Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

1000 replies

SportMum1982 · 31/01/2024 12:43

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

Sophie with her children

Two-child benefit cap: ‘Every month is a struggle’

Half a million households are now affected by either the two-child limit, the benefit cap or both.

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
ThePeaAndThePrincess · 01/02/2024 14:14

⬆️⬆️ My last post was for @izimbra

TheGrimSqueakersFlea · 01/02/2024 14:21

Fucking hell. This thread is disgusting, so many that see people living in poverty as sub human and a drain on society.

OnlyTheBravest · 01/02/2024 14:30

@TheGrimSqueakersFlea I do not find this thread disgusting. I find it interesting to see other people opinions and the reasoning behind those opinions.

Poverty and the causes/outcomes is always going to be a thorny topic but one that does need to be discussed because as taxpayers we should be aware if the money being spent is closing the gap and if there are amendments to policies that could ensure better outcomes for children raised in poorer households.

tralalalalalalalal · 01/02/2024 14:35

Because you're the best thing ever and everyone who doesn't live like you is scum

There- is that what you wanted to hear?

izimbra · 01/02/2024 14:39

"I have stated clearly at least twice now that for the people I am talking about poverty is a symptom, not the cause, or their problems therefore money cannot and will not fix it and certainly doesn't help their children as they do not spend it on them anyway."

Who? Who are these people? Every poor family with more than two children who have been pushed further into poverty by the two child cap? Most of them? Some of them? All of them? We're talking about a policy that's increased rates of severe poverty among the poorest families.

You think it's a good policy because it hurts families of those headed by people you deem immoral and neglectful?

I'm startled by your view that because you feel you've been able to overcome a difficult start in life, any other person who hasn't been able to is obviously a bad/inadequate person. I know you feel that you being able to rise above your challenges gives you some sort of moral authority in regard to this issue. Of course it doesn't.

So again - you're saying 'we shouldn't tolerate this'. What would 'not tolerating this' look like in practice?

madderthanahatter · 01/02/2024 14:39

Naptrappedmummy · 01/02/2024 11:37

Which policies out of interest?

Policies surrounding asylum seeker women in particular, being forced to put their babies in nurseries from aged 1 otherwise they will lose their benefits (this is to 'integrate' the children from an early age, start them off on an even footing educationally etc). Home education is illegal in most of Scandinavia, and being a SAHM is very frowned upon.

madderthanahatter · 01/02/2024 14:47

SockieSockie · 01/02/2024 12:52

@madderthanahatter

Why should society fund people who'd rather go to university? We already do, everyone is entitled to tuition fee loans. Almost students will also get maintenance loans and grants.

A low income family getting a top up so they can improve their prospects and their children's is something I'm fully behind.

It helped me immensely to have maintenance and UC so I could escape a bad situation and better myself.

I totally agree with you. The poster I was replying to did not say she's doing it to increase her chances, she said she'd rather go to university than work. If you do a part time undergrad and then masters, that's a potential 9 years, all on UC.

GoonieGang · 01/02/2024 14:48

I think there are some unfortunate parents who find circumstances change and can not afford things like before so are left struggling. However, there are some parents out there who don’t want to be self sufficient and never have been and are quite happy to rely solely on benefits, all the while having more kids.
Maybe the two child rule is there to prevent the latter.

izimbra · 01/02/2024 14:53

kirbykirby · 01/02/2024 12:37

We only "need" more children if they are going to be net providers, either financially or in terms of providing a service that is in desperate need otherwise they just add to the financial/social burden of the state and taxpayers. It doesn't follow that every extra child born will become a fantastic contributor to the system. Unfortunately a lot of children follow their parents example and end up in the same cycle of welfare poverty.

We need consumers and we need workers. We need mothers, fathers, carers. You know what allows businesses to make large profits? It's having workers prepared to do jobs for the lowest wages, on insecure, temporary contracts, with minimal employment rights. Many workers in the care industry, in hospitality and in service aren't 'net providers' - they're on low salaries, meaning they pay little tax, and they can claim help from the welfare state. And yet the economy couldn't function without them. Businesses couldn't make a profit without them being prepared to do their job for less than the value of their work.

Zebedee999 · 01/02/2024 14:56

tralalalalalalalal · 01/02/2024 14:35

Because you're the best thing ever and everyone who doesn't live like you is scum

There- is that what you wanted to hear?

Childish response. There is no harm debating where taxpayer funds and benefits should be targetted without you deciding that some people are s**m

izimbra · 01/02/2024 14:58

GoonieGang · 01/02/2024 14:48

I think there are some unfortunate parents who find circumstances change and can not afford things like before so are left struggling. However, there are some parents out there who don’t want to be self sufficient and never have been and are quite happy to rely solely on benefits, all the while having more kids.
Maybe the two child rule is there to prevent the latter.

There are very few people who are happy to live their whole lives in abject poverty, which is what you're in if you're completely reliant on benefits.

