Would you let finances determine family size?

[kirst76]

I dont believe that you should base your family size on finances but then again I dont believe that if you're on a benefit and the state has to pay for your kids then you shouldn't actively be trying IYKWIM.
My husband works his butt off so that I can stay home and raise our children.

 

[Randianne]

It's a huge factor. We're waiting a few years to have number two and it's one of the reasons why. We had originally planned to have children back to back. OH and I both had careers and could easily support a baby when we got pregnant with Quinn. Then I got laid off when I was six weeks pregnant and OH got laid off two months later. I ended up being out of work for almost a year and OH took a job making half of what he made before so we could have health insurance. We couldn't have seen that coming. We ended up moving in with my parents during my pregnancy. We are both employed again now, but it'll take a few years until we feel financially comfortable enough to have number two.

I think whether you'd rather have more kids and live frugally or have less kids and afford more luxuries is a very personal decision with no right or wrong answer. I lean toward the first option myself. But my personal opinion is that if you don't foresee being able to support your family long term without government help then you shouldn't have more kids. I'm not talking about a short term problem because the economy sucks and you can't see the future. I'll be honest and say the only reason we didn't have to get assistance is because our families helped us out. But I have had patients (I'm a nurse) who will tell you flat out that they got pregnant again so the government would give them more money. That I have a huge problem with. Being helped out in an emergency is one thing, but purposefully forcing taxpayers to pay for your children for you is wrong. I'm not saying anyone here said anything to that effect, it's just a pet peeve of mine. There are far too many system abusers out there.

 

[libbylou]

Yep, it's one of the reasons I'm torn on whether we will have another.

We live in a very expensive city and have a large mortgage. Once I go back to work, a lot of my paycheque will go to childcare. If we have another, it would be cheaper for me to stay home and do daycare for 1-2 children rather than pay daycare costs on 2 kids

 

[EarthMama]

It totally depends on ones lifestyle. For example, my husband and I are moving off the grid again very soon. Our power will come from solar power, our water comes from rainwater. We will own our land, and work to grow our own food. Our house we're building for a fraction of the cost of a traditional house because it's a tropical breeze home. I see absolutely nothing wrong with using hand me down clothes and toys. No tv's or fancy electronics. Nothing should be wasted and we are very frugal people. We live a low maintenance lifestyle where we make the most of what we got. According to mainstream society we wouldn't have lots of money...but we use what we've got wisely and people think we're rich.

I believe TIME is a way more critical factor then money when determining family size. I want at least 2 kids, maybe as many as 4. But only if I've got the time to spread around...I want each child to feel special and as connected with me as my first does.

 

[lindseymw]

I think it's huge factor in deciding on how many kids you have.

For us, financially we could afford 2+ more but that would mean cutting out luxuries & not going anyway for days out. We would also have a buy a bigger house & car.

I'm probably going to sound quite selfish here but we've decided not to have anymore purely because we like our luxuries, we LOVE our car & when we do buy a bigger house, it's so we can have more space, not to fit another child in there.

In 3.5years we'll be mortgage & car loan free. I would love to use that money to go on nice holidays, buy something without thinking 'can I afford this?' & even save the money for Uni fees for the kids.

 

[Toms Mummy]

We have one child and don't plan on having any more in the near future.

We would be financially comfortable with another child in general living, but we feel that our lifestyles would be sacrificed if we had another...... Our house is on the market at the moment and once it is sold, and over the next few years, we plan on doing a lot of travelling around the world with Tom for long periods of time. This will be so much easier financially and logistically with one.

 

[Natasha2605]

I think it's probably one of the most important factors. I think it's irresponsible to bring children into a world of financial uncertainty then have to rely on others to keep your family afloat. So wrong on so many levels and way too common.

Although it's hard to sit and say ''yeah in 5 years time we'll be better/ worse off'' because life is such a gamble, something can change in an instant. You could be earning fifty grand today then five grand in two years time, it really is difficult to predict what your financial circumstances will be like in the future for many people and then plan your family around that.

 

[060509.x]

I think its something important to consider. I at some point in the near future would like another child, butfirst we need to move to a house or much bigger flat, and figure out our bills there.

 

[KittyVentura]

Yes.

Of course life finds a way and surprises happen, but I think it is completely irresponsible to actively TTC a child that you know you will not be able to financially support yourselves.

It is bad enough when people TTC without fully assessing their finances and checking they can afford to have a child, but until you have one I guess there are costs you may not consider beforehand or realise how expensive certain things (like childcare) can be. But to assess, KNOW you cannot afford a child yet TTC one anyway? Completely reckless and irresponsible, intentionally adding another financial burden to society.

