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

I agree.

When I rescued a dog, the number of people who said ‘oh are you ready for that? Such a big commitment, are you sure?’ Etc etc vs if I were to have a child, no one would think twice about whether or not I could afford it or was ready for it. Mental.

Nobody needs two, or even one child.

I’m not sure mumsnet is really the website for you tbh

If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

Why, I have three children?

It's a vile policy that's had little or no effect on the number of people claiming benefits.

There are many reasons that a person has a third child - not least unforeseen relationship breakdown or contraception failure.

The policy does nothing except push more children into poverty. And those that advocate for its retention should be ashamed of themselves.

Do you honestly believe they do set out to live on the breadline basically? I work in a profession that brings me into contact with families who are struggling for lots of reasons and I've never ever met one family who were happy to be living this way.

If one thing the pandemic 'helped', it was being able to get an abortion. The remote treatment for medical termination which came into being was so efficient and accessible that it is still an option a few years later (and always will be, hopefully).

You don't know everyone's situation, people's situation can change, contraception can fail.
I don't think you or anyone has any right to criticise.
Also I think society should support children from low income homes because even if the parents have made a poor choice the children shouldn't suffer. Society should be judged on how it supports it's most vulnerable members and that includes children.
What is the alternative letting children from lower socio economic families starve,? Only allow people with high salaries have children?
Supporting the next generation is the responsibility of us all.

@Desecratedcoconut Mick and Mairead Philpott had many children. These children were not in care (although if they had been, they'd have been protected).

All the big families I grew up with (please note, this is not about big families in general, JUST about big families who are SOLELY supported by the state) were in charge of their kids, but they were not good parents. Plenty of people are layabouts.

She had three children when her relationship broke down. And went on to have another two, one of which is only 5months old.

Five children is a luxury by anyone’s standards. We always say if we were rich we’d have more. But we aren’t so we don’t.

True but governments need their populations to procreate.
For example they need people to work in businesses owned by the wealthy, so that the wealthy can continue to be wealthy.

I agree op. Before we had children we went through the main scenarios and made sure we could afford it, including divorce, one of us losing our jobs, one or both of us dying, or having a disabled DC meaning one of us couldn’t work. We did the same when we were thinking about our second DC and if we couldn’t have afforded it we wouldn’t have had him. We didn’t want to have to rely on the state, not least because of the immoral aspect but also because benefits can be cut and so wouldn’t want to rely on them. We made sure we both have life insurance, accident insurance, critical illness insurance and income protection.

Right, but our tfr is below two, and was before we limited benefits to a cap of two children.

You're talking about people like they are sub-human and sounds like the beginning of eugenics.
When your plan works and there are less low wage workers, who is going to look after your children, serve you at a shop or clean your streets? We need to stop thinking that these jobs are worthless and less deserving. They make the country run and people should be paid fairly for them.
All families are already part of society and should be looked after by society, whether they have 1 or 5 children.
The only way children are going to end up out of poverty is to properly invest in them. But this doesnt suit the narrative that the rich deserve to be rich and they deserve to be poor.

I despise this kind of rhetoric.

By ‘em’ you actually mean defencelessness children who have no choice about the situation they are born into and are reliant on others for everything. Obviously it’s far easier to stick with the above as it means you don’t have to think about who your abhorrent attitudes are condemning to a life of poverty and suffering.

Eh?

Surely the answer to the whole "circumstances change" thing is to apply the two cap limit to existing claimaints, but if you claim for the first time due to a change of circumstances you're capped at the number of kids you have already.

But the thing is, those things support everyone. Society. I assume you're referring to Scandinavian countries, where they are seen as part of the social contract which everyone takes part in.

In this country we no longer have any notion of such a contract - if we ever did - therefore more people seem to want to take everything they can get because they can, and that no one actually gives a fuck about them. And the net contributors resent it, because they know that this state largesse doesn't extend to them in many ways. So for example, they pay for their prescriptions, they pay for their dental care, they pay for their care, while they work like mad to pay the taxes that they feel are all being spent on other people. Society has totally broken down.

No, but I'm not in a relationship. If I was living with someone I could afford more.

Its significantly more than £20/ week

Jogging out "get an abortion" as if you were just getting a tooth pulled or something. It isn't an easy thing to do. Also cultural backgrounds mean it is against your beliefs or religion might make that decision harder.

It's a tricky one and I have conflicted feelings about it. This may not be very logical, but I sort of feel that I'm happy to pay a bit extra tax so that people on low incomes (often doing valuable jobs) can afford to have 1 or 2 kids. However it does rankle a bit if you stopped at 2 due to finance, but see others being supported by the state to have 4 or 5 kids.

In the article, it's not clear why the first lady (Sophie) chose to have 5, or whether she has a job or a partner.

The second lady (Danielle) says her husband left when her 3rd child was a baby and doesn't pay for them, however she still went on to have a 4th baby.

I get that circumstances can change but anyone with half a brain should realise that. If you stick at 2 children (yes I know the second could be twins) then there is far far far more chance you will cope, especially as benefit is given for 2, than if you have 3, 4, 5 or even more.

No, it' not fair if children suffer because they have stupid selfish parents but where should the line be drawn? 3 children? 4 children? No matter how many children were covered by benefits there would always be families with more bleating about how they are so hard up.

53% of people in the UK are getting benefit of some sort. I am not saying that many don't deserve them but we cannot just keep handing out money.

My sister got divorced after having 5 kids-it's a bit late to send them back.