off topic... affording more children

[Tammy77]

As a side note, what would people that rely on the system long term for their needs do if at some point they were cut off? They'd find a way to work and do what the rest of the people that are funding that system by working themselves do.

It's ridiculous of people to sit there and PROUDLY say that they will pop out as many babies as they want and stay home because they can get away with it, meanwhile others are working 65 hrs a week to have one parent stay home (like my DH is now) or both parents working 40 hrs (like we previously did). What would happen if EVERYONE had the philosophy that they could just use the government instead of providing for their own families? The system would bankrupt very quickly and the country would go down the toilet.

ETA: I speak only about long term use of the system. I fully support short term aid and aid for disabled families.

 

[mum22ttc#3]

As a side note, what would people that rely on the system long term for their needs do if at some point they were cut off? They'd find a way to work and do what the rest of the people that are funding that system by working themselves do.

It's ridiculous of people to sit there and PROUDLY say that they will pop out as many babies as they want and stay home because they can get away with it, meanwhile others are working 65 hrs a week to have one parent stay home (like my DH is now) or both parents working 40 hrs (like we previously did). What would happen if EVERYONE had the philosophy that they could just use the government instead of providing for their own families? The system would bankrupt very quickly and the country would go down the toilet.

ETA: I speak only about long term use of the system. I fully support short term aid and aid for disabled families.

And what about the families that have one parent out working up to 65 hours a week but are still in receipt of tax credits?
Also my OH works funny shifts, midday until nearly midnight so it would be near on impossible to find a job for me to work around his.

I'm not saying I'm proud of the fact that we receive tax credits to top up his wage but I'm also not ashamed of the fact that we do, all we're getting back is some of the tax that he is already paying, for that I won't feel guilty.

 

[justkitty]

For me it is irrelevant if families claim benefits or not. It's can they afford to meet the family basic needs eg food bills clothes etc. If they can't then perhaps adding to the family could be put on hold . there are alot of families who have been made redundant, lost businesses etc and claim benefits who provide excellent loving homes for their children. I wish every mum had thr choice of staying at home with their child until school age.

See I think this is where I'm probably a bit bitter. I have to work (I work days while hubby has Fin, then he does evenings while I have him). We don't see much of each other and I feel sad that I don't get to be off with Fin (I had to go back to work when he was nearly 4 months). I know girls who don't worry that they've gotten pregnant because paying for baby and bills just isn't an issue at all - not because they work, but because they don't work. I just feel it's really unfair that we budget and plan carefully and worry about money, where it's not even on their radar. Meh.

I totally understand why you feel that way.

 

[teacup22]

As a side note, what would people that rely on the system long term for their needs do if at some point they were cut off? They'd find a way to work and do what the rest of the people that are funding that system by working themselves do.

It's ridiculous of people to sit there and PROUDLY say that they will pop out as many babies as they want and stay home because they can get away with it, meanwhile others are working 65 hrs a week to have one parent stay home (like my DH is now) or both parents working 40 hrs (like we previously did). What would happen if EVERYONE had the philosophy that they could just use the government instead of providing for their own families? The system would bankrupt very quickly and the country would go down the toilet.

ETA: I speak only about long term use of the system. I fully support short term aid and aid for disabled families.

And what about the families that have one parent out working up to 65 hours a week but are still in receipt of tax credits?
Also my OH works funny shifts, midday until nearly midnight so it would be near on impossible to find a job for me to work around his.

I'm not saying I'm proud of the fact that we receive tax credits to top up his wage but I'm also not ashamed of the fact that we do, all we're getting back is some of the tax that he is already paying, for that I won't feel guilty.

Totally agree with this being in a similar situation.
Just not my DHs fault school wasn't great and he was forced to get any old job by his father meaning he's on minimum wage now.
In this country I think they should deal with the fact that a family CAN'T live on one person earning minimum wage and working 40+ hrs without tax credits etc.
I also used to work in a minimum wage job but left when pregnant with DS...

 

[babyhopes2010]

no u shouldnt have more! id love to have 4 kids, can i afford 4.no.
we will stick at 2,

 

[PreggyEggy]

As a side note, what would people that rely on the system long term for their needs do if at some point they were cut off? They'd find a way to work and do what the rest of the people that are funding that system by working themselves do.

