Yet another reason why twins are more expensive

[nametaken]

Minimum Statutory Maternity Pay is £117 X 39 weeks = £4,363.

Mothers of 2 singletons get a total of £9,126 maternity benefit.

Mothers of twins get a total of £4,363 maternity benefit.

I think I might explode if one more person says 2 singletons are the same expense as twins.

I had 2x baby element from tax credits.

these twin threads are horrible

why the competitive nature ?

in this economic climate, where financially, so many more people are worse off, regardless of how many children, do we really need these facile 'my life is harder than yours' nastiness?

I don't think one single mumsnetters has been nasty Lulomama. Many have expressed their views though. Which is kinda the whole point.

it comes across as competitive and as unecessary one upmanship. have been following the threads and there is a bit of an undercurrent IMO. but do carry on. not sure what the point is though.

some people find twins an enormous financial burden and more so than singletons.

but then parents of triplets can trump that

so , really, why does it have to be a contest , that having twins is categorically more expensive/ draining/ worse than having singletons?

Agree with Lulumama. Everyone seems so angry about something.

I have twins, but chldren in general are expensive aren't they? And wonderful.

My friend has twin girls are 3, I have two girls 18 months apart, overall I would say hers are more expensive.

Pram wise - I had to buy a single then a double but that was my choice to have two close together I could have in theory waited and passed the pram on (I actually did with the single once DD1 didn't need it)

Cots/other stuff wise - I passed mine done she did not, a lot of stuff car seats etc could be passed on from #1 to #2

Clothes wise - I would say half of the clothes DD2 has are DD1's half are new, different seasons etc

Food - she was bottle feeding so two sets of bottles and formula, in theory you could reuse bottles, still need two lots of formula although not at the same trme.

Child benefit - we get the same amount

Tax credits - again we get the same amount although she only got one set of the baby element. After DD3 is one I can get the same amount of tax credits for three as I did for one.

I can see mine being cheaper from passing down school uniforms etc but I don't think it's that much.

But what I think is wrong is that mums of twins do not get double the time off work, thats more important than £ (IMO)

I am not the mother of twins but have a lot of respect for anyone who manages more than one baby

Most of us mums "whinging" about twins were simply replying to the anti twin posts on the original thread.

The benefits thing aside we were just trying to explain why schools/pre-schools often subsidize trips/sessions and that having to cough up with double for things in one go is often more difficult than having to pay with a year or more break in between.

It then developed into a twins are no different to dc of a similar age,again many of us were trying to explain why having multiples IS different. The ivf topic came up (which I in particular feel no shame in 'whinging' about as it not a nice rollercoaster to travel on).

Many twin mums do struggle in ways singleton mums will never experience. Obviously there will always be somebody worse off (triplet mums,quad mums .....). I personally would have and have never had a problem with sympathizing with other mums who find things tough. Are these posters as unsympathetic in RL when other mums complain of finding things hard?

Having come to terms with being childless for 7 years I don't need sanctimonious posters inferring that twin mums should just be grateful for their lot. "Double the joy" instead of "Double Trouble".I will be grateful every day for the rest of my life but that doesn't mean to say I haven't found the last 5 years bloody hard at times emotionally and financially. I think I am perfectly entitled to acknowledge that.

The twin mums that have breezed through twinhood great I'm glad for you,we don't all have to.

A lot of the anti-twins posters have put forward well thought out arguments. Violethill on the other hand is I thinking being rather spiteful at times which is verging on childish.

I can't think why it's 'spiteful' to point out that maternity pay is paid in lieu of wages for the number of weeks that you are taking leave from your job.
That's what this thread is about, which shows a total lack of understanding about what maternity pay is.

The other issues about IVF etc were raised by posters in response to the ludicrous idea that all babies other than multiples are planned for, with age gaps carefully thought out, and that all twins are totally unexpected.

I can't believe some of the things that were bandied about on the other thread.... ' You did the deed, therefore tough luck if your contraception fails and you have a 14 month age gap you didn't plan for' was one hilarious post- FGS, some people just have no idea!

I read (think on babycentre) that 70% of mums would chose to have twins.

sure start maternity is a big fat £500 (all I qualified for in terms of SMP as a SAHM) and it's per child so my lovely twin mummy friend got £1000 and I (preg at same time) for £500.

I don't get this thread

You chose to have children.

You pay for them.

I don't get the school trip things.

I have 2 DS's at school, one at infants, one at juniors.

Last term I paid out almost exactly the same for DS1's school trips as I did for DS2's.....

They may be at different (but linked) schools, but they do seem to have their school trips at the same points in the school year.

And my BF (whose youngest is the same age as my middle DS) says that they do tend to have their trips at the same time in the terms.

The double trouble comments are probably from nice people looking to be friendly. I get lots of 'you've got your hands full' comments - I just smile and say yes (while dragging a screaming child away from something usually). People often like to be friendly and try to let you know they understand.

I personally do find mothers of twins tend to be pretty moany about their situation and, while I know life is not a competition, in reality after the pure hard work of the first few months, its just having dc?

I get double trouble comments about any 2 of my DS's in combination .

and my BF's DD4 and my DS2 are known as double trouble by everyone too (I think the school are VERY glad they didn't put them in the same reception classes LOL)

I'm sure having an only is most expensive.

You have to overcompensate by buying them stuff, sending them to private school, having to do more playdates and days out cos no nice siblings to play with, not having hand-me-downs....

no, not really.

I think this op is missing the whole point of what maternity pay is. It is not child benefit.

one thing I noticed when pregnant with twins - I could not make the best use of maternity leave as I did with my singleton. In that with my singleton I worked up until the week before he was born (at 38 weeks) - with my twins - it was just so much more physically demanding that I couldn't have worked past about 34 weeks. As it was I had them at 35 weeks and so they were consequently much smaller and when I went back to work after 6 months they were not as developed as my single (they were comparably a month younger than he was). It would be nice to have a longer maternity leave to in some small way offset this tendency.

As someone else has pointed out, mothers of singletons only get multiple SMP if they went back to work after having a baby.

What a ridiculous argument. Actually, the whole thing is ridiculous, get over it.