off topic... affording more children

[lhancock90]

We are discussing our third. The kids want for nothing, foods on the table, drinks in the fridge, days out, nice birthdays but our parents are super hands on, they love helping out, shopping for the kids. We get by just fine and if we couldnt manage a third we wouldn't do it no matter how badly we wanted to.

 

[overcomer79]

We are having one more but we can also afford it. I'm a tight wad and everything goes to provide my kids with nice things. I wear t-shirts and jeans so I can give my daughter cute outfits (I love zulily!). We had a "scare" back in May and that prompted our discussion. Before that, we weren't open to the possibility of having another one. When this child is ready for daycare (as I do plan on going back to work but we have an in home daycare), we will have more money per month to allow. I know people who couldn't afford one. I don't judge people but yes I do feel like if I have to pay for your kids then maybe....of course i had what I thought was a very good friend condemning me for having one more because she supposedly has this high ass end job so she basically has become a snob. She doesn't know how I run my finances. We are now doing some home improvements so I'm cutting some costs (like phone and tv) way down. I work hard to save us money and will continue being the frugal one in our house it seems.

 

[Natsku]

With the benefits thing I think attitudes depend on where you live, over here every family receives benefits from the poorest to the richest (child benefit is universal, as is the maternity grant, as is a benefit to stay home with your child but for that one the amount does vary based on household income) so you can't say here that people shouldn't have more children if they are on benefits. And as so many benefits are universal people who rely more on them aren't looked down on as much, and as the country needs future tax payers (we have a demographic problem, not as bad as Japan but still not good) I don't see the problem with people having more children even if they are relying a large part on benefits - they're doing their National duty really. No one here (unless they don't apply for benefits) is unable to afford the basics so children born to poor families don't really suffer (unless the parents have trouble budgeting like in the OP's situation), its a much more equal society than most (less difference between wages).

 

[overcomer79]

With the benefits thing I think attitudes depend on where you live, over here every family receives benefits from the poorest to the richest (child benefit is universal, as is the maternity grant, as is a benefit to stay home with your child but for that one the amount does vary based on household income) so you can't say here that people shouldn't have more children if they are on benefits. And as so many benefits are universal people who rely more on them aren't looked down on as much, and as the country needs future tax payers (we have a demographic problem, not as bad as Japan but still not good) I don't see the problem with people having more children even if they are relying a large part on benefits - they're doing their National duty really. No one here (unless they don't apply for benefits) is unable to afford the basics so children born to poor families don't really suffer (unless the parents have trouble budgeting like in the OP's situation), its a much more equal society than most (less difference between wages).

This is true. Over in the US there is no benefits for those that work if you are past a certain income level which usually is ridiculously low. We don't have maternity grants and I'm still paying on my first child. My ex sis in law however who has never had a job, is fighting to get on disability (not sure on what grounds) had three csections on the government because she couldn't afford medical during her pregnancy. It is frustrating to us over here. If I keep working, I don't get any time off. I'm sorry but from my experience, you don't recover from child birth after the "magic six weeks". I really think we need major reform over here but let's not get me started. So yes my perception of benefits is based on where I live. If your government offers them to all then that is great but ours doesn't.

 

[Natsku]

With the benefits thing I think attitudes depend on where you live, over here every family receives benefits from the poorest to the richest (child benefit is universal, as is the maternity grant, as is a benefit to stay home with your child but for that one the amount does vary based on household income) so you can't say here that people shouldn't have more children if they are on benefits. And as so many benefits are universal people who rely more on them aren't looked down on as much, and as the country needs future tax payers (we have a demographic problem, not as bad as Japan but still not good) I don't see the problem with people having more children even if they are relying a large part on benefits - they're doing their National duty really. No one here (unless they don't apply for benefits) is unable to afford the basics so children born to poor families don't really suffer (unless the parents have trouble budgeting like in the OP's situation), its a much more equal society than most (less difference between wages).