It's ridiculous of people to sit there and PROUDLY say that they will pop out as many babies as they want and stay home because they can get away with it, meanwhile others are working 65 hrs a week to have one parent stay home (like my DH is now) or both parents working 40 hrs (like we previously did). What would happen if EVERYONE had the philosophy that they could just use the government instead of providing for their own families? The system would bankrupt very quickly and the country would go down the toilet.

ETA: I speak only about long term use of the system. I fully support short term aid and aid for disabled families.

And what about the families that have one parent out working up to 65 hours a week but are still in receipt of tax credits?
Also my OH works funny shifts, midday until nearly midnight so it would be near on impossible to find a job for me to work around his.

I'm not saying I'm proud of the fact that we receive tax credits to top up his wage but I'm also not ashamed of the fact that we do, all we're getting back is some of the tax that he is already paying, for that I won't feel guilty.

Totally agree with this being in a similar situation.
Just not my DHs fault school wasn't great and he was forced to get any old job by his father meaning he's on minimum wage now.
In this country I think they should deal with the fact that a family CAN'T live on one person earning minimum wage and working 40+ hrs without tax credits etc.
I also used to work in a minimum wage job but left when pregnant with DS...

This this this, especially the bold bit! Obviously there is something wrong here in that my DH's salary isn't enough to allow me to stay home with my children without help, and he's not on minimum wage!

Sure, I could go out and get a job tomorrow (if I could find one, that is). It would likely be a minimum wage job as I don't have a lot of qualifications (something I am also using my time as a stay at home mum fixing ). I would be extremely unlikely to be able to find a job around my DH's work hours, so that would mean we need childcare. Childcare is extraordinarily expensive (for good reason!) and I very much doubt a minimum wage salary, plus my DH's salary would cover it and leave us with much money left over. So we would likely need help from the government to pay for that childcare (I know there is help available, but I am not sure what).

So, what makes more sense? Does it really make sense at all to get help from the government to pay someone else to do the job I feel I should be doing? I feel that I am benefiting my family far more in the long run by staying at home until they are ready for school. I'm improving my job prospects while I do so, which means when I am ready for employment I'll be more likely to get a higher paid job which will mean I'll contribute more tax.

It's not always as clear cut as many people seem to think. It's a shame that in this country it is very hard to get by as a young family without things like working tax credits if you choose to prioritise one parent staying at home. The cost of living is expensive. We don't have luxuries I wish we could have, but we get by. I'm sure our standard of living is much lower then families who have both parents working, but that's the choice we made as I feel staying home is more important. But our situation is temporary and it won't always be like this, and I bet it's the same for a lot of young families. We're just starting out. I don't feel ashamed to receive the benefits we get at all, just thankful.

 

[TMonster]

And what about the families that have one parent out working up to 65 hours a week but are still in receipt of tax credits?
Also my OH works funny shifts, midday until nearly midnight so it would be near on impossible to find a job for me to work around his.

I'm not saying I'm proud of the fact that we receive tax credits to top up his wage but I'm also not ashamed of the fact that we do, all we're getting back is some of the tax that he is already paying, for that I won't feel guilty.

There are tons of households out there who could benefit from "getting back some of the tax money they are paying" in other words paying less money in taxes. DH and I get hammered in taxes because its been deemed that we "earn too much" regardless of where we live or what we pay in rent or the amount of debt we are in or even the reason we have to live where we do due to a disability and we don't qualify for most tax breaks because we are just over the limit to get those deductions.

At the end of the day, if a family wants to make the decision to live off of only one income, I think it is their responsibility to make sure that they can live the lifestyle that they want to under that income and not depend on government benefits as a long term supplement for working and I don't think they should be having more children if they are struggling to meet the needs of the ones they currently have and this "assistance" turns into a lifestyle choice and a burden on other taxpayers.

 

[Noo]

Ah but you could argue that you're better off having one parent at home and receiving a small amount of benefits than both working and paying your salary for someone else to raise your children... What would be the point in having them if someone else is caring for them 40+ hours a week? I don't know... What's more important? Money or family?... Speaking as a working mother myself! I wish I could afford to stay home with my children but I can't. DH earns "too much" to not be expected to support me if I didn't work so we need my income.

 

[jojo_b]

I think benefits are fine if one parent is working and one staying at home to raise the children - that is a job in itself. When neither work THROUGH CHOICE, especially if (and this particularly infuriates me) the kids are of school age, I honestly feel like it's an abuse of the system.

 

[TMonster]

I think benefits are fine if one parent is working and one staying at home to raise the children - that is a job in itself. When neither work THROUGH CHOICE, especially if (and this particularly infuriates me) the kids are of school age, I honestly feel like it's an abuse of the system.

One can always make the argument that someone needs to be home for the children, even after they are school aged. I am not sure how school works there but here the school day ends at 2 (sometimes 3) and one can just as easily say that a parent needs to be there to pick up their child from school or still need some form of child care not to mention additional household help cooking/cleaning etc. if one parent wont be home until 6pm or so (assuming 9-5 job + transportation time.)

It's always a very difficult situation. DH and I chose to wait to have children until we were in our 30s (I am 32 almost 33 and he is 35 almost 36) because we wanted to get to a point where our education was behind us, we both had decent jobs with good future job prospects and that our debt was manageable enough where we can have children without needing any external assistance. When we were 20, our combined debt was close to 500k because we chose to invest in our education rather than have children we couldn't give the standard of care that we would have wanted to without assistance.

Yes, life happens, people get pregnant unexpectedly, people lose jobs, things change etc. but I think there is a huge difference between a conscious decision to start a family knowing you can't afford one and may not ever really be able to.

I understand that tons of people want to be able to be able to stay home and care for their children and I think that is an important job. I just don't think it's the responsibility of other people to pay for it.

 

[Maze]

Not in the US (I think) but in countries like Canada and the UK(I think), a lot of these benefits are simply handed out depending on your yearly tax assessment and the information provided to the government during that time. Although, they do require you report the birth of new dependents, loss of dependents, new marriage or separation as promptly as you can. One can't get too upset with a family who is merely cashing the volunteered cheques the government is sending them every month of their own accord. I have never heard of any family to send the cheques back. It isn't a choice to let other people pay for your kids (because these benefits would certainly not be enough on their own to care for your children) but rather the reality of what programs are put in place by the government where you live.

There are countries where the tax payer actually pays to put every single born citizen and immigrated citizen through university and pays out extra money to live off of during the time you're in school. Those individuals aren't considered lazy because they don't make the decision to pay for their own education, it is simply the reality of where they live, it is what the government automatically does for them.

Obviously it isn't like this in every country, but I think what we're finding in this thread is that people responding pro-benefits etc. are from countries where they are automatically received and those who are anti-benefits are coming from countries where they aren't. So naturally, women who receive benefits automatically and have kids might get offended when they read that benefits are essentially cheating society. (In Canada we have free health care for everyone, cancer patients who spend a lot of the time in the hospital system are not viewed as a burden, because it's all within our government.) I think similarly, women who come from countries that don't offer these automatic programs are frustrated when others on here are saying they receive them and use them to stay home with the kids. It would be frustrating to find that families can do that elsewhere. Neither side of the fence is wrong, but it is an issue with the varying governments, not the individual families.

This is not going into the issue of people jumping on assistance (where no one is working) as a choice and continuing to have kids so they can increase their monthly pay out. I think everyone is in agreement that that is wrong.

 

[mhk425]

I know it's definitely different here in the US than elsewhere, so I can't say my opinion holds for people in other countries.

I can't even tell you the number of people I've known to abuse the welfare system. I have students whose parents have 7-8 kids and have been jobless for 15+ years. Why should I have to work my ass off every day to pay for your kids' needs? (And as a side note, I find it amazing when I see these kids on their iPhones as they wait for their free, government-paid lunch. Really??) Quite frankly, I think that if you can't afford to support kids on your own (meaning without food stamps, etc.), you shouldn't have them. It might be harsh, but that's definitely the way I feel. If there were a cap on benefits, I think the cycle of poverty would have a much higher chance of ending.

 

[TMonster]

Not in the US (I think) but in countries like Canada and the UK(I think), a lot of these benefits are simply handed out depending on your yearly tax assessment and the information provided to the government during that time. Although, they do require you report the birth of new dependents, loss of dependents, new marriage or separation as promptly as you can. One can't get too upset with a family who is merely cashing the volunteered cheques the government is sending them every month of their own accord. I have never heard of any family to send the cheques back. It isn't a choice to let other people pay for your kids (because these benefits would certainly not be enough on their own to care for your children) but rather the reality of what programs are put in place by the government where you live.

