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

Not rtft as it's almost 30 pages long at this point but I've skimmed some replies - Whenever I see something like this I always wonder if the person posting is of the opinion that poor/low wage people should just not be allowed to have children at all?

Like... I get it's not the most responsible thing to have kids if you're not on a great income, and in an ideal world people would have ample money/savings before ttc or before a 'surprise' happens.
But life doesn't always work that way, and not being funny, women have a biological clock to adhere to and if they're already in a financially stretched situation I doubt they'll be able to afford egg freezing or IVF for later on...
So then you're left with telling women that they're not allowed to have any children at all ever.
It's a very privileged position to hold imo.

Not everyone's position in life has been/is within their control and it seems cruel to me to suggest that someone shouldn't be allowed to have their own family because they're "poor", or because life hasn't been particularly kind to them.
Yes sometimes circumstances are within someone's control, but a lot of the time they are not.

Some of the nicest people I've known have come from poorer or underprivileged families, and to be quite honest some of the nastiest bullies I've known have come from "well off" families.
I came from a middle class family and would spend the vast majority of my time with "counsel house" friends families because they were actually pleasant and kind and warm unlike my own family who had a myriad of their own problems, alcoholism, emotional and physical abuse, cheating, literal spyware on family AND personal computers.
My DP is from a "rich" family, and suffered the same as me minus the spyware & cheating.
Money is not the be all end all of everything. It helps, but it's not the only important thing and it certainly shouldn't be the dictating factor in whether or not someone should be "allowed" a family.

Sometimes I forget MN is very much catered to those who are more "well-off", threads like this remind me.

The basic theme of this thread is - society is primarily terrible because of single mothers living in poverty, and because the welfare state is too generous.

Wonder if Candace Owens is on Mumsnet.

Yes I agree, children who are born into a family that already has no children should be offered no support and left to languishing in squalor with no prospects or care. Even though we have a drastically falling birth rate and should basically be paying people to have children.

Been reading some more replies, just back to say the amount of women here saying "Just get an abortion!" like an abortion isn't a serious thing and is the equivalent of popping to the shops is just grim imo.

Abortions are not contraception and should not be viewed as such.
Not every woman is comfortable with the idea of having an abortion.

Good for you that you view it as something you can "just do" without immense mental turmoil, but not all women feel the same as you.
I'm pro-choice, but this way of flippantly thinking about abortion frankly disgusts me and I'm shocked to see it being posted repeatedly as if it's some kind of "There, problem solved!" statement.

As I understand it some countries have tried financial incentives (to increase the birth rate) and they have failed.
Growing, birthing and rearing children is hard work, it takes a toll on your body, your mind, your earning power, often leaving you at the mercy of the child's father. Increasingly women are choosing not to be mothers- that's how it looks to me.

100% OP!!! I would love to adopt! (Looks at bank account) but no. I didn’t have children when I couldn’t afford it!!! Fir 5 years I did a job i hated so i could pay for everything! I never even had mat leave…and yes i was in the UK but was denied benefits bc my then husband’s visa said no recourse to public finds and the powers that be said that meant nothing for me!

A very shortsighted post (and Tory policy), the UK have ageing population and a falling birthrate (<1.8). This means there won't enough future tax payers to fund the NHS, social care etc. A better policy is to make it affordable to have children through cheaper childcare, better pay for parents in work. We would all win if that happened.

Gosh you do come across as really entitled. Can you not see an ethical problem with the view that only people who are financially stable enough to be able to insure themselves for all possible future events should be allowed to procreate? And then in 20 years time who would you like to be running the NHS, caring for you if you need it, teaching your grandchildren, etc in this vastly reduced population? You have been lucky enough not to have suffered from severe disability, loss of a spouse, unemployment, mental health problems, or any number of life shattering circumstances which may drastically affect your ability to support children. Be thankful and stop judging other people.

Classist much? You act as if wealthy people don't neglect their children. It's actually more common than people realise, it's just that they fall under the radar because of attitudes like yours. There's even a term for it, it's called "Affluent Neglect". Social workers now have to undergo training in how to spot it and what to do.

@Merrythoughts7 I don’t think the OP meant no children but huge families when one or no parent is working. There are quite a few large families like that in my area.

Agree

Daily Mail Soundbite Title....

What can sound at first as logical thinking quickly goes all raving Tory when you point out the flaws ..

1. Kids are not at fault
2. Well off people can loose jobs...do they give up their extra kids.
3. Google China one child rule as other possible bad paths such thinking can end up.
4. Nationally financially it is actually a bad move.....even though environmentally the opposite could be argued.

My view bit mean & 2D

Have you actually spent the last 15 years thinking single mums don’t have to work until their youngest is 12?

If only you knew sooner. You might have been able to chill out a bit and cool your resentment down. 😂

Completely agree with you, you want kids you pay for them, it's not everyone else's job to pay for your poor choices.

I could afford 2, but my second pregnancy was twins - should I have told the surprise baby to make their own way in the world?!

