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

What we need to do is make child support payments mandatory and lock men up who fail to make them. Instead of punishing women who are having babies who will contribute to this country. We need a workforce for the future.

People have personal responsibility but also you are all judgemental and fail to see how much the rich get away with stuff.royals have more kids, boris has how many?

I work full time and have one child. So incorrect.

The 16 hours thing doesn't exist any more.

They're wrong anyway, I've only got one child and I work full time!

You're right, but nine times out of ten these sob stories come from people who were already struggling/overcrowded/lone parents, who then went and had more children and then put on a compo face to complain the council/government/taxpayer won't give them more. There are always genuine people who just fall on awful situations, but then there are also people who just don't care and game the system, then complain when the system says no. In all of that, it's the kids that suffer from the poor parenting choices.

I see a lot of absent fathers (in my work) who are not employed…never have been (like their own parents)

taking money at source from fathers’ salaries (maybe through their NI somehow?) sounds great only if they are actually working of course

Those are also the ones 'kicking out' their 16/17/18 Yr olds, particularly daughters, so that they get a flat. I thought it was urban myth until I saw 2 families do just that. Funnily enough, reconciled with daughters as soon as they got keys and had 'house warming parties' Total of 6 girls. It didn't work as well with the boy, he ended up on streets until they realised he wouldn't get one and he went home.

But they all pay for their own kids...

Rich being the word here. They can afford it.

No-one ever asks the older kids whether they wish their parents had stopped at a more reasonable number of children. Quality trumps quantity in almost every scenario and this one is no different. In my experience, and it will probably go down like a knackered lift, you dilute the older kids' opportunities with every kid you have you can't really afford because money is too tight to do stuff you might have been able to do with fewer mouths to feed.

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

Do you think it's the state's responsibility to remove children from families and put them in care, if their family is incapable of meeting their basic needs for a healthy diet and a warm home because they're in deep poverty?

Spot on, couldn’t agree more

What I’ve found is, for whatever reason (we’ve had a few said on here childhood trauma, not being clever enough, the human biological urge) some people with not enough money continue to have kids. At the other end of the spectrum you have the rich who can marry and divorce as many times as they would like and have kids (e.g. Boris). Then basically you have the middle rung of society where we’d love to have more kids but can’t afford it, obvs something is going wrong!

We're still stuck on 'you shouldn't have had so many kids' and the reasons why, over and over and over again, in response to the question of whether the welfare system should be designed in such a way as to deprive children in larger families of a basic level of state subsidy that's available for children in smaller families.

"some people with not enough money continue to have kids. At the other end of the spectrum you have the rich who can marry and divorce as many times as they would like and have kids (e.g. Boris). Then basically you have the middle rung of society where we’d love to have more kids but can’t afford it, obvs something is going wrong!"

In pretty much every country the pattern is the same: when women have access to higher education and to good employment opportunities, they voluntarily limit family size. Not because they're fundamentally better human beings, but because it benefits them to do so. People on this thread want to present this as a moral issue, but it's a sociological one. If you're a woman, the poorer you are, and the earlier you leave education, the more likely you are to have a larger family.

"But when a lower earner starts popping them out like confetti we need to heavily subsidise them because of "reasons" (usually they will give you a sob story about "the children" but the reality is that this is usually due to very poor choices by adults)."

The reasons (not "reasons") for having the welfare state subsidise the living costs of families who can't afford to raise their children, is to stop these children from dying early from preventable diseases; to reduce the incidence of severe neglect and abuse - both more common in destitute households; to increase the likelihood of children succeeding in education and employment.

Only someone who's profoundly ignorant of the social history of this country would see efforts to tackle child poverty through the welfare system as being a fundamentally bad thing.

@izimbra The reasons (not "reasons") for having the welfare state subsidise the living costs of families who can't afford to raise their children, is to stop these children from dying early from preventable diseases; to reduce the incidence of severe neglect and abuse - both more common in destitute households; to increase the likelihood of children succeeding in education and employment.

I see this a lot but it makes no sense. A few more quid benefits does not stop a child from growing up in poverty. They may not be truly destitute but how is that something to aspire to? These kids still don't have the opportunities they should have, the experiences they could have, and all the other things that help them grow into well rounded, educated adults, capable of breaking the cycle and not replicating it. We're not in the immediate post war period anymore and child benefit for that extra 3rd, 4th+ child in 2024 is not going to make diddly squat difference in reality. We need a wholesale step change. One child who makes it successfully through a tough, poverty ridden childhood is still the exception that proves the rule. Most don't and no amount of extra child benefit is going to change that. The odds are completely stacked against them if they come from a large family without the means to look after itself.

But...
We NEED "lower earners". Either we radically change the economic model in this country (not a great idea in my view. All other systems being worse). Or you try to plug the gaps that capitalism leaves. Or accept that no-one will want to be a nursing assistant, carer, shelf stacker etc etc.

Yes, we do need lower earners, but that doesn't mean people have to have six kids that grow up in poverty on benefits. If we had fewer people, we'd need fewer people to prop them up - people living longer and immigration is devastating for the planet and for the country and for society. There are too many people, and they are living too long and consuming too much. We're f*"!ed.

So basically you're admitting you'd "love to" be able to evade tax? So what makes you any better than those you criticise?

Sadly the difference is that, whatever the children of Boris Johnson (for example) and the children of other wealthy parents don't have is deprivation and lack of resources as a result of being in a family of 6. They in all likelihood will have private schooling, a room each, space to learn, money for extra curricular activities, books available to them, laptops, nannies etc. Yes, they may not have much attention, and the same amount of emotional damage that comes from being caught up in their parents revolving door relationships but they don't have the mountain to climb of deprivation and generational poverty. We do need educational opportunities for all women, access to education, access to childcare etc because that is the only way people will stop seeing having babies as their only purpose, whether or not they can provide for them.

I've got no issue with low income families getting help. If they have 2/3 kids, fine.. pride doesn't pay bills, hard cash does that, and if claiming tops up income to a sensible level then so be it. Anyone working 40 hrs a week should be able to support their families yo a comfortable level regardless if they work on the till in tesco or in the city.
We all know people though who play the system, work on the side, claiming to be single when they have a partner. Having large families used to be a way to maximise benefits and housing, not any more, so I am surprised that some still think that way, although if they saw mum, dad, aunty etc doing it and aren't clued up I can see they fall for it. then appear on social media with sad face

Oh my dear god, I can see you’ve never owned a business, why do you think people employ accountants. I probably pay more tax a month than you do every four months so believe me I do my bit, plus not using state services. So I put in but do not take out. Can you say the same being you’re so perfect.

It's ironic that many people alive today had relatives who were living in poverty. In fact, the majority of the population used to be poor. The policy of social security was and still is a fine achievement by the government. No one wants to go back to the days of the slums.
However, we're facing a different problem in the West, particularly in the UK - we're not having enough children. In my opinion, the government should be doing more to incentivize families to have children instead of reducing such incentives.