There are countries where the tax payer actually pays to put every single born citizen and immigrated citizen through university and pays out extra money to live off of during the time you're in school. Those individuals aren't considered lazy because they don't make the decision to pay for their own education, it is simply the reality of where they live, it is what the government automatically does for them.

Obviously it isn't like this in every country, but I think what we're finding in this thread is that people responding pro-benefits etc. are from countries where they are automatically received and those who are anti-benefits are coming from countries where they aren't. So naturally, women who receive benefits automatically and have kids might get offended when they read that benefits are essentially cheating society. (In Canada we have free health care for everyone, cancer patients who spend a lot of the time in the hospital system are not viewed as a burden, because it's all within our government.) I think similarly, women who come from countries that don't offer these automatic programs are frustrated when others on here are saying they receive them and use them to stay home with the kids. It would be frustrating to find that families can do that elsewhere. Neither side of the fence is wrong, but it is an issue with the varying governments, not the individual families.

This is not going into the issue of people jumping on assistance (where no one is working) as a choice and continuing to have kids so they can increase their monthly pay out. I think everyone is in agreement that that is wrong.

I am not sure how things work over there. In the US we get a slight tax break for having kids (we list them as dependents on our taxes) just like we get a slight break if we are married and filed jointly or own a home. Our tax code is insanely complex and I swear I wish we just had a flat tax and ended it instead of needing to figure out this and that.

But getting a tax break for having children (something that every single person that has children gets automatically) is very different from applying for a program like welfare or food stamps. Even if one showed almost no income when they filed their taxes and listed that they had 5 children they would not be automatically enrolled in any benefit program. That would be a separate application that one has to qualify for and each program has its own requirements (housing, food stamps, medicare, welfare etc.) and while I don't think the system is abused that much as far as fraud goes (people working off the books or with tons of money that apply for these programs, lie about their income etc.) I have seen many cases where people just choose to live off the system because they enjoy it as a lifestyle choice or feel entitled to it. My husband sent me an article the other day about how in most states welfare and other government benefits add up to more than minimum wage and in some states its even more than double minimum wage. I have to admit, its something that is a bit frustrating since it creates an incentive for people to not work. If someone can get $15+/hour (over 31k/year) for not working and they get to stay home with their kids or do whatever they want with their time, they would need a job that pays at least 50% more than that if not double that for them to be able to afford daycare etc. and still come out ahead and there aren't tons of jobs out there, especially if one isn't well educated that pay 60k/year. Most of my friends around my age earn around that or less than that and are in debt from school and have been working for at least 7-10 years to get that salary and thats in NYC where the wages are higher than most other places in the country.

It's frustrating when I see how much some people struggle to make ends meet because they try and be responsible when it's so easy to get almost the same amount of money without having to lift a finger.

 

[Maze]

Yeah, I think that would definitely be frustrating. Here in Canada we get a slight tax break for having kids in the sense of our yearly tax return when we file our taxes, but we also receive monthly payments automatically depending on how many kids we have and what our household income is. We also pay heavier sales taxes than are paid in the States, and we pay it on absolutely everything. (Including food and clothes.)

I truly think it is a shame that in some states minimum wage is actually leaving you worse off than being on social assistance. I think that would be really upsetting to learn when you're working so hard.

In some cases it can be the same here...depending on the situation. If for example, I decided to get a full-time job that paid an average salary, our benefits would drop and on top of that I would be paying insane childcare amounts... not sure what the going average is in the US, but childcare for just one kid here can be around $700 a month per kid. So I would be working full-time, not raising my kids, and only coming out maybe a few hundred dollars ahead a month from where I am now. I think that is a pretty sad state of affairs to be sure. I do intend on working full-time once my kids are all in school of course, I have no intention of sitting at home and finding after school care is much more reasonable than full-day care.

I do know of other families who are in more permanent situations who rely fairly heavily on their benefits and as a result have actually turned down jobs that pay a little more simply because at the end of the day they'd end up having less money a month when their automatic benefits decreased. It really is kind of backwards. Unfortunately, our governments need to be taking that up with our big business employers who pay little more than minimum wage and would rather fire a seasoned employee and hire someone new than offer an earned increase in pay when the time comes.

 

[mum22ttc#3]

And what about the families that have one parent out working up to 65 hours a week but are still in receipt of tax credits?
Also my OH works funny shifts, midday until nearly midnight so it would be near on impossible to find a job for me to work around his.

I'm not saying I'm proud of the fact that we receive tax credits to top up his wage but I'm also not ashamed of the fact that we do, all we're getting back is some of the tax that he is already paying, for that I won't feel guilty.

There are tons of households out there who could benefit from "getting back some of the tax money they are paying" in other words paying less money in taxes. DH and I get hammered in taxes because its been deemed that we "earn too much" regardless of where we live or what we pay in rent or the amount of debt we are in or even the reason we have to live where we do due to a disability and we don't qualify for most tax breaks because we are just over the limit to get those deductions.

At the end of the day, if a family wants to make the decision to live off of only one income, I think it is their responsibility to make sure that they can live the lifestyle that they want to under that income and not depend on government benefits as a long term supplement for working and I don't think they should be having more children if they are struggling to meet the needs of the ones they currently have and this "assistance" turns into a lifestyle choice and a burden on other taxpayers.

And a lot of families do get something back in one way or another, whether it be tax credits, child care fees, child benefit (which you are entitled to even when you earn something like 40,000) etc.

Also it isn't a long term 'lifestyle' choice as you put it. Most families will receive these until school age which is 4-5 yers when the parent drying at home will usually choose/be expected to get a job even if only part time.

Like I said before its OH taxes that we are receiving back so I'm not entirely sure how you see us as a drain to the rest of society? He still pays some tax into the system not to mention on everything we buy, petrol to get to work etc etc.

 

[Mummy Bean]

I think it depends on what you mean by 'living of benefits' as others have mentioned if benefit is u your sole income and ur situation doesnt look likely to change in the near future or you are not attempting to improve your situation by your own means then no i dont think you should continue to have children...as it simply you personally cant afford them.

But if by having children you feel it would be better for you to take a few years out of work to bring them up yourself until school age and as a result you are entilted to income benefit then that i feel is acceptable. Childcare is beyond expensive and often unreachable for most families so why should they not accept a little bit of help for those few years.

Me and my Oh earn well but yet we still accept the £80 child benefit...so far all of it has been put into a saving account for little man to help him when he older.

It really difficult to paint everyone with one brush when it comes to benefits as each set of circumstances is so different...but i feel as long each indivudal is/has contributed in some way and is not simply expecting the goverment to help them for ever simply because 'why not' then im ok with people expanding there family. (to a reasonable degree)

 

[jojo_b]

I think benefits are fine if one parent is working and one staying at home to raise the children - that is a job in itself. When neither work THROUGH CHOICE, especially if (and this particularly infuriates me) the kids are of school age, I honestly feel like it's an abuse of the system.

One can always make the argument that someone needs to be home for the children, even after they are school aged. I am not sure how school works there but here the school day ends at 2 (sometimes 3) and one can just as easily say that a parent needs to be there to pick up their child from school or still need some form of child care not to mention additional household help cooking/cleaning etc. if one parent wont be home until 6pm or so (assuming 9-5 job + transportation time.)

It's always a very difficult situation. DH and I chose to wait to have children until we were in our 30s (I am 32 almost 33 and he is 35 almost 36) because we wanted to get to a point where our education was behind us, we both had decent jobs with good future job prospects and that our debt was manageable enough where we can have children without needing any external assistance. When we were 20, our combined debt was close to 500k because we chose to invest in our education rather than have children we couldn't give the standard of care that we would have wanted to without assistance.

Yes, life happens, people get pregnant unexpectedly, people lose jobs, things change etc. but I think there is a huge difference between a conscious decision to start a family knowing you can't afford one and may not ever really be able to.

I understand that tons of people want to be able to be able to stay home and care for their children and I think that is an important job. I just don't think it's the responsibility of other people to pay for it.

True, but it doesn't sit well with me. You find a job with hours to make it work, or use an after school club. Like I've said though, if one partner is supporting the family, even if not wholly, that's fine IMHO. Just when both aren't offering any contribution and are just expecting to be housed and fed...that's when I really struggle to be compassionate (unless there are extenuating circumstances, obviously)

 

[ellismum]

We can't afford another so we won't be expanding the family. I believe that if u can't afford a baby without having to rely on benefits then you shouldn't have one. The way this government are changing things you'd be silly to rely on them anyway!