And the evidence on the two child cap is that it's been ineffectual at stopping people on low incomes/who aren't working from having more than two children. In fact the evidence on the two child cap is that it's responsible for many children in larger families being pushed in deep poverty, with all the damage we know that results in for their mental and physical health, and for their chances of success in education. https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/research/two-child-limit-and-benefit-cap-fail-to-meet-aims/

Two-child limit and the benefit cap fail to meet their own aims, study concludes

The benefit cap and the two-child limit has caused hardship to tens of thousands of families, with both policies failing to meet their original aims, according to the findings of a new study.

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/research/two-child-limit-and-benefit-cap-fail-to-meet-aims

bredAndButta · 01/02/2024 15:12

I haven't read the full thread, just the OP's posts.

Unless there is information to the contrary I assume the two parties in any relationship that "breaks down" each bear half of the blame.

Relationship breakdown is one of the main contributers to poverty, and a significant contributor to the housing shortage too. If people can't afford to be single parents then they have a responsibility to their kids to make their relationship work. (Obviously if there is abuse in the relationship, then that's a separate issue, but there's no suggestion of it in this case).

Someone needs to track down the father and make him pay out of his wages so he can't afford to live separately. If the HMRC can take payments at source for taxes, and student loans, why can't they do the same for child maintenance?

Dacadactyl · 01/02/2024 15:14

Beezknees · 01/02/2024 08:16

I'd imagine it's very few nowadays.

People seem to be stuck in the past and think we're still in the days of tax credits. There's been a 2 child benefit cap for a long time, a PP upthread said they thought single parents didn't have to work until their children were 12 until "very recently" when that hasn't been the case for about 20 years. People seem to have very little knowledge and understanding of how much the system has tightened up nowadays.

That was me saying people didn't have to work until their kids were 12. 15 years ago is not a long time at all!

The system has tightened up and its only a good thing. People know they're gonna be in the shit if they have more kids.

RobertaFirmino · 01/02/2024 15:14

GoonieGang · 01/02/2024 14:48

I think there are some unfortunate parents who find circumstances change and can not afford things like before so are left struggling. However, there are some parents out there who don’t want to be self sufficient and never have been and are quite happy to rely solely on benefits, all the while having more kids.
Maybe the two child rule is there to prevent the latter.

Some people do live like this, it's true. Rather than depriving child and perpetuating the cycle, how about breaking the cycle instead? By helping people, by giving them a bit more hope, trying to get the best out of them? Making a life off benefits seem like something that is actually possible.

Lavender14 · 01/02/2024 15:17

kirbykirby · 01/02/2024 12:37

We only "need" more children if they are going to be net providers, either financially or in terms of providing a service that is in desperate need otherwise they just add to the financial/social burden of the state and taxpayers. It doesn't follow that every extra child born will become a fantastic contributor to the system. Unfortunately a lot of children follow their parents example and end up in the same cycle of welfare poverty.

@kirbykirby you're skating dangerously close to pro-eugenics chat there. That the value of a person is wholly dependent on the financing they can offer a society and how independent they can be. That isn't just harmful to children who are born into families with generational trauma (which is the case for most families where they aren't working or seeking work), it's also highly ableist and potentially racist if you include unaccompanied minors or children who are seeking refugee status coming to the UK.

I'd also say you need to clarify what you mean in terms of who you're addressing? If you're addressing people who are economically inactive- then you rule out anyone who's on a job-seeking component of UC.

Which leaves you with the elderly, people with caring responsibilities, mothers who would otherwise be on maternity leave, those with long term health problems, the disabled or those in education. Do you think that all of those people are invaluable to society? At the end of the day, there needs to be a balance between ensuring that benefits are given appropriately to people who are genuine entitled to them, and in a way that doesn't become so invasive or inaccessible that people who are vulnerable struggle to access them independently and without support. I work with a number of young people who probably fall into your category of being a "financial/ social burden to the state" who are reasonably healthy but aren't working. All of them would like to work, they want a good quality of life for themselves, however, they don't have the social/personal skills to actually be ready to be in work and sustain work. Getting them to that point is a massive piece of work, and often a lot of them do go on and do work and do really well. But we are only working with small numbers very intensively, we have a massive waiting list. Without that support in place (often involving me physically going to work with them to teach them how to conduct themselves and get them past the initial period of learning the ropes and settling in that they otherwise don't have the resilience or confidence for) how would you expect them to get or sustain work?

Also just to add the majority of young people in work with want to go into caring professions and end up doing so, but if you don't have that funded and resourced support in place in the first instance- then you can't expect people to just get up and walk into a job tomorrow.

More people are vulnerable than you think but equally more vulnerable people are capable with the right support than you'd think. So your argument of only being valuable if you're going to be a net contributer is kind of pointless- noone has any way of knowing if a child from a neet family background is or isn't going to be a contributer. The government needs to have things in place to make work and education more accessible.

