Expecting 14th child but will have more babies till twins or triplets??? I must be insane

[Divatheshopaholic]

I dont know if anyone started thread already. I just spotted this on DM
39 year old with 13children expecting 14th and there will be more coming.
I love big family, but after having two, we decided two is just enough but this seems abnormal, having twins or triplets is kind of her destiny

Disguss! What do you think? Would you have as many as her? I

Mario ... I don't think anyone was using China as an example (didn't see any mention of enforced sterilisation, aborted girl babies etc.). It's just that people need to take responsibility for their decisions and a state aid system that almost encourages this behaviour needs to be fixed. Yes, she may desperately want to have twins, and it may be a lifelong dream of hers. But having 14 children, raising them in cramped conditions, relying on state aid and so on just so she can fulfil her dream is a bit ridiculous. It's a bit like Octomom - is it right that she was allowed to have 14 children, to be raised on her own, relying on state handouts (and notoriety) for financial support, just because she wanted a big family? It's incredibly selfish and potentially damaging for them and their children (to begin with, the DCs have to go through life with all those names).

sorry but I disagree - if someone is getting "benefits" they're getting benefits - I don't care whether it's for 1 child or 20 children

Especially as vast numbers of people will be getting MUCH more in Tax Credits than they will ever pay in tax - their case is not unique in that sense and never will be.

And besides - why am I not surprised that this subject has all come down to money again - surely that's the smallest problem here? Surely the problem is the conditions are living in and the impact on them of their mother wanting to keep on going until she gets what she perceives to be the "ultimate" goal.

Of course this only makes the news because she now has so many children...........but given that she obviously had these feelings when she tried for no.2 and 3 it wasn't news worth then was it?

put it this way - when my DH is well enough to look for work again chances are very high that we'll get more in Tax credits than he'll pay in tax........and we have 3 children.

But then WTC and child benefit aren't classed as "benefits" by those who don't claim them or need them are they.......

'Taking more out of the pot than they can ever put in'

But if most of those 14 children grow up to be hardworking, tax paying members of society then will contribute hugely to the pot.

There seems to be some sort of idea that these people are useless wasters. For all we know maybe they are heavily involved in their community or charity work or something.

It is dangerous to assume.

Even if the volumes for bread/milk etc are accurate. It is perfectly possibly to have a weekly budget of £50-80 for food and household items (inc nappies) for a family of 5, therefore if you multiply by 3 and add a bit extra on they shoud adequately be able to live on a grocery shop of £400.

That would give them an extra £200 a week in rent/mortgage money to get a bigger house.

We are spending approx £160 total on our 3 dc's this Christmas- including 2 really good bikes purchased on ebay. Total will go up slighlty once stockings are done etc but not by a huge amount. Therefore if she budgeted £100 per child (£1300) plus another £500 to buy presents for friends/relatives etc she would then have another £3200 so added to previous money saved on gorocery shopping that would be

£466 extra per week to spend on accommodation.

To spend £100 per child is IMO still quite a lot and £500 is more than we spend on each otehr and all our relatives so could save further.

Basically she does not have to watch every penny and they could be in a bigger house!

They earn enough in benefits to put them in the 40% tax bracket. Do you really think that a system that allows this to happen is right?

If someone posted on here that they earned more than £50000 a year (and with his salary they will be earning more than £50000 a year) they would be told that they ought to be grateful because earning a salary that high makes them rich/well off. yet we embrace a family claiming this in benefits? more to the point, we embrace a system that allows someone to claim this in benefits?

As someone said, she hasn't actually done anything wrong, she is claiming what she is entitled to.

The point is that she shouldn't be entitled to claim it. That there should be a cut-off point in terms of the number of children you claim for.

My mother said to me once that having babies kills your brain cells, shock! horror! mother might actually have been onto something.......

and no I don't think they are wasters. I do think they are selfish to have that many children tey can clearly not care for adequately (in terms of keeping them properly housed etc), and that they are clearly lacking in financial management skills (£5000 for christmas presents is far too excessive, although wondering whether they are making up im material possessions for what they can't provide in parental attention ).

But what I do think is that a system that allows someone to claim £50000 a year is wrong and should be revised. The system is there and they're using it, why wouldn't they? My point is that the system shouldn't be there.

nappies for one child yes - nappies for 2 then you double the cost, and then that's of course assuming that the 3,4 and 5yr olds are already dry at night and don't need nappies for nighttime. I can admittedly feed and put nappies on one child for around £60 a week, however I am under no illusions that as they grow and start eeating even more than they already do then that simply won't be possible. And I also don't have to currently buy stuff for packed lunches, if I did then my weekly shopping would be another £10-20 a week more.

"Do you really think that a system that allows this to happen is right? "

No it's not right - but it happens with families that only have a few children as well. We can't say "it's ok for those with only a few children, but wrong for those with more". It's either right or it's wrong.

ROFL at the picture with the article..

which they have had to describe underneath for WHAT reason??!!

Alwayslooking, why can't we say it's different when it obviously costs so much more?

People keep labelling them as 'on benefits' but sure everybody is getting children's allowance and tax credits.

Even Xenia. It's ok for five children then, nobody would describe Xenia as being on benefits. So is 6 ok, !? Where's the cut off?

Also, the Dad works, so it's not as if they aren't a traditional unit in some ways (one salary coming in, one at home to mind the children).

1000's of families getting more in WTC than they pay in tax V a handful of families getting a lot more in WTC than they pay in tax. What's the difference - probably not a lot, and if anything I reckon that the 1000's getting more in WTC than they pay in tax easily get more between them than the handful getting very large amounts.

How can I sit here and say "well yes we'll almost certainly get more in WTC than DH will pay in tax, for our 3 children, but that's ok, but it's not ok that another family with more children is also getting more than they pay in tax"? Would be bloody hypocrticial of me.

Either it's wrong, or it's not.

If this family were living entirely on social security benefits then yes I would feel differently.

Maggie - haven't you got it yet? It's ok to label them as living on beenfits because they're getting lots of WTC and CB...........if they only had a handful of children (like most of the posters on this thread) and were getting WTC and CB they wouldn't be "on benefits" they'd just be getting what they're entitled to

It's shocking begrudgery, which is a dangerous road to go down. Let me warn you, the children's allowance system is about to undergo a serious overhaul in Ireland. I've heard/read a lot of debate about this subject recently, from different types of mothers. Working mothers of 1 child, sahm mothers of four children, and the much-maligned mothers of 5+ children whose useless partners have left them.

For every mum of two begrudging a mum of 6 children her extra children's allowance, there is an equal number begrudging the mum of 2.4 neat planned children's allowance, when they "don't need it".

So the end result is, they're going to cut it for everybody as means-testing would be too expensive to implement for now (but it's not totally off the table yet either).

So, all mothers suffer.

So mothers of the UK, stick together and stop begrudging other mothers their CA.

personally I'm more concerned (on the money side of things - obviously the other issues which are of concern probably can't be "beaten") about stories like

this
this
this
this
this
this

and lets not of course also forget this lot

Personally, I am shocked I get CA at all. It almost pisses me off. For the amount of tax I have to pay it is like a tiny pat on the head.

Exactly ALFA that last lot,mp's expenses! shocking....

Having a few extra children because you're not cut out for much else to be blunt is not the worst way of living. Especially when the Dad is working and the children will all grow up seeing a head of the family leaving for work every day. The won't be any different in their expectations of growing up and hopefully finding a good job than children from a smaller family.

This may have been covered but I didnt see it - am I being really thick. If they are getting £41,600 tax credits as somebody said, that would equate to somebody having to earn around £49,000 as a salary to have the equivalent cash after tax etc. Tax credits stop completely after your income as a family is around £58,000 so unless he is earning 9,000 pounds then they are better off than a family on £58,000 who would get nothing in tax credits. Am I right and if so, how is this fair.

"Tax credits stop completely after your income as a family is around £58,000 so unless he is earning 9,000 pounds then they are better off than a family on £58,000 who would get nothing in tax credits. Am I right and if so, how is this fair."

It's not fair - but it's not fair for all the other families on £58,000 who are "worse" off than the 1000's of families with 2 or 3 children who get WTC that take them into the same "earnings" as them.

alwayslooking - I have pondered that for a while. Assuming, as it usually would be, the cost of two people working would be higher than one (two cars, work clothes, child care (paid for solely by parents if income of £58,000) then why on the earth would two people earn say £30,000 each when their outgoings would be so much higher, less time at home etc then somebody who may earn significantly less but get bumped up by tax credits and their outgoings would be lower. A lot of teacher partners, nurses, police officers, middle management etc must fall into this bracket. I know a colleague of mine got offered a promotion and refused it as her tax credits would go down and she would be working with more responsibility for very little extra.

'Having a few extra children because you're not cut out for much else to be blunt is not the worst way of living.'

A few extra children? This woman has 14 children crammed into 3 rooms, not enough beds, not enough money, not enough time and has plans to keep reproducing until she has a multiple birth.

If you were to put a limit on how many children you are entitled to claim benefits for how would that work exactly?

For example how about a couple where one partner has a great job. They can support 6 or 7 children with one at home to look after them. Then something happens, partner loses the job. What then, no support for the 'extra' children while they try to find work.

It just would not work to put a limit on the number of children you can claim for because children are human beings with human rights.

no she doesn't have 14 children crammed into 3 rooms.