I'm also of a view that those on full benefits (excluding disability) shouldn't TTC. After all, any. Child born is immediately one you cannot afford to support yourself. I imagine it's an unpopular view but we need to be realistic and honest here. No one should ever have the right to deliberately conceive a child that they know full well someone else will have to pay for.

ETA: I also would personally WANT to be able to take our children on holidays, day trips, to restaurants, afford them hobbies that might cost money, to get them new clothes etc. I lived in poverty as a child, it was enough to make me want to afford my children a much different upbringing and lifestyle. We could afford more children but it would stretch our finances, I feel I owe it to the babies I have to not stretch them to a point of denying them things they might have otherwise had xx

 

[Tacey]

I would love to have more, but I don't think it's practical. I want to be able to afford to do things like day trips, meals at restaurants and going to museums, especially as we're home educating. I don't think we'd afford that if we had another. I think I will always be broody, but I'm letting my rational side make this decision.

 

[TennisGal]

Agree with kitty and Tacey.

It is important to us that we offer both our girls as many opportunities in life as possible...from education, to travels. The economic outlook for their generation will not be fun, and we want to help make their lives comfortable where we can.

Money worries can cause huge stresses and disruptions in a household. My friend was recently made redundant, and the effects on her whole household have been hard. I'd rather avoid bringing any extra stresses that can, hopefully, be avoided.

My girls have each other as partners in crime - and whereas I expect I will feel broody at some point...we feel blessed to have them, and we want to enjoy our lives to the full with them - which includes luxuries for all of us, especially them.

 

[TennisGal]

Eta: luxuries doesn't mean spoiling with material goods...rather nice home, trips out, meals out, holidays...leaving Uni without a cripPling amount of debt

 

[TennisGal]

Basically...as long as anyone can afford to support their own children, then that's entirely their decision. The above is purely my opinion. I think each to their own, provided it doesn't involve claiming benefits to support that decision.

 

[rhdr9193..x]

We could probably afford to have another child now,but wouldn't until I am through uni and have a job. At the minute OH supports me and my son on only his wage,so hopefully if we add a second wage into the equation in 3-4 years time we will be able to have 2 more.
The UK is notorious for people having kids to get the benefits and tbh it makes me sick! As a taxpayer, we should not have to fund those who have no money yet continue to have kids when we can't even afford to have another of our own.
Yes my pregnancy was unplanned, finances were tight, but we managed. Without having to rely on the benefit system. We claim child benefit and tax credit like every family is entitled to, but don't claim housing benefit, council tax benefit or anything like that. We coul basically get out house paid for if we did, but we can afford to pay it ourselves so do! For me that's important as I wouldn't be classed as a stereotypical teen mother! Rant over x

 

[candyem]

In an ideal world where I could be a Sahm and be comfortable I would have four kids. I'm going back to work for at least a year before we start trying so we can have some money saved for next time. I wouldn't want to have a large family and struggle to give them what they need.

Having said that my dhbis one of five (his mum had twins from her last pregnancy) and they worked very hard to give their children a happy childhood. They saves for holidays and days out and he loves coming from a big family

 

[aimee-lou]

Yes and no. It has to be a consideration but you can never really afford to have children. If a baby was unplanned we'd never turn them away - you can always find a way. However, if you know that things will never change/you have a certain lifestyle you want to maintain then you need to give it careful thought. Everyone is different. Personally I really don't care abouta lavish lifestyle so for me, money isn't an important consideration.

 

[erikab922]

We probably won't have another because of the expense, but not necessarily because we want to be able to take her places, etc. It's because financial problems can cause such huge problems in relationships, and my relationship with my DH is really good and I don't want to take the chance of having another kid, finding it difficult to find the ££ and then having our relationship suffer. Not saying for sure that would happen but don't want to rock that boat.

 

[CLH_X3]

Id have as many as I wanted regardless of money, you always find a way to make it work...

 

[My_First]

Yes.

Of course life finds a way and surprises happen, but I think it is completely irresponsible to actively TTC a child that you know you will not be able to financially support yourselves.

It is bad enough when people TTC without fully assessing their finances and checking they can afford to have a child, but until you have one I guess there are costs you may not consider beforehand or realise how expensive certain things (like childcare) can be. But to assess, KNOW you cannot afford a child yet TTC one anyway? Completely reckless and irresponsible, intentionally adding another financial burden to society.

I'm also of a view that those on full benefits (excluding disability) shouldn't TTC. After all, any. Child born is immediately one you cannot afford to support yourself. I imagine it's an unpopular view but we need to be realistic and honest here. No one should ever have the right to deliