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

Normal UC criteria applies because, like child maintenance, OU study doesn't affect your claim.

Absolutely this.

Regardless of the benefits cap, for the sake of the environment, the emotional wellbeing of the children, finances and your own sanity there is absolutely no reason to have more than two.

That's really good to know, thanks. However, you can't get a PT student finance loan if you are doing a FT OU course. A FT OU degree pathway is 3 years, which is FT for SF purposes. My niece is blind and OU was her only suitable option. She wasn't entitled to UC as she had a FT loan, thereby was considered a FT student by DWP. This was 3 years ago though, don't know if it has changed since.

"I've worked with disadvantaged children in care for many years. My opinion is that 2 children are enough. Concentrate on quality and quantity. And if your already have children and get into a new relationship don't start a new family with the new bloke."

Who are you addressing that to? Some fantasy person who's sitting out there with a pen and paper, taking notes from mumsnet of all the things they should or shouldn't do in order to have a decent quality of life for them and their children?

We're talking about the two child cap. This cap only affects people who ALREADY have more than two children.

What do you say to those people? 'You shouldn't have had more than two children'? Ok, and then what? They shove the kids back in? Get in a time machine, go back in time and make a different decision? Give their 3rd child up into care?

The evidence is that this policy hasn't had any significant impact on people's decision making about how many children they have.

It just hurts the children that are already here, pushing their families into deep poverty, damaging their physical can mental health, and impacting on the likelihood of breaking out of a cycle of poverty by succeeding in education.

Fair enough. Why should your friend be forced out to work though? She has a family to look after which is a valuable job in itself. Let people choose whatever is best for their own unique circumstances. Her husband obviously is earning money which is a positive. My own DH works full time. I don't study full time because I have family commitments, and I can't rely on family to help me out. And chronic health issues mixed in (which I shouldn't need to be mentioning but there you go).

I will be quite honest, we have a large amount given to us from UC but I wasn't sure if that's because it's a new system from the legacy benefits where we didn't get this much, or if it's because I am a part time student?

I have yet to speak to others in a similar situation.

Why the snidey remark @Flamango ? I am studying to better my family situation and if I get substantial UC payments in order to do this over several years why be unkind? I am not sitting doing nothing!

She needs to speak to DWP and the OU about getting some backdated money then because it's been this way for a long time now.

I earn £0 as part of a couple in my household so I qualified for the PTSG in Scotland from Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS). My tuition fees are paid for. You need to be earning under £25k to qualify for this (roughly). DH earns a full time salary between £28-30k (roughly). We have been given a substantial amount of UC in order for me to do this (didn't expect the amount we have been given) I have four school aged DC.

We suspect it's because DH is earning over a certain salary that I have been left alone to study part time with no "work commitments" too.

Why should anyone be expected to work then? I'm sure we can all fill our lives with 'valuable' contributions to society. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a mother whose children are at school all day to work PT, or that the husband should be expected to work full time. I think raising a family is very valuable BTW, but should all parents be supported financially to do this?

Because lots of women are in exactly the same position and have to pay for wraparound care - I thought you’d had a substantial amount paid towards childcare costs if you’re in receipt of UC? It sounds very much like both this woman and her partner do not want to work.
But ultimately it is the systems fault for allowing it to be possible.
I can understand a single parent struggling with childcare and working, but if there’s two of you then it makes it a lot easier.
Ive always chosen to work, even though it would’ve made life so much less stressful for one of us to be home, instead of the constant juggling jobs and childcare- and my job was not much above MW. I definitely feel like a mug looking back!

I’ve said it before, there needs to be a greater incentive to work, nobody should be financially better off on benefits than working- ever!
Raise MW and those on MW should be afforded some of the same benefits as though on UC e.g free prescriptions, free HE courses and COL payments.

Some people are happy with their career path already or the job they are doing and don't have any desire to study. And that's okay too. We need people who want to work in jobs like childcare, shop assistants etc. but some people want study and have other prospects too and should be allowed to get on with that.

No, I have been a SAHM for years now, and just became an OU student last year. I have not needed childcare except the usual preschool education of 30 hours free childcare in Scotland.