This is true. Over in the US there is no benefits for those that work if you are past a certain income level which usually is ridiculously low. We don't have maternity grants and I'm still paying on my first child. My ex sis in law however who has never had a job, is fighting to get on disability (not sure on what grounds) had three csections on the government because she couldn't afford medical during her pregnancy. It is frustrating to us over here. If I keep working, I don't get any time off. I'm sorry but from my experience, you don't recover from child birth after the "magic six weeks". I really think we need major reform over here but let's not get me started. So yes my perception of benefits is based on where I live. If your government offers them to all then that is great but ours doesn't.

Yeah I completely understand having a different attitude when you have a more "us versus them" situation in regards to benefits - when benefits divide people rather than unite them its only natural to be angry at people having kids while on them.

 

[JASMAK]

I have a dear friend who has 2 beautiful boys 4&1. Unfortunately she can barely afford them as it is. She was complaining about not being able to afford shoes for her 1yr old and her dh was selling his dvds to pay the gas bill. He works but is on a low salary. She stays at home and receives benefits. Previously she earned a good salary but if she returnef to work full time by the time she'd paid for childcare she would be only £50 better off than now and her dh won't contribute towards childcare. But she wants to return to work once baby goes to school.

Anyway they are now talking about having a third baby. So it would have to be soon and she would stay at home until baby no.3 went to school. She also recently called me crying saying she felt bad for a 4yr old who was missing out on group friend trips to legoland etc and how she is worried about not having money for xmas and how they keep getting final demands on bils etc. I did give her support but I also said she didn't need sky, they didn't need two new beds in the house just because her 4 year old wanted a car bed for his birthday (cost £400) and on pay monthly scheme. She got a bit upset with me :0 (

Anyway not a question about judging my friend but more general. If you have children but cannot afford them already do you think you should have more?

I would say if she is a good mom, and she isn't on drugs, drunk, abusing her children, then they are good to have more kids. now...if it was 20, or a third world country where literally one could starve..I would feel different. but, you can have all the money in the world, then lose your job, or someone dies, or you become ill or disabled....are we ever really that stable? No, I don't think so. I am lucky that my husband and I have very good careers and make a very good income and our three children have enriching lives with good neighbourhood, and sports and clubs. If we lost it all...would that make me a mom not fit to have my kids? I just really hate judgements based on income. I really do. There is such good parents out there with less (and shitty ones with more)....and even though my husband and I do make a good income, we have had times when we REALLY struggled financially.

 

[TMonster]

I would say if she is a good mom, and she isn't on drugs, drunk, abusing her children, then they are good to have more kids. now...if it was 20, or a third world country where literally one could starve..I would feel different. but, you can have all the money in the world, then lose your job, or someone dies, or you become ill or disabled....are we ever really that stable? No, I don't think so. I am lucky that my husband and I have very good careers and make a very good income and our three children have enriching lives with good neighbourhood, and sports and clubs. If we lost it all...would that make me a mom not fit to have my kids? I just really hate judgements based on income. I really do. There is such good parents out there with less (and shitty ones with more)....and even though my husband and I do make a good income, we have had times when we REALLY struggled financially.

There is a huge difference between being stable and losing your job, dealing with major illness etc. while you already have children vs. not having enough and making the conscious decision to have more children. I would also argue that if someone gets to a point where they lose everything and they are living in poverty with 2 children already they definitely should not have any more children since dealing with the ones they have is already as struggle and as far as should they have their children taken away from them... that really depends on how bad the circumstances are. Not doing drugs, not beating your children and loving your children sometimes isn't enough if you can't afford to feed and clothe your children properly. Sometimes, depending on the circumstances, temporary interventions may be needed and may be in the best interest of the child until the parents can get back on their feet.

I am not advocating that all children need to be taken away from their parents should they fall upon hard times but, for example, I know a situation where there is a family that is practically starving. It's a single mother with 2 children, the mother works insane hours, one of the children suffers from autism, she made several bad investments including buying a large piece of land with horses because her daughter loved horses.

