Would you let finances determine family size?

[Sarahkka]

I think that today it could be argued that in many cases, cars, internet, cell phones, etc are necessary items to procuring decently-paid work. I know what you are saying about the ol' hierarchy of needs, but some of those items are crucial to both finding and securing work so that you can get off the dole.
Maybe we can at least agree that it isn't as simple as saying groceries or car? Sometimes the car is your only ticket to work. And as for the advice to move to the city - there you are typically looking at much higher living expenses, sothat's not a simple answer, either.

 

[JASMAK]

if people cant afford to lease and are spending their money on a car instead of food than yes it is irresponsible. we were poor when i was a child, we never owned a car, we took the bus. why cant these people do the same?

Where I live it would be impossible to take a bus...

 

[JASMAK]

I dont think its a necessity at all, you can walk, take the bus or taxi (yes i know they are expensive!). I think if you live in the country and cant afford a car than you should move to a city where it is easier and cheaper to get around town. there are always ways of reducing your monthly or yearly expensives. You dont need the internet or cable or a cell phone or even a car for that matter. My mom was a single mom and took care of three children with none of those things. It is a different time these days but if you cant afford food or clothes for your children than these are a luxury.

I agree some these are luxury, but I guess the arguement is...WHO are we to judge others and pretend to know their situation. I too never had such things as a child, but if I did get something nice, like clothes I got from a model show...people were rude about why I was wearing name brand clothes (teacher and principle). Instead of finding out how I got them, or being proud of me, I was scorned. Thats how I feel all over again when I hear other people judge. What if their parents bought the car, or paid for the cell phone?

 

[meli1981]

i guess im under the school of thought that you make it on your own. no help from mommy and daddy. but then again my mother would NEVER buy me a car or help pay for education or anything of that nature. She said once i turned 18 i was an adult and had to fend for myself. Of course if my girls were in that situation where they were poor and needed anything, they could come home or i would buy their food or anything else they needed. but it would be weird to take anything from my mom since i would feel that i would have to give it back some day. so no i dont judge people when i see them driving new cars etc, i just feel a bit jealous although we have pretty nice vehicles and clothes etc. i guess the point im making is you live within your means. my husband works in a grocery store he makes over 40,000/year, which is pretty good, but with expenses it can be tight. We dont live in a huge house and dont buy extravagant things. if you cant afford these things you dont need them. And Sarahka i think we are thinking two different things, you live in Calgary right? well that is an extremely expensive city, so living in the country would be cheaper, but when i said city i meant a place like lethbridge. a small town which is relatively affordable and you can get around easily. there are always jobs out there, look if you have to work at a fast food joint to feed your kids then do it, theres no shame in that. i would rather do that then go on welfare, because i cant find a "good paying job"

 

[Natsku]

Don't fast food jobs not paying enough to take care of a family anyway? (not that thats the point of course, I think if you can work you should work except in the case of a single mother with very young children - if they can't get a job that pays enough for decent childcare or have to work several jobs, leaving them with very little time with their children, to earn enough, then I think for the sake of the children they shouldn't work, until they are in school/preschool/whatever)

 

[Eleanor ace]

I definitely would as I wouldn't want my family to struggle close to poverty- it wouldn't be fair on any of us. I'd love to have 6 children but I can't see us having the finances (or time to offer to each child individually) for that many. I'm not bothered about having lots of money, or fancy clothes/holidays/gadgets, but I wouldn't have more children than I could feed, clothe, educate and entertain financially.

 

[Pearls18]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

 

[leelee]

I would say it is my age that is determining the size of our family. We could afford a 3rd, although we would have to cut back on some things. I am nearly 36 and if I wanted to have another I would have to TTC fairly soon. I have a 2.5yr old and 1yr old and wouldn't be able to cope with 3 so young.

If I had started TTC at 25 I think I defo would have had 3.

I wouldn't consider having another if I couldn't afford it.

 

[special_kala]

I could not have worked as a single mum without ending up a lot worse off so no that isn't tosh.

My childcare bill would have been over 1500 a month, I could only earn 1200 tops, they pay upto 70% but I'd be paying rent and council tax and lose a lot of ctc.