I'm married and was working. I wanted more children, but knew it wouldn't be sensible or sustainable. Now I'm no longer working, and rely on my husband's salary, thank goodness we only had 2 children. We can manage, why would anyone have more than 2, if they're not wealthy?!

I have been on benefits so I certainly am not shouting from lofty heights, but why on earth should society fund people who'd rather go to university? Anyone can study, but should the taxpayer fund someone to do this? We'd all love to stay at home raising our dc and doing a nice wee hobby degree on the side, whilst getting paid. Who on earth would work if that was the case?
@Ffs22 no this woman (or her DH) doesn't want to work, she's "anti establishment" and pregnant with #5 and they know the rules inside out and the loopholes that make it possible for them doing as little work as possible.

When you look at Scandinavia, which has high levels of productivity AND a very good welfare system, it's clear that the idea of staying on benefits because it's more lucrative than working doesn't exist. There is a very strong societal expectation to contribute, and policies are implemented that would be deemed against human rights in the UK.

Which policies out of interest?

I couldn't agree with you more. We have one DD. Sometimes i look at her and think she would be such a great big sister and what fun they would have. But then i remember DH and i both work full time. The only nursery in our area with a space is £90pd so we pay £1700+ pm in nursery fees. We literally cannot afford another child unless one of us gives up our jobs.

There will always be a minority of parents who could afford what they had and then fell on tougher times but this isn't the case across the board. Many families have children they cannot afford from the offset.

@madderthanahatter people like that make my blood boil!! They’re just selfish and ignorant. They don’t deserve 1 kid, let alone 5.

I agree with a cap.
Yes situations can change but mostly that is the dad leaving and choosing not to pay anything.
Agree people can get life insurance. And you are only supporting a child till 16 when they can work.
Generally few parents die before then.

amounts:
its odd that CB reduces for second child but implies that uc/tc didnt and could be 3k which is a lot per extra child. Once you have 2 you take the chance of different sexes. So different clothes but with 3 you more likely have 2 the same to pass uniform down to and other clothes.
childcare is a huge cost but not unexpected by child 3. With all the free hours.

activities are expens ive but 0 are a necessity as if you do you on holiday kids can learn to swim there.

so you are left with food.
if we again suppose you may only pay fully till a child is 16. The older children of 3 will gradually stop costing. So imagine 2years gap between 16,14,12 so only 12years to fund all 3. (Effectively the extra one).
if you did get 3k tc per child so 2 kids 6k that is more than we spend £5k for all 4 of us 2 kids 2 adults.

If it came in in 2017 with years of warnings etc the people in the article made the choice afterwards. And with a 7m old thats since covid/cost of living.

the nature of work is not that you get paid extra per child.

Even if we did want to increase population, having extra children where they cant be afforded, in poverty is not the extra needed.

However needing UC in work because of low pay is a big issue. The diff between top paid in a company to bottom (who often do all the actual work..) is too large.
plus there are more well paid low education unskilled jobs men can do than women. So women are left unable to pay for childcare.

After working for 13y and 30yo+ i would have got £20 per day after childcare costs not including transport.
And later it was £21 per day for before/after school clubs per child. And this is 14years ago.

considering such low income for fsm i found it shocking how many are entitled its like around 8000 a year.

You mean the old people who worked for years and paid taxes? Or do you mean the old people who never worked and had the government support them and their multiple kids and now have to still be supported? Or the younger people living off the government who will age into living off the government in old age?

Are some old people more valuable than others? Should it depend on how much support they received over the first 60 years of their lives?

As a child with many siblings and parent's that did not work I can tell you it was a horrid life & I quite agree with having the children you can afford. I've only had one & would have loved 2 but financially this was not possible. My siblings have gone on to have several children & are now grandparents in their 30's 😬

A way that could help would be the conditions in place when your circumstances change.
IOW--If you have 3 or 4 children and you get faced with a sudden job loss, disability, abandonment, etc, the help you get is based on what you have at that point. OTOH, If you are receiving benefits and have one child, you won't get more for having more children, or a bigger house, etc. It might help people realize they cannot get "more" by popping out more kids. It makes them responsible for their choices while still helping those who have a sudden change in circumstances.

For a left leaning forum there are a lot of very far right views and opinions being posted.