Gruffallowhydidntyouknow · 01/02/2024 15:21

Circumstances change but you have to plan for that within reason.

We have 3 children. We planned two but it turned out number 2 was 2&3! So we had 3 under 2.5 :-0

I got a coil fitted straight after. I would absolutely not risk more.

We have a mortgage that either of us could pay if we needed to. Or we cash in and downsize. We have life insurance to cover us if one of us gets ill.

The Circumstances change brigade - yes sometimes they do and its outside your control but you can do a lot to mitigate it. Be in a long term relationship before you have children, don't have kids by multiple people. Have a job etc.

Beezknees · 01/02/2024 15:28

madderthanahatter · 01/02/2024 09:19

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.

The 16 hours thing hasn't existed for a good few years. There's no way her DH would have been able to do this. This is why I don't believe these stories, people make them up based on the old rules not knowing that new work rules have been around for a while.

Beezknees · 01/02/2024 15:33

Dacadactyl · 01/02/2024 15:14

That was me saying people didn't have to work until their kids were 12. 15 years ago is not a long time at all!

The system has tightened up and its only a good thing. People know they're gonna be in the shit if they have more kids.

So why are people still frothing? You have to work a minimum of 30 hours when your youngest turns 3 now, and can only get benefits for 2 children. So stop bloody moaning.

Gruffallowhydidntyouknow · 01/02/2024 15:38

newnamethanks · 01/02/2024 07:27

Ooh, contraceptive advice from an expert, thanks OP. Everyone very grateful for this, it works so well.

Actually it does. Most contraception is over 98% effective when used properly. The Pill/ Coil has a low failure rate ( tes people do get pregnant but really not that many).

Yeahrightyouarethen · 01/02/2024 15:48

Gruffallowhydidntyouknow · 01/02/2024 15:21

Circumstances change but you have to plan for that within reason.

We have 3 children. We planned two but it turned out number 2 was 2&3! So we had 3 under 2.5 :-0

I got a coil fitted straight after. I would absolutely not risk more.

We have a mortgage that either of us could pay if we needed to. Or we cash in and downsize. We have life insurance to cover us if one of us gets ill.

The Circumstances change brigade - yes sometimes they do and its outside your control but you can do a lot to mitigate it. Be in a long term relationship before you have children, don't have kids by multiple people. Have a job etc.

And the people (women, let's face it it's always women) who do all that and still end up as a single parent and unable to afford living costs when working? Equally what's wrong with multiple fathers? Are widows not allowed a second family?

SockieSockie · 01/02/2024 16:21

I totally agree with you. The poster I was replying to did not say she's doing it to increase her chances, she said she'd rather go to university than work. If you do a part time undergrad and then masters, that's a potential 9 years, all on UC.

Oh I see @madderthanahatter

I wonder if they have caps on that? You definitely can't keep taking out student loans so unless it's part funded, not sure it's going to work to keep studying without plans to get a job!

SockieSockie · 01/02/2024 16:21

Self-funded*

Readytoevolve · 01/02/2024 16:28

I agree.

I have seen family members have children who should not have children, no stable relationship, no stable job, no housing, but they kept having them.

The legit expect the state to pay for them and their children. The children are miserable through no fault of their own. It’s heartbreaking for children who are brought into the worlds without family or even a chance of financial stability.

It was obvious how the relationship would end up, broken, fights in court, on legal aid, bla bla bla.
The kids suffer. It’s rubbish.

izimbra · 01/02/2024 16:56

"We have a mortgage that either of us could pay if we needed to. Or we cash in and downsize. We have life insurance to cover us if one of us gets ill."

What was the price of your home? When did you buy it? How did you save for a deposit? What salaries are you on? Would the same be possible for a couple where both were on low wages, and paying private rental costs while saving for a deposit?

The devil is in the detail.

There are millions of people in this country in low paid jobs who'll never be able to buy a home. They're stuck in expensive private lets because access to social housing has become really difficult.

Do you think these people shouldn't have children?

izimbra · 01/02/2024 17:00

Readytoevolve · 01/02/2024 16:28

I agree.

I have seen family members have children who should not have children, no stable relationship, no stable job, no housing, but they kept having them.

The legit expect the state to pay for them and their children. The children are miserable through no fault of their own. It’s heartbreaking for children who are brought into the worlds without family or even a chance of financial stability.

It was obvious how the relationship would end up, broken, fights in court, on legal aid, bla bla bla.
The kids suffer. It’s rubbish.

Again - what do you think should happen?

Enforced sterilisation of people deemed unsuitable to be parents?

How do we stop this cycle perpetuating itself?

I've got a suggestion - not pass welfare policies like the two child cap that push people like this into dire poverty as a sort of punishment. It doesn't prevent people making poor choices about starting a family. It does cause colossal damage to their children, which sets them up for a difficult life in adulthood..

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread