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

That word "hate" is always chucked around whenever any kind of disapproval or judgement is expressed, no matter how reasoned. People are allowed to have opinions you know.

Mumsnet can’t have it both ways. Either wealthy families pay to fund the life decisions of poorer families, or we don’t.

Lots of people bored with people blaming others for their poor decisions and expecting others to pay for their choices I expect.

I agree with this.
Also the failure of governments to properly regulate the housing market, we currently have a situation where younger people cannot afford to fly their parent's nest let alone make their own nest.

I mean, I think it's a poor decision to have one or two children among financial instability. Why are we insulating the children in smaller families?

There needs to be a big cultural shift. People really have to start taking responsibility and start planning in case of job loss, relationship breakdown, abandonment, and death. Circumstances change - sometimes rapidly - and all outcomes need to be carefully considered before bringing more children into the world. Contraception is free. Emergency contraception (the terribly named 'morning after pill') is free from some locations. Yes, we all know that contraceptives fail, but surely the most of us are aware that having sex in the middle of your cycle presents a risk.

It's slightly more complicated for those who try for a baby and end up with multiples. I don't know what to suggest about that.

CMS needs to become mandatory. I don't have experience with it, but too often I see "DC's Dad won't pay CMS" threads. It should be linked to the baby's birth certificate. If the father buggers off, he automatically has to pay X amount. If the mother buggers off, she has to pay X amount. If both abandon their children, they need to pay X amount to whoever ends up looking after the poor child.

As for this comment: Wow there’s a lot of hate for people with larger families on this thread, I don't think that's necessarily the case. But there is a lot of frustration for those who never could have afforded to have a big family, but choose to do so because of hands outs and the ease of not having to work. "I'm going to have another child so I don't have to work" was something one of them said to me. We need a cultural shift.

The lack of access to abortions during Covid hasn’t helped

Thing is no one is ashamed of anything any more.

If you can’t feed your kids that should be a source of shame to parents. “I actually can’t feed my kids, holy fuck, I need to get this sorted out pronto”. Feeding, clothing, housing your kids should be the absolute basics. Yes there are many reasons why you may not be able to, and why you might need a safety net, and I hope there’s always a well funded safety net there. But even whilst using it, people should be thinking and trying to get out of it.
But instead if people can’t feed their kids they become furious with the government for not giving them enough money.

When we started giving children on FSM food during the holidays was when we effectively said “it is now the Government’s responsibility to feed your children. It is no longer your responsibility at all”. Now I want poor children to be fed as much as anyone and I don’t begrudge children food of course - but the principle is that now we no longer expect parents to do the most basic tier 1 task for their children. It’s a philosophical shift unprecedented in human history. Interesting times.

Children always suffer for their parent's choices.

There is no way of ensuring that money paid to parents is spent on what is best for their children, whether that be 1 child or 6.

It makes sense then not to keep throwing more and more money at people who are making bad decisions, when the outcome is the same but greater= more children who are suffering.

Because I personally don't think children should be the preserve of the rich. I think it's right that a wealthy country such as ourselves should have the infrastructure, support and finances to support families who want 1 to 2 children (we don't I know, but we should do). I think people choosing children beyond this are doing so not just because they want a family but because they want a big family which is a conscious decision for the majority of people despite all of the whataboutery that suggests otherwise.

Plenty of other places seem to manage to support children via the state much more than here. That includes education, maternity/paternity pay, childcare, healthcare etc.

It's the kids of the wealthy who actually access and benefit the most from the state, whether that be through staying in education longer, via accessing subsidised sporting or cultural opportunities or having millionaire parents paying low rates of taxes or landlords taking in rent from housing benefit.

If you want to complain about state support, start with corporate welfare.

Surely they increased access by posting it? If they did that when I needed an abortion at 16, I could have actually had one.

I can totally understand the principle that people should raise children on their own two feet.

I can totally understand the principle that all children should be insulated from poverty by the state.

What I find perplexing is that people think that there is a legitimate grey space between the two in which we protect the first two children and then the rest can go whistle.

To be fair (and I'm not a fan of the cap - I think people should be trying to support their own kids etc, but the cap's far too much of a blunt instrument - I don't know what I'd do but it wouldn't be that) people with more than two children because of multiple births are exempt from the cap. So your friend would be able to claim for all four children.

I don't think that's intellectually consistent.

Because I personally don't think children should be the preserve of the rich. I think it's right that a wealthy country such as ourselves should have the infrastructure, support and finances to support families who want 1 to 2 children (we don't I know, but we should do). I think people choosing children beyond this are doing so not just because they want a family but because they want a big family which is a conscious decision for the majority of people despite all of the whataboutery that suggests otherwise.

Fully agree @Spiderzed

Totally agree OP

But people seem to have what they want now irrespective of whether they can pay for it.

Massive TV? Credit card
Home improvements? Take out loan
New car? Lease it/HP etc
More kids than you can afford? Make the government pay.

When I moved into my first house I had a mattress on the floor, a set of drawers, a microwave and four deck chairs. That was it. I saved up for every single thing I bought.

Nobody thinks like that any more. Your financial worries are somebody else's problem.

She’s not kidding. A family member who works in social care not infrequently has to deal with mothers handing over their 5th, 7th, 10th etc child to the state.

I don’t know what to do about people like that because they clearly don’t care about their children at all, and even if you’re an addict or whatever, get a frigging IUD and stop perpetuating misery.

i would like another baby. we could afford to clothe and feed it but it's not just that. we would have to move house, new car, extra seats in planes etc

Why? Aside from 'intellectually consistent' which doesn't make much sense keen to hear your thoughts. Not everyone will agree on everything, I even said personally in my response as I recognise its just my opinion.

People need to think about what it means to have a family and if illness occurs. Critical illness cover. Life insurance etc etc

People make choices!!

Yes all men should contribute and sanctioned if they don't - but that does not answer the problem that the government is having to step in even when maintenance is paid (it is disregarded for benefit purposes).

So a man who contributes £1000 pm for his children may still mean that the taxpayer has to subsidise the family in full as if he had paid zero.

It is not the easy answer it appears.

Its not the fault of the children and I appreciate that circumstances change.

But it makes me cross when people set out to have a tax payer funded lifestyle.

There cannot be many people like that, besides surely if the children are being cared for by the state she is neither collecting benefits nor doing the washing?

I'd say two tbh, noone needs three or more kids. (Noone needs any, but we're talking about the cap!)

It's like taking on any huge financial burden (and what's greater than that of having kids!)... People need to sit down and work out how they would cope if they became a single parent, lost job, etc.

And 🙄 to the whole 'contraceptives aren't 100 per cent argument. Well, use more than one then! Get a vasectomy (I know also not 100%, but near enough!), avoid your most fertile dates if you know you're particularly fertile and are prone to contraceptive mishaps...