off topic... affording more children

[tinkerbelle93]

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.

No I just meant I know a lot of people who just don't realise having a new car, the latest phone (and I mean THE latest phone, as in wouldn't want to even be seen with the older model) and designer labels as luxuries that most people can't afford all at once and are happy to get themselves into debt over it. I was more saying it in relation to the OP's friend who somehow can't afford shoes for her toddler, yet thinks nothing of Sky payments every month.. kind of like she's forgotten that it's a luxury, not an essential, and the money could be used to fund shoes and these days out her son misses out on. I just know too many people who whinge and moan about having no money left at the end of each month when they're paying for a million and one things.

But yeah, if your kids get everything they need and you have the leftover money each month then it's your choice what you spend it on! I was just saying I don't really understand the need for people to HAVE to have the latest phone or a new number plate car, especially if they cannot afford it. xx

 

[emyandpotato]

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.

I don't have anything against people who do have all of this, which is almost everyone I know, I just don't get it! Car wise that's probably cos I'd no doubt crash or scratch or mess up any pretty new one really quick

 

[Foogirl]

If the person would be "only" £50 a month better off if she got a job, then she should get a job. That's a pair of shoes for each child. I hate that attitude. Whether it is a tenner better off or even breaking even, working for money has to be a better option.

I'm also quite annoyed with the number of people saying "if we wait til we can afford it, to will never happen". Unfortunately that is the attitude of far too many people in society and that is why we have record levels of personal debt. We waited until we could afford it and that meant living within our means, working to get better jobs and saving our arses off so we could afford a years maternity leave. We have scrimped and saved the past few years so if we ever manage to have a second, we can afford another year off.

But of,course this is where I'm told that some people just can't do that, it's not that easy. Of course it isn't easy, but if you cannot afford to put a roof over your head, food in your belly and clothes on your own back then you really should think about what you need to change before you have a child, let alone two or three of them.

What would happen if you couldn't afford it, and there was no government assistance. Would you still do it?

(That's a general "you" not directed at anyone here)

And I agree about the sky thing. We have the full works sky package but I guarantee if we were to struggle, it would be the first thing to go.

 

[vaniilla]

We planned DS based on what we could afford, DH explains it much better than I could, you shouldn't really plan for a child if you have to rely on benefits or top ups because it's all things that could change/no longer be available when your child is born, it should all be dependent on you, yes you can lose your job or suddenly fall ill which is why we have salary protection and life insurance.

It's not about being rich or poor it's about being financially stable to cope with whatever happens once the baby arrives. I don't think that's being judgemental it's being responsible.

 

[randomrach]

I'll be honest here and start by saying I do receive some benefits. OH works but it's not well paying. I worked for a long time before having my oldest daughter and had a fair amount of money saved (more than enough to buy everything she needed) and still have a little left in case of anything necessary. At the moment we only have mobiles, no landlines to pay, no internet and have freeview. I would rather spend that £50/60 a month on my kids, it seems like a waste to take out all of those extras.

I'd say if she is already receiving some benefits and is really struggling she shouldn't consider another, at the end of the day the extra benefits she receives will not be more than the cost of the new baby. Although, I must admit I don't think my children cost that much. For 2 children the essential nappies, wipes, milk cost around £90 a month, dd eats whatever food we eat and I can fill her wardrobe for under £200 (every 6 months). Other costs are rent, council tax, phone bills, gas and electric and food. I wait for all bills to clear from my bank and see how much I have left before buying anything such as clothing or nice things for the home.

I think you are absolutely right, if she isn't willing to give up buying expensive things, sky tv, internet etc then she shouldn't have another.

 

[Noodlebear]

This is a pet peeve of mine. If you have a child and fall on hard times then you should absolutely be entitled to help as that's what the system is there for. It's everyone's right to have the family they desire but it gets on my nerves sometimes that people don't help themselves and think that because they're entitled to benefits they can claim all their lives and have a lovely big family. We both work, don't claim (but did when LO was younger) and we'd be lucky to afford more than 2 children. Totally backwards. It's people who 'work' the system like that, that give all claimants a bad name and it's not right.

I think it's irresponsible for someone to bring a baby into the world when they're having to sell belongings to pay the bills. It's not fair on anyone in that household.

 

[lau86]

If the government would help more with childcare, a lot more people would work! I can fully understand why people choose to stay at home with their children rather than work for £50 a week. There's zero incentive to work for most people if it's not financial. I don't think people should be deprived of having a family if they're going to love their kids and bring them up well. However it seems a bit silly to have more children if you're really struggling to get by with what you've got.

 

[Jes.shortcake]

I live in the US..I have no idea how benefits work in other countries but here you have to make an insanely low income to qualify for benefits.

I know people on both ends of the spectrum. I know some people who really need it because of circumstances (mostly temporary due to job loss) and I'm happy that they get the help..but unfortunately I know way more who abuse the system. A lot of couples I know, the guy works and the woman stays home and gets all the benefits in her name (and she's not working, she gets a lot). Your not supposed to do that but since their not married they can get away with it. I know people who sell their food stamps (government food assistance) for cash. I know so many people who cheat the system that it makes me want to scream. I know I've had insurance my whole life and just a few months ago, got laid off work and lost my family's insurance. Me and my DH had to give up cable (still got internet so watch everything on the smart tv through the apps) just to afford private health insurance for our preemie son because even with me out of work, we still don't qualify for Medicaid. And now with the new 'Obamacare' crap, me and OH will have to pay a penalty for not having insurance this year. How is that fair? Me and OH can't afford health insurance..so the government is going penalize us money for not being able to afford it? Who came up with this bullshit? It's sad when we realize how much better off we would be financially if we didn't get married.

I've seen a lot of BS going on here so I guess my opinion is a little skewed. I just wish the income threshold was higher here so some of us 'working class' people can get a little help.

P.S..I'm strictlyventing about the US and people I know

 

[Katy Bug]

If I knew we couldn't afford another one, then no, I wouldn't be trying for one.

 

[emyandpotato]

I live in the US..I have no idea how benefits work in other countries but here you have to make an insanely low income to qualify for benefits.

I know people on both ends of the spectrum. I know some people who really need it because of circumstances (mostly temporary due to job loss) and I'm happy that they get the help..but unfortunately I know way more who abuse the system. A lot of couples I know, the guy works and the woman stays home and gets all the benefits in her name (and she's not working, she gets a lot). Your not supposed to do that but since their not married they can get away with it. I know people who sell their food stamps (government food assistance) for cash. I know so many people who cheat the system that it makes me want to scream. I know I've had insurance my whole life and just a few months ago, got laid off work and lost my family's insurance. Me and my DH had to give up cable (still got internet so watch everything on the smart tv through the apps) just to afford private health insurance for our preemie son because even with me out of work, we still don't qualify for Medicaid. And now with the new 'Obamacare' crap, me and OH will have to pay a penalty for not having insurance this year. How is that fair? Me and OH can't afford health insurance..so the government is going penalize us money for not being able to afford it? Who came up with this bullshit? It's sad when we realize how much better off we would be financially if we didn't get married.

I've seen a lot of BS going on here so I guess my opinion is a little skewed. I just wish the income threshold was higher here so some of us 'working class' people can get a little help.

P.S..I'm strictlyventing about the US and people I know

The US system seems wholly fucked up from the benefits system to Obamacare and I genuinely feel sorry for you guys and dread the UK ended up in a similar system.