 

[abbie23]

I think if people can't afford the basics like food, shoes, rent, and bills and have to rely on benefits then they shouldn't have more children. It's not fair on anyone really.

This may be controversial but I agree with this poster and further more I think anyone who is on benefits even if one partner works is classes as not wing able to afford more children!
(I'm not sure how it works in other countries) but here in Aus if u earn a normal wage your spouse isn't entitled to anything and not they should be!

We pay $.47c in the $$$ tax because of how hard we work and how much we earn and a big chunk goes to ppl having babies that can't afford it on their own!

Frustrates the hell out of me!

I think true benefits should be there for people who have disabilities, for short term solutions for people made redundant and victims of abuse etc ... Not just because you decided that you felt like staying home and having kids... Save up and work hard and if u can afford it then do it.

Not just controversial but I think that this is a little naive if I'm honest.

I'm in the uk and OH earns a 'normal wage', a little under the national average and we also get tax credits to top this up. In not sure what living expenses etc are like where you are but here depending on where you live they can be incredibly high. Perhaps if living expenses where brought more into line with what the national 'normal wage' is then there wouldn't be as much need for the likes of tax credits/housing benefits etc.

I actually don't think that by being entitled to tax credits that it should give us any less rights to have kids then it should anyone else not entilted, the way I see it for us is that we are actually getting some of the tax back that OH pays into the system, personally I'm not going to feel guilty for that, perhaps if we wasn't taxed so much then we wouldn't need to be getting the credits which we do.

Just to clarify... We don't have "tax credits" so I think it's obviously a different kettle of fish. (Hence why I said I didn't know about other countries)
We only have "benefits" and essentially u dont reli pay tax at all if you're entitled to benefits here... So people on benefits are usually people who don't work at all or have 15 hours of work a week between the whole family if that makes sense


Our living expenses where I live are some of the highest in the world.

As a fellow Aussie I find it hard to believe that you haven't claimed/are not going to claim the baby bonus or the childcare rebate. I would classify these payments/handouts from the government to families as a form of 'benefit' and one that goes to families regardless of their income level. There are plenty of middle class and rich families benefiting from these sorts of payments, so I think it's false to assume that it's only people who don't work who are gaining from the system.

Society at large actually needs women to continue having children, to avoid the ageing population problem currently being faced by Japan. We subsidise young families to ensure that there is a healthy working population later on. Frankly, I think it's more likely that the majority of my taxes are going to fund the overinflated all-expense-paid travel budgets of politicians and government staff, or the neverending stream of infrastructure projects being commissioned and then aborted, rather than the couples who really have no work ethic whatsoever and have decided they would rather be bored at home on benefits rather than try make something of their lives. I'm also uncomfortable with the assumption that people on benefits have somehow chosen that life path. If it was really so cushy and easy to raise your family on benefits, then why aren't we all just rushing to give up our jobs and live the good life?

 

[M&S+Bump]

I think there's a big difference in 'living on benefits' and claiming tax credits to top up your income and having those as part of your household budget (although it'd be wise to not rely on them as they'll cut them without much warning quite happily, as has already happened - we were entitled to CTC with one child, but then they changed it and we didn't qualify with two, and I don't think we will even with three children, except help towards nursery fees which we don't need as my DH stays at home to look after them)

In the UK we don't get tax breaks for having children, or for being married, or owning a house - your tax is your tax and is based on how much you earn. Tax credits give you a little bit back (they're not automatically paid, you have to apply)

I pay an obscene amount of corporation tax and VAT every year through my business (£100,000+), not to mention the VAT on everything I buy in life and personal income tax and national insurance, so every penny I can get back from the government I will gladly accept and apply for.

I think children are as expensive as you make them - I don't foresee three costing THAT much more than two, not for a while anyway. I think in OP's friend's case, it's not necessarily that she can't afford more children, but that she makes bad decisions with the money she has and is one of these people that can buy everything but afford nothing - forever complaining how skint they are but strangely, not experiencing any kind of shortage of luxury items. I doubt she can't afford shoes for the kids - maybe she can't afford brand new Clarks shoes like she might want, but if she genuinely had no money, she wouldn't be able to buy Sky TV either..