I agree that no one is happy to live in poverty but I disagree that people are automatically placed in poverty by claiming benefits. It very much depends on circumstances.
As a parent the responsibility is yours and yours alone. You do what you need to provide for them, not expect the state to solely do it for you.
I say this as someone who has been solely reliant on benefits in the past. Life is hard, you have to sacrifice your own needs for the needs of your children. If that means you do without something so you can feed them then that’s what you do.
Perhaps some will say it shouldn’t be like this in today’s society but the reality is just that.
At the end of the day if anyone chooses to have children, then you are obligated to do right by them and to put their needs above your own.

The reason you should expect the "state to pay for their children" is because capping the child benefit of the third and subsequent children has a tiny effect effect on the number of children they have and instead has put 100,000s of children into poverty. I suppose you could say that it punishes them which might make you feel good, but it's the children who suffer.

The data shows that the probability of having a third or subsequent child declined by just 0.36 percentage points (or 5 per cent) after the introduction of the two-child limit – equivalent to reducing the number of births by around 5,600 a year.

The study suggests the two-child limit has reduced the number of births by an estimated 5,600 a year, but around 400,000 affected families with three or more children are significantly worse off as a result. Every year about 50,000 children are pushed into poverty as a result of the two-child limit, and a further 150,000 children who are already living in poverty see their circumstances deteriorate further.

https://cpag.org.uk/policy-and-campaigns/briefing/has-two-child-limit-affected-how-many-children-families-have

This

I work, have a great job. My first child came unexpectedly. Also is very disabled but I still work and pay for everything privately down to her education and my mortgage. I was a single mother even pregnant and it was all on me and my family to support our new coming soul.
People are unfortunately not in a position to predict their future circumstances, and abortion itself is a hot topic. I have in my line of work come across some of the most dedicated loving mothers that don’t have a lot.
Some women are left being single mothers, because a man doesn’t want to help, a mother can be struggling with childcare. Other mothers are struggling because of their own ailments, being a mother is difficult enough. Or some have disabled children.
I’m glad you’ve rationalised it and analysed your own circumstances but don’t tarnish everyone, not every woman has a partner that will support the children and not every woman is fortunate enough to be in a predictable situation.

This is about it in a nutshell!

I said nothing of the sort. No "moral authority". 🙄 I only mentioned my own experience because you were attempting to patronise me as thought I don't know what I'm talking about. It's also hugely offensive to all of the people who grew up with abusive and neglectful parents to insinuate that there is some kind of deterministic inevitability about them becoming terrible parents themselves which is manifestly true in many cases. Quite the opposite because they are even more determined to become very good parents themselves.

At no point did I say that all parents in poverty are neglectful and abusive. It is so ridiculous that it is often impossible to discuss serious issues here without people deliberately misrepresenting what other posters say or apparently failing to read posts properly. What I said is that a subset of them are, and for these people giving them more money won't fix it or make the lives of the children who are unfortunate enough to be in their care decent. That in these cases - which would be easily identifiable by a properly funded children's services with competent social workers (a million miles from what we have now) - money should instead be spent on providing the children with a decent life away from their parents. International evidence proves that this can be done, with good outcomes for those children. Unfortunately this subset of the families living in poverty, where the poverty is not the cause of their troubles due to unfortunate circumstances but a symptom of the parents being incapable of functioning like normal adults and prioritising their children over themselves, is larger than many people realise.

I also stated that addressing this by removing those children at a far lower threshold and earlier stage would not only benefit them but free up the budget available to be able to help responsible parents who have simply fallen on difficult financial times due to simple bad luck (i.e. where a lack of money is the cause of their problems and more state funding would realistically improve the outcomes for their childrendue) so that more generous help can be provided to them to enable them to improve their situation and make it sustainable.

What I am proposing it a rational way to prioritise children and actually help them. My objection is to the "think of the children!" posts to emotionally manipulate people into supporting throwing more money at all parents when we know a significant proportion are not fit to be parents and this will make no difference. Providing more mone is an appropriate solution for some people who are poor, for others it will not help the children involved whatsoever, hence the polarised views on the thread. My view is that you distinguish between the two groups and take view different approaches to each one, centring the needs of the children, not the adults. The pretence that giving the parents who are neglectful and abusive more money and that will fix it simply prolongs the torture for the children living with these parents who I am certain you'd never allow to look after a child of your own.

It’s not their lookout though. It’s their children’s lookout.

We decided to stop at 3. Our contraceptive method failed and I got pregnant with twins.now have 5!! We don’t claim any benefit but I’m fully aware of how life can chuck out curveballs. People’s circumstances can change over night. It’s not always so clear cut.

Caveat; I’ve not read all responses.

I can see this from all sides. I agree that ideally people making a sodding great big life decision shouldn’t do so unless they have thought of most eventualities. You wouldn’t move to a different country or buy a house without figuring out what to do if the worse happens. So, personally, I cannot understand why people do not factor in their finances when having kids.

However, you also cannot plan for every circumstance and I think those who fall onto hard times should be helped. I don’t believe anyone should just be entitled to free money off the government.

Ultimately the benefits system is ballsed. Its of no help to anyone genuinely in need because its supporting to many people. So I agree with the tightening up they’re implementing as it’s happening across every benefit. It’s not just aimed at parents.

There are many, many families like this at my children’s school. It’s quite naive to suggest that they have all had terrible luck and tragedies befalling them that have lead to these circumstances. For many it is simply a lifestyle choice to keep having children that they simply can’t afford to feed or house.