anyone else pregnant with loads of kids already?? feelin bit judged ngl

[Chattymum23]

hi all not sure if i should post this but here goes

i’m 8+4 with baby no.5 (all boys 😅) n tbh i feel like everyone thinks i’m a joke. haven’t even told half the fam cos i know what they’ll say. last time i told my mum i was preg she rolled her eyes n said “again?” 😔

i know it’s not ideal but it’s happened now n i just want to be happy bout it. i love my kids loads even if life’s a bit hectic

i’m knackered n got sickness bad but still doin school runs n sortin all the meals n tantrums. nursery called again yday bout my 4yo n i just cried in the loo after

anyone else got a biggish family n feel like ppl look down on you? not after a row just want to feel a bit less alone

Congratulations op! 🥰

I hope you are feeling a bit better now, I really felt for you when you said you ‘ want to feel a bit less alone’ and then some of the replies that followed were horribly judgemental (not all of them) you just have to ignore, Honestly women get judged for everything and anything.
Good luck!

Five is not an increased expense to the tax payer than the four she has already, not that five isn't an increased cost than someone living alone.

That has now been explained more times than I can count.

If they want/need more space/water/energy she'll have to pay for that from her existing budget. She is highly unlikely to receive free school meals if she works. She'd have to be bringing in less than £584/month. If she was bringing in that little, her Universal Credit (if she claims it), would be significantly capped and I doubt she'd be able to afford to live.

Didn't say part time cleaner was a net contributor anywhere.

Pensioners who have funded their own private pensions certainly aren't a drain, anyone claiming state pension is a drain. But that's fine by me, that's why I pay tax, to live in a society where we help those who need it.

The cost to the State for a child is primarily the cost of education and medical needs. If it costs £6k a year for schooling for 1 child, that’s increasing for every child you have. I mean thats basic maths 😂

I do not know the complexities of the benefit system. I do struggle to see how a part time cleaner can afford to house and feed 5 children. .

Pension credit is a drain on society as they have paid nothing in.
You have to have contributory years for state pension.
Did you mean to say pension credit?

I think you're confusing the benefit cap there. It is not the case that the other children have no recourse to public funds. She can still have an NHS birth and the NHS will provide care for the DC, they can attend state school. The DC still costs the tax payer a great deal, unless you think the OP will fund that on her wage?

But the real issue here is that OP is quite open on her other threads that her children are unhappy due to her life choices. They are not thriving.

It is fundamentally thick to expect (under our current set up) everyone to be a net contributor. We require carers, cleaners, people to stack shelves. We need to be able to employ junior staff at a low wage when they're learning and not adding much value. Not everyone can be a senior manager or a surgeon. These people need to eat and have shelter if we are to have a stable society.

Also I don't care how feckless someone is I still wouldn't want their children to go hungry nor would I want them to get forced to have an abortion.

For what it's worth I am pretty confident I pay more tax than the people moaning on this thread (I've just done my tax return for 24/25).

I agree that we do. But when the children are already feeling abandoned, being excluded from nursery without Mum having the energy to support them do they grow into these roles? Or are they more likely to repeat the lives of their Dad's in the pub, abandoning DC, unemployed, addiction issues, growing up in care then in prison?

I'm not confusing anything. I said further up there will be no additional Universal Credit payments for having a fifth child. Of course all British citizens have recourse to public funds. but this poster was saying shell have increased housing allowances having an extra child and that's not the case.

There will though. Even if absolutely nothing else changes, the older ones will grow up and OP will claim for the little ones instead. More kids always cost more, whoever is paying. Completely delusional to say otherwise.

I've not said more kids won't cost more. I've said her UC entitlement won't increase. Which it won't. Even if she claims for these children as the others get older, she won't be getting more will she. Just the same amount (arguably for longer, yes). Although as they grow up and she doesn't have younger ones to care for, she will be expected to work more hours and UC will taper down.

It's not about expecting everyone to be a net contributor. This of course isn't possible. It is though possible for most of us to seek to be responsible and make sensible decisions that don't over burden other people or the state. Children are expensive so if you aren't paid an enormous amount and aren't wealthy then it is irresponsible to have a large family that you can't afford to look after properly. It is highly likely those children will be deprived and grow up in poverty if you are relying on the state to prop up your family planning choices.

Nobody wants children to go hungry or forced abortion. Realistically though the best way to avoid all of this is for people to make responsible choices in the first place regarding family planning and contraception. If we all went around having as many 'accidents' as OP and demanding that the state supported our large families then the system would fall apart.

Finally you have no idea how much tax anybody on this thread pays. Even if you you were correct (which I doubt to be honest) then you are more than welcome to voluntarily contribute further tax to the state to fund people like OP and their large families. You are not going to convince the majority of us though that OP is nothing short of reckless and essentially blackmailing the tax payer into supporting her life choices as she ultimately knows that very few people would see an innocent child made homeless or not fed.

It's lost somewhere pages ago in the thread now but some poster tried to Tell me she'll get a bigger council house for having the fifth child more housing benefit etc.
Completely delusional comments right 😂most council houses only have two or three bedrooms with the four bedroom ones having decade long waiting lists.

They are jumping through hoops to find some way to make this about their tax money even though they've been told 50000 times there's a two child cap

Exactly! Long gone are the days of popping out 100 children for an income and rising through the bedroom rankings in social housing. It just can't happen now and people refuse to acknowledge this.

Actually lots of people do want children to go hungry and are seemingly supportive of forced abortions. I agree most rational people wouldn't want either though.

I just fail to see the benefit of kicking someone when they're down.

I have five (the 4th was twins). 5 is a lovely number. I never felt judged by anyone for it (other than that I must have a wonderful fertility ability). I am full time working lawyer and always have been even when they were babies. I don't think anyone would dare to suggest to me that having five children was wrong. Good luck with the 5th son. I know someone who had six boys and then numbers 7 and 8 were girls (at very long last). My 5 are a mixture.

My great granny had 9 girls (one died as a baby however) and 2 boys. I have a picture of her when she was just widowed with the baby and the other 9 children in my office.

No, I didn't mean to say pension credit.

If you aren't au fait with 'the complexities of the benefit system', it's probably better not to be outraged by it.

The vast majority of the population don't want these things. Most people are reasonable and kind. Most people though also don't like piss takers who knowingly and deliberately abuse the system. I would argue that someone having loads of children with no means or even desire to support them yourself is taking the piss. It will be the children and the tax payer that pay the price for people like OP making such poor life decisions.

I am not seeking to kick someone when they're down but I won't congratulate OP or pretend that she is anything other than completely irresponsible. Being fertile isn't a huge achievement. Most women of childbearing age are and could knock out loads of children if they so fancied. Most women though are responsible and put the needs of the child first. I don't know why she would come onto a public forum and expect congratulations and support. She and her children are in a very vulnerable situation and she has just made it worse by adding yet another child that she can't afford.

Absolutely don't feel the need to congratulate someone if you don't want to, but in that situation, when the question was "anyone else in this situation" not "what does everyone think of my situation", surely best not to comment as it's not relevant to you?

Nope, that's not how public forums work or even conversations in real life. OP has found that herself in that people have judged her when she's told them her news. You can't just lock down a thread and state that you only want to hear from people in a similar situation to you. As we've seen on this thread, those who have made similar life choices are infinitely more likely to endorse what OP has done. The fact remains though that vast majority of the population would disagree and judges her. The thread reflects this. Hopefully OP will think long and hard about why there is so much judgement and this will shape her future family planning decisions. People don't judge for the sake of it. They feel desperately sorry for the children and the tax payer who are stuck with the consequences of her decisions.

If you don't hold any of the views I am criticising then I am not sure why you think my post was directed at you.

The tax thing was somewhat tongue in cheek (although statistically pretty likely, I am in a top fraction of 1% of PAYE earners) - anyway I now withdraw that claim now Xenia has joined the thread. I don't have my own island which I believe she does!

It wasn't directed at me. I probably do hold some of the views that you criticised. I do think it's relevant that OP isn't a net contributor and is heavily financially reliant on the state when she's making the decision to expand her family. I also don't want to fund more and more of her children. I obviously most importantly don't want to see a child starve or homeless so ultimately I (and other tax payers) are blackmailed into funding OP's kids but I would rather she didn't have lots of children she couldn't afford.

The tax thing is a side note but there are lots more ways to pay tax than PAYE. The real big hitters in terms of tax won't be paying PAYE.

The tax thing is a side note but there are lots more ways to pay tax than PAYE. The real big hitters in terms of tax won't be paying PAYE.

Yes obviously, that was the point. They'll be paying much less than me as a percentage of their income - it's the top end PAYE people (like me) who are being hit the hardest in terms of tax.

ETA: while we are on the subject lots of the ways we pay tax are actually very regressive. So OP will be paying a much higher percentage of her income in VAT that me and both of us are paying much more in VAT as a percentage of income than properly wealthy people.

Actually it's often those on a marginal tax rate that are paying the most tax. Especially if you earn £100k but less than £125k.

Do you know who else pays an extortionate amount of VAT proportionate to their income? My 8 year old son who burns through his pocket money as soon as he gets it. He still is a net beneficiary of the state though as he has free healthcare, education etc and this is the only way he actually pays tax. I imagine OP is paying very little tax in other ways and is a huge net beneficiary. I don't know why you want to stop her paying anything at all?

Have as many as you like as long as you can afford them. Yourself. Without state help.

And if she can’t, should she abort this one?

And does that go for everyone who can’t afford private education and healthcare? Or is there a number of children you can have with some assistance from the state?