to wonder why there's never been a thread on people who keep having children when they are on a low income?

[shitstirrerstirsthefinestshit]

Not a judgement on my part, I must stress.

But given we always seem to have people attacking the choices of those who are SAHM/WOHM I realised we don't tend to have threads one here about those on low-incomes who have a few children.

Why do we think this is?

Yabu, there have been thousands of threads like that, especially recently. Anyone remember Shannon Matthews?

Thanks VS, I am just tired of seeing these threads so didnt take the time to read it properly.

Hmm..interesting points. I didn't see the Karen Matthews thread, I may look it up.

It just struck me that I hadn't really seen this debated on MN. I wondered if it's a sad reflection the people I know in RL that they talk about it a lot.

That said, a few of the SAHM/WOHM debates refer to the implications of raising children in poverty and I guess that is a veiled way of saying the same thing.

As long as you can support them yourself without state benefits then fine. If already on IS, JSA etc then no extra benefits should be paid if you go onto have further children without the means to support them.

Ripeberry on Sat 31-May-08 16:36:08
"Makes you wonder how they managed it centuries ago with no social net."

There was charity. It was taken for granted that rich people had duties towards poorer people. Didn't stop the rich from complaining like mad about the fecklessness of the poorer classes though...

LyraSilvertongue on Sat 31-May-08 16:40:47
"Quattro, at my secondary school they taught us how to cook and how to sew but not how to look after a baby. it was an all-girls school so chances are the vast majority of pupils will have had babies at some point. It should be added to the curriculum. "

When I grew up in Sweden in the 70's, this was part of the curriculum; we were taught about child development, childcare, child safety etc. I've still got my old textbook; allowing for cultural differences and sheer age, it still looks pretty good to me.

BECAUSE ITS NONE OF OUR BLOODY BUSINESS!

Sweden seems much more enlightened in terms of education.

I'd be interested to hear from the OP where the household income levels should be set before people are allowed to have children. £50k a year? £100k a year? If you get made redundant, should the children get taken into care? I am just interested in this proposition.

It's none of our business if someone chooses to be a SAHM or a WOHM either Mamazon, but it still gets talked about.

I wonder if because it involves income it's just more taboo.

Quattro, if you'd read the OP you'd know I don't hold that opinion myself. I am clueless as to what level of income people mean when they talk about being able to "afford children". What are your thoughts?

Freddy, it is not so often discussed, because it is not such a point of contention. Only a few weirdies want to have poor people sterilised to prevent them having more children.

I'm eldest of 10 children.
When i was younger my dad worked as an executive something or opther at the Daily Express earning a shed load.

he had to leave the job as he had an abcess on his spine which was agrevated by the long hours spent in an office chair.

he started his own window cleaning business.

my youngest brother will be 7 in August.

5 years ago my dad lost the use of his legs through side effects of a thyroid problem. he can now walk no more than about 20 steps at a time, will fall asleep mid sentance and has his legs permenantly wrapped in compression bandages.

He is registered disabled, unable to work and now claims benefits.
My mother suffers severe depression following my sisters infant death but she couldn't work even if she were able as she needs to help my dad do everything, even go to the toilet.

Maybe my parents are irresponsible because they should have known they would both end up with a disability of sorts.

That's very sad mamazon.

Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with people on low incomes having children.

What some people do sometimes object to is people on benefits having children.

People on low incomes and people on benefits are two different things - can you clarify which type you are referring two.

Because I think you've said low income when you really been benefits.

Before we got civilised there was no such thing as unemployment. Anyone could go hunting, pick berries and build a hovel from branches. Maybe they couldn't do it very well and they starved, but there wasn't anything to stop them trying.

Now you could be made redundent from a good job or be out of work because the government needed inflation/interest rates to rise/fall or because they encouraged immigration to keep wages down. In other words you can be 'artificially poor' through no fault of your own.

While there is such a thing you can't punish people for not having money and you can't stop them breeding.

What if you can afford you children and then something really shit happens?

Shocking* Story alert

When I lost my job (about 2 years ago) I had to register for jobseekers but got told I couldn't have any money as DP earned too much.

When I said what do you suggest I do to pay the bills one of the jobcentre workers said "oh just get pregnant you'll get loads then"

SO (without becoming a stirer) do you think things like that have an impact on why babies are born??

ah fredted, i prefered your other name

It entirely rests upon what you mean by low income, and what you aspire to in a material sense.

If you want your kids to got to to public school, wear brand new clothes, and have the latest gadgetry, then even Bill Gates might consign himself to just one or two.

If you're happy with hand-me-downs and creative spending, you can have as many kids as you want.

I guess we all balk at a couple on benefits who have plenty of kids, but there may be emotional reasons for that; a fear of loss and rejection which compels you to surround yourself with people who love you unconditionally.

But let's not forget, under any scenario, that children are the tax payers of the future.

What if people work in jobs which are low paid and get benefits (legitimately) on top?

elkiedee, I guess in that case they'd want you sterilised, but just down one side

I'd just like to point out that until recently there were old women in mental hospitals suffering PND. PND can lead onto clinical depression. Also someone with depression (of any kind) can often cover it up outside the home or their friends and family.

I guess I shouldn't be thinking about another one and shouldn't have had Tink either.

I've been on disability benefits for 10 years and there is very little chance I will come off them. On one hand the one illness I have (which is the main reason I'm not allowed to work) tends to get better in the 40s, on the other hand the other illness accounts for 1 in 10 deaths between people in their 40s.

On the benefits I get I manage to balance my money so we lead a nice enough life. I don't have huge luxuries, but I do treat us sometimes.

The way I see it I get a certain amount because I am disabled, that won't change and I get a certain amount because I have a child, I would get the same if I was working and on a similar low wage. AND this disability has taken a lot from my life, the other one will probably cut it short, so I am not going to let it stop me having a family too.

Well, as the majority of people don't have more than three children, and a reasonable minority of people don't have children at all (whether through infertility or total lack of inclination to have them), a few people having lots of children kind of balances out the future needs of society. So it's not really anything to get your undies in a bundle about.