These are expensive horses that she is struggling to sell, she is receiving government benefits to the extent allowed, all the money she makes from work (she owns a small shop) goes to paying the basic bills and trying to maintain the land so she can attempt to sell it. The children struggle in school because they spend so much time working on this dilapidated farm dealing with repairs or horses that it interferes with their studying while she is at work all day and they pretty much live on ramen and white bread with a slice of ham when they can afford it. They have almost no clothing, the clothing they do have has holes in it, they do not a washing machine or any laundromats nearby to do laundry so they are wearing the same thing day in day out, all their shoes have holes in them which makes things tougher when working outside in the mud all day with animals.

These children practically start crying when they see other people eating because they are so hungry but she can't afford more food, their diet is anything but nutritious, her shop is bringing in almost no work and she is on the verge of being completely homeless so she is trying to do everything she can to keep her investment alive.

I have seen how she lives, I have given the children food and clothing before just so they don't go through winter walking in the snow with holes in their shoes. I think their situation is borderline where they may be better off with someone else for a while until she can adequately feed and clothe her children and I CERTAINLY do not believe she should have any more children in this environment because I think that would be gross negligence.

 

[Natsku]

I would say if she is a good mom, and she isn't on drugs, drunk, abusing her children, then they are good to have more kids. now...if it was 20, or a third world country where literally one could starve..I would feel different. but, you can have all the money in the world, then lose your job, or someone dies, or you become ill or disabled....are we ever really that stable? No, I don't think so. I am lucky that my husband and I have very good careers and make a very good income and our three children have enriching lives with good neighbourhood, and sports and clubs. If we lost it all...would that make me a mom not fit to have my kids? I just really hate judgements based on income. I really do. There is such good parents out there with less (and shitty ones with more)....and even though my husband and I do make a good income, we have had times when we REALLY struggled financially.

There is a huge difference between being stable and losing your job, dealing with major illness etc. while you already have children vs. not having enough and making the conscious decision to have more children. I would also argue that if someone gets to a point where they lose everything and they are living in poverty with 2 children already they definitely should not have any more children since dealing with the ones they have is already as struggle and as far as should they have their children taken away from them... that really depends on how bad the circumstances are. Not doing drugs, not beating your children and loving your children sometimes isn't enough if you can't afford to feed and clothe your children properly. Sometimes, depending on the circumstances, temporary interventions may be needed and may be in the best interest of the child until the parents can get back on their feet.

I am not advocating that all children need to be taken away from their parents should they fall upon hard times but, for example, I know a situation where there is a family that is practically starving. It's a single mother with 2 children, the mother works insane hours, one of the children suffers from autism, she made several bad investments including buying a large piece of land with horses because her daughter loved horses.

These are expensive horses that she is struggling to sell, she is receiving government benefits to the extent allowed, all the money she makes from work (she owns a small shop) goes to paying the basic bills and trying to maintain the land so she can attempt to sell it. The children struggle in school because they spend so much time working on this dilapidated farm dealing with repairs or horses that it interferes with their studying while she is at work all day and they pretty much live on ramen and white bread with a slice of ham when they can afford it. They have almost no clothing, the clothing they do have has holes in it, they do not a washing machine or any laundromats nearby to do laundry so they are wearing the same thing day in day out, all their shoes have holes in them which makes things tougher when working outside in the mud all day with animals.

These children practically start crying when they see other people eating because they are so hungry but she can't afford more food, their diet is anything but nutritious, her shop is bringing in almost no work and she is on the verge of being completely homeless so she is trying to do everything she can to keep her investment alive.

I have seen how she lives, I have given the children food and clothing before just so they don't go through winter walking in the snow with holes in their shoes. I think their situation is borderline where they may be better off with someone else for a while until she can adequately feed and clothe her children and I CERTAINLY do not believe she should have any more children in this environment because I think that would be gross negligence.

That situation sounds terrible and I think the worst thing is that even with the help of government benefits the mother cannot afford to properly feed or clothe her children Society has failed that family and taking the children away isn't the answer as that is damaging to the children, instead this mother should be getting sufficient help to live on.

 

[TMonster]

I don't want to see her children taken away either. I love her and those kids. If her mother were still alive or there was another family member that could take care of them temporarily it might be in the childrens best interest. Certainly not foster care with strangers. Unfortunately that isn't an option.

Part of the difficulty is that she owns this massive piece of land as well as some animals worth a lot of money and she also owns a buisness which isn't bringing in much money at all because work is very slow. She has taken out so much money in loans from everywhere she can. She did this all because she was trying to do what was in the best interest of her children but it happened to be a poor investment at the wrong time.

My bigger point was that she doesn't drink, do drugs, abuse her children etc. but she should, under no circumstances, consider bringing a newborn baby into this situation. Just because someone is a good person and tries to be a good parent does not mean that they should have more children if they cannot already support the ones they have.

For the last 2 years now all I have heard is how its almost at a point where it will be sold etc. Now its looking as though she might lose everything. The stress that woman is under is immense. One day things are looking up, the next day down. Her car is 15 years old and having troubles that she can't afford to fix, she is drowning in debt. Its a really tough situation and it breaks my heart to see her struggle like this because she really is a good person and those kids are adorable but they are struggling too. They miss days of school because she can't afford the gas to drive them back and forth sometimes, they have so many chores to do that they can't focus as much on homework and their grades are dropping. She has arthritis and is suffering constantly from it.

Unfortunately, the government doesn't really look at someone's individual circumstances very much. They just go by a set of predetermined numbers and everyone is the same as far as they are concerned.

I also know a different situation, this was with an older single male. He is about 42 or so. He is morbidly obese, diabetic, used to have a good job, got laid off, couldn't find work for years (he lives in rural NC) even tried fast food places etc. Was on unemployment until he lost it. He was able to live in his fathers house because his father was off with his girlfriend in another state and the house was already paid for but he had to keep up with the utilities which he couldn't do. His father sent him maybe $100/month to keep the lights on and cover some basic expenses but he couldn't afford his medication. Because he was living in his fathers house even though his father wasn't supporting him financially they used his fathers income to determine what he was entitled to and as a single male with no kids in NC that turned out to be nothing.

He couldn't get his diabetes medication, didn't have enough money for gas to get into town. He lived on peas and rice and occasionally a small amount of ground meat. He had to go to the ER a few times due to infections that werent healing and would occasionally get his insulin from there but it would only last a short time.

Eventually he enrolled himself in community college, it took him 4 years but he managed to get a degree and some certificates in IT and now has a job earning $10/hour. It isn't much but compared to what he was living off of before its a fortune and he is trying to improve his life.

That said, his is another situation where I think bringing kids into the world would be devastating.

I am not against government benefits, there are obviously situations where it is really warranted and people don't receive nearly as much as they should or in his case none but I think when you are at a point where you desperately need those benefits in order to survive, planning on bringing another child into that situation isn't the correct answer no matter how good of a person someone is or how well meaning they are. It is simply irresponsible and unfair for that child.

 

[Natsku]

I agree that those situations aren't situations where you should be bringing in another child. Its such a shame when people slip through the cracks in the system or the system simply doesn't help them enough

 

[babycrazy1706]

i think if she cant afford basic necassities likes bills and kids shoes then no. it wouldnt be fair to have 3 children living on a minimal budget when you could give the 2 existing children a better life. ideally she should go back to work with the baby in childcare and the bigger one at school, get back on her feet then try for a baby. xx

 

[JASMAK]

I would say if she is a good mom, and she isn't on drugs, drunk, abusing her children, then they are good to have more kids. now...if it was 20, or a third world country where literally one could starve..I would feel different. but, you can have all the money in the world, then lose your job, or someone dies, or you become ill or disabled....are we ever really that stable? No, I don't think so. I am lucky that my husband and I have very good careers and make a very good income and our three children have enriching lives with good neighbourhood, and sports and clubs. If we lost it all...would that make me a mom not fit to have my kids? I just really hate judgements based on income. I really do. There is such good parents out there with less (and shitty ones with more)....and even though my husband and I do make a good income, we have had times when we REALLY struggled financially.