Working childcare would be far easier on 2 incomes

 

[louandivy]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I don't think that is fair to say - while everyone here agrees that they wouldn't have a child if they couldn't afford basic necessities, not everyone has the same idea of what makes a fulfilling and happy childhood.

 

[Pearls18]

I could not have worked as a single mum without ending up a lot worse off so no that isn't tosh.

My childcare bill would have been over 1500 a month, I could only earn 1200 tops, they pay upto 70% but I'd be paying rent and council tax and lose a lot of ctc.

Working childcare would be far easier on 2 incomes

Sorry I have to admit in my head I was thinking of my friend who had only one child, money wasn't actually the point of that statement (though I brought it up) just that I don't think it is automatically impossible not to be able to work if you are single in terms if logistics. If you work if your wages are still low they will still assist with housing benefit it doesn't disappear just because you start working. The reason I brought this up is because single women who want to work part time normally benefit most from the way the system is in the way tax credits are made up, but I appreciate what I said didn't really demonstrate that point!

 

[Pearls18]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I don't think that is fair to say - while everyone here agrees that they wouldn't have a child if they couldn't afford basic necessities, not everyone has the same idea of what makes a fulfilling and happy childhood.

I wasn't pinpointing people here, I just generally think it is naive to think that because you have the most loving family around you it will make you automatically happy, there are other factors, I know any child we have would be brought into a loving happy home, but if I couldn't afford to feed and clothe them or send them on school trips I think it's naive to think they won't resent their childhood to a degree.

 

[JASMAK]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I am guessing by your opinion, you have never been dirt poor. You can have all the money in the world, but no love...and if I had to chose only one, it would be love.

 

[Liesje]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I am guessing by your opinion, you have never been dirt poor. You can have all the money in the world, but no love...and if I had to chose only one, it would be love.

I grew up dirt poor and I almost think being poor should be classified as child abuse (of course I'm not serious). I recall spending much of my childhood wishing I was never born. I feel quite strongly when people say all children need is love... It breaks my heart, all I want to do is shake those parents.. I know I can't, but I want to scream at them how unfair and selfish they're being, torturing all of those innocent kids because they want a cute little collection of them.

 

[JASMAK]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I am guessing by your opinion, you have never been dirt poor. You can have all the money in the world, but no love...and if I had to chose only one, it would be love.

I grew up dirt poor and I almost think being poor should be classified as child abuse (of course I'm not serious). I recall spending much of my childhood wishing I was never born. I feel quite strongly when people say all children need is love... It breaks my heart, all I want to do is shake those parents.. I know I can't, but I want to scream at them how unfair and selfish they're being, torturing all of those innocent kids because they want a cute little collection of them.

See, I was dirt poor, and loved my life. There was lots of love tho. There was problems, of course (not money related), but perhaps it is the reason why you are poor that made you suffer so much? I guess it really depends on more than just money...which, really, is the point. It can go either way with, or without, money. I did feel left out lots...but, I remember thinking my life was great. Of course, now...I know I missed out on alot, but, I never felt abused from lack of money!! Its not selfish if you never chose it! Some people become poor later, or get pregnant by surprise...or young (15), like my mom. My sister has a shit load of money...tropical vactions, trips, sports...and a nice shit life to go with it. They are in the midst of a terrible vicious divorce where the parents bash each other to the kids, and two are bullies and have been expelled in school (one is only grade 1), one failed the school year. Money isn't buying happiness there. The spend most their days with nannies since the parents work so much.

 

[Natsku]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I view it as society investing in the family, which in turn invests in the future of society which is to everyone's benefit. It works here at least, there's no clamour to get rid of the child home care benefit as people see that its good.

 

[Pearls18]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I am guessing by your opinion, you have never been dirt poor. You can have all the money in the world, but no love...and if I had to chose only one, it would be love.

Why does there have to be a choice? If I had to choose love or money, of course I'd choose love, re-read my post at what point did I say love wasn't needed? Love should be an absolute given, people wanting praise for saying love is enough like they are unique aren't, everyone who is TTC should do it on the premise there will be love, we can all offer that no matter what our circumstances are (I know this isn't what happens in the real world but let's talk about most people who want children for the love of a child) money makes life easier, less stressful, opens opportunities. I will not be made to feel materialistic and shallow for wanting my son to be well dressed, be well educated, have wonderful holidays, not be embarrassed by his toys and family car. If our situation changes I hope I have raised a child to not care about those things, or to understand, but as a parent I want him to have the best of what I can give him AS WELL as my devoted love and that of his dads. Health and love are the most important things in life I'm not stupid, I just want more for myself and my family if we can get it, you only live once, I don't want to spend that life living hand to mouth,there's too much to see and experience, but if that's how we have to live, we will be happy I just won't have more children I can support comfortably.

 

[Liesje]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I am guessing by your opinion, you have never been dirt poor. You can have all the money in the world, but no love...and if I had to chose only one, it would be love.

I grew up dirt poor and I almost think being poor should be classified as child abuse (of course I'm not serious). I recall spending much of my childhood wishing I was never born. I feel quite strongly when people say all children need is love... It breaks my heart, all I want to do is shake those parents.. I know I can't, but I want to scream at them how unfair and selfish they're being, torturing all of those innocent kids because they want a cute little collection of them.

See, I was dirt poor, and loved my life. There was lots of love tho. There was problems, of course (not money related), but perhaps it is the reason why you are poor that made you suffer so much? I guess it really depends on more than just money...which, really, is the point. It can go either way with, or without, money. I did feel left out lots...but, I remember thinking my life was great. Of course, now...I know I missed out on alot, but, I never felt abused from lack of money!! Its not selfish if you never chose it! Some people become poor later, or get pregnant by surprise...or young (15), like my mom. My sister has a shit load of money...tropical vactions, trips, sports...and a nice shit life to go with it. They are in the midst of a terrible vicious divorce where the parents bash each other to the kids, and two are bullies and have been expelled in school (one is only grade 1), one failed the school year. Money isn't buying happiness there. The spend most their days with nannies since the parents work so much.

I had lots of love too, it wasn't a question of not being loved. My parent were very highly educated, both had masters degrees, they just had different ambitions than money. My parents had a happy marriage, still married today, no alcohol, drugs or abuse, they just didn't make very much. I hated every minute of my childhood until I went to university. I was constantly watching other kids go on school trips, have nice clothes and school supplies, buy lunches from the school cafeteria, have pets and sleepovers, play organized sports, all normal things that kids do... I so badly resented my parents for subjecting me to such a crappy childhood that I wished I had never been born the entire time. Life started looking up when I started making my own money and I'm sure I built lots of character by envying other kids but I could never do that to my own children.
I don't see why people are seeing it as a choice between love OR money, why wouldn't privileged children be loved? Mine are privileged and still very much loved. I would have no problem giving up MY privileges for my children if it meant a happier childhood for them but I will still always make sure that they are provided for... and that doesn't mean to provide them with just enough food and clothing so they don't freeze or starve to death. I consider things like clothing, sports, traveling, education, etc to be necessities. I would never expect to be able to compensate for a lack of those with love.
Having said that, I've been watching the show "Here Comes Honey Booboo" like a train wreck and am so amused at how happy they are, they're all poor, I'll mannered, and uneducated, yet seem so happy.... but if you think about it for a moment, you can see none of those kids have a future other than more of the same.

 

[Liesje]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I view it as society investing in the family, which in turn invests in the future of society which is to everyone's benefit. It works here at least, there's no clamour to get rid of the child home care benefit as people see that its good.

Me too, but that's only because I love my family. Can also see it as a way for lazy people to stay out of work and spend their family allowance on bingo tickets and beer.

 

[elliot]

Definitely. We don't think ahead about college and stuff so much in making the decision, but definitely do think about whether could afford basic living expenses for one more. Groceries, clothes, healthcare, etc.

And it's something we thought and planned about a lot before ever TTC. We tried to pay off all our loans and such before TTC because we knew we wanted me to be a SAHM and that would mean our budget would be much tighter than we were used to on 2 incomes.