot she’d fallen for. After his adult dc started a fight and pulled a lot of her hair out she finally came to her senses.

https://www.open.ac.uk/courses/fees-and-funding

All OU students are considered part-time students. That means, even if you choose to study at full-time equivalent intensity, you’ll be a part-time student and your eligibility to claim existing state benefits and/or to fund your studies with a Part-Time Tuition Fee loan will usually be unaffected.

I’m assuming in order to be eligible for UC whilst studying, your joint household income must come under a certain amount?

Yeah as long as the partner is earning a certain amount then she will be left alone to a certain degree.

You're not wrong op but what system will be able able to determine if a child was born into financial security that then changed and therefore the family warrant support, and those born of reckless individuals so the parents don't deserve support but the children need it, those born within abusive relationships where she may have had no choice, those where it seemed secure but he changed after the baby came, those where it was unplanned but having an abortion would have caused more trauma etc?

The constant in all of those is that the kids don't deserve to live in poverty.

The problem is not a simple one to resolve. Even within the article you have 3 different scenarios, which are affected by the 2 child limit.
Case 1 - The article needs to expand to discuss the issues surrounding disability payments.
Caas 3 - The article needs to expand to discuss the issues about absent parents, visitation and non residential parents financial commitments.

Both of the above scenarios have been failed by existing policies, which is causing them to struggle financially.

Case 2 is the one I have the least sympathy for the woman involved. Everyone knows that having children is a financial struggle. Therefore prior to having the third/fourth/fifth child, what measures did this woman take to protect her children from poverty (increase salary, extra savings, marriage and a life insurance policy). It is down to personal responsibility, which she seems to be lacking. On the other hand I do not want innocent children to suffer. Not really sure what a solution could be maybe instead of cash benefits, offer food vouchers for each child above the limit.

I also find the way these stories are reported very lacking in detail. If you put yourself forward to be interviewed then the full facts should be reported. Benefit payments are adapted to individual situations, so it is difficult to tell if funds have been mismanaged, or if there is a gap in support in the system that needs to be fixed.