There is a huge difference between being stable and losing your job, dealing with major illness etc. while you already have children vs. not having enough and making the conscious decision to have more children. I would also argue that if someone gets to a point where they lose everything and they are living in poverty with 2 children already they definitely should not have any more children since dealing with the ones they have is already as struggle and as far as should they have their children taken away from them... that really depends on how bad the circumstances are. Not doing drugs, not beating your children and loving your children sometimes isn't enough if you can't afford to feed and clothe your children properly. Sometimes, depending on the circumstances, temporary interventions may be needed and may be in the best interest of the child until the parents can get back on their feet.

I am not advocating that all children need to be taken away from their parents should they fall upon hard times but, for example, I know a situation where there is a family that is practically starving. It's a single mother with 2 children, the mother works insane hours, one of the children suffers from autism, she made several bad investments including buying a large piece of land with horses because her daughter loved horses.

These are expensive horses that she is struggling to sell, she is receiving government benefits to the extent allowed, all the money she makes from work (she owns a small shop) goes to paying the basic bills and trying to maintain the land so she can attempt to sell it. The children struggle in school because they spend so much time working on this dilapidated farm dealing with repairs or horses that it interferes with their studying while she is at work all day and they pretty much live on ramen and white bread with a slice of ham when they can afford it. They have almost no clothing, the clothing they do have has holes in it, they do not a washing machine or any laundromats nearby to do laundry so they are wearing the same thing day in day out, all their shoes have holes in them which makes things tougher when working outside in the mud all day with animals.

These children practically start crying when they see other people eating because they are so hungry but she can't afford more food, their diet is anything but nutritious, her shop is bringing in almost no work and she is on the verge of being completely homeless so she is trying to do everything she can to keep her investment alive.

I have seen how she lives, I have given the children food and clothing before just so they don't go through winter walking in the snow with holes in their shoes. I think their situation is borderline where they may be better off with someone else for a while until she can adequately feed and clothe her children and I CERTAINLY do not believe she should have any more children in this environment because I think that would be gross negligence.

I guess it really depends on where you live. There is alot of help here for low income families. I see you are from the states. I am from Canada. I guess that would be the same as my opinion on third world, which I know the USA is not, but benefits and stuff are way different there.

 

[emyandpotato]

There are way too many ifs and buts, it is never ever as simple as people 'should' have children or shouldn't. But to OP... I fricking hate how so many people feel they need Sky and pay like £50 a month for it, drives me to insanity, I just don't get it?! Ahah sorry, it's just one of those weird things I don't get. Like the obsession with needing smart phones/ 'it' cars/brands for brands sake... Sorry, tangent!

I can sort of see where your friend is coming from in that perhaps she feels it's now or never and really wants another child and feels that her family is incomplete as it is, but then it's very hard when you consider the situation itself. But money isn't everything, and it's truly impossible to wager money against happiness.

 

[emyandpotato]

And Jasmak, I very much agree. I truly despise how much the worth of others is balanced upon how we perceive their wealth and their worthiness of said wealth.

 

[tinkerbelle93]

Hmm if her DH is working and they are getting child benefit and tax credits for their two children how can they not afford things like shoes and bills??

I think sometimes it's mis-management of money. I mean if they have Sky and furniture they pay for monthly (and those are just what you've mentioned so I'm guessing there's more unnessary things they have), then they are spending the money that could instead be spent on bills and shoes and family days out on stuff like that.

People need to get their priorities sorted when it comes to money. Bills, food and things for the children like clothes, shoes, days out, toys should come first and only if there's sufficient money leftover should things like Sky TV and pay-monthly furniture be considered!

But anyway, back to the point, I think they probably could afford a 3rd child if they were a bit wiser with money and since they'd probably get extra benefits as well (which is okay since he works full-time) but if people aren't working and completely reliant on benefits then I really don't think they should be actively trying for more and more babies. xx

 

[tinkerbelle93]

There are way too many ifs and buts, it is never ever as simple as people 'should' have children or shouldn't. But to OP... I fricking hate how so many people feel they need Sky and pay like £50 a month for it, drives me to insanity, I just don't get it?! Ahah sorry, it's just one of those weird things I don't get. Like the obsession with needing smart phones/ 'it' cars/brands for brands sake... Sorry, tangent!

Ughh this drives me crazy as well. Soo many people I know have the latest phone on contracts that are something like £40-50 a month then as soon as the next i-phone comes out they HAVE to change their perfectly good phone for that one, even though it's virtually the same

And these are types of people who also have £50 a month Sky, new cars on finance for £300 a month or whatever they cost, branded clothes etc. What a waste of money I just really don't get it! xx

 

[emyandpotato]

There are way too many ifs and buts, it is never ever as simple as people 'should' have children or shouldn't. But to OP... I fricking hate how so many people feel they need Sky and pay like £50 a month for it, drives me to insanity, I just don't get it?! Ahah sorry, it's just one of those weird things I don't get. Like the obsession with needing smart phones/ 'it' cars/brands for brands sake... Sorry, tangent!

Ughh this drives me crazy as well. Soo many people I know have the latest phone on contracts that are something like £40-50 a month then as soon as the next i-phone comes out they HAVE to change their perfectly good phone for that one, even though it's virtually the same

And these are types of people who also have £50 a month Sky, new cars on finance for £300 a month or whatever they cost, branded clothes etc. What a waste of money I just really don't get it! xx

It's insane! I like nice things, like everyone, but some things are just status symbols, or at least it seems like that in my eyes. I got an iPhone last year cos my contract just upgraded it from an old Blackberry. I couldn't have cared less but OH was so upset, he's obsessed with smartphones and iPhones. I mean, Instagram is nice but apart from that they're no better than Nokia 3310s

Sky TV is so beyond me. As for cars, I don't have one, but I'd gladly stick with something old and comfortable rather than wasting money for the sake of it.

 

[lindseymw]

There are way too many ifs and buts, it is never ever as simple as people 'should' have children or shouldn't. But to OP... I fricking hate how so many people feel they need Sky and pay like £50 a month for it, drives me to insanity, I just don't get it?! Ahah sorry, it's just one of those weird things I don't get. Like the obsession with needing smart phones/ 'it' cars/brands for brands sake... Sorry, tangent!

Ughh this drives me crazy as well. Soo many people I know have the latest phone on contracts that are something like £40-50 a month then as soon as the next i-phone comes out they HAVE to change their perfectly good phone for that one, even though it's virtually the same

And these are types of people who also have £50 a month Sky, new cars on finance for £300 a month or whatever they cost, branded clothes etc. What a waste of money I just really don't get it! xx

I'm one of 'those' type of people we pay £50 a month on Virgin (Phone TV Internet) we pay £400 a month on our car, I have the 'latest' smart phone (pay £20pm not £40-50). However, I don't do branded clothes.

I don't see it a waste of money as we are spending money of things we like, want and can easily afford.

OP, it's a difficult one. If she really can't afford food & clothes now then no, she should not try for another child. However, she should maybe look at her finances and decide what she wants and what she needs.

 

[6lilpigs]

I think its the easily afford bit lindsey, the couple in the opening post are selling cd's for gas but still having the sky tv, if its in your easy budget then its alot more understandable

 

[lindseymw]

I think its the easily afford bit lindsey, the couple in the opening post are selling cd's for gas but still having the sky tv, if its in your easy budget then its alot more understandable

Oh I completely agree....I see Virgin/Sky, new car, mobile phones, holidays etc as luxuries. We don't need them.

I was just a bit confused by the 'these type of people' comment.....is it 'type of people' who can't afford it but still have them or is it 'type of people' who as a whole have them whether they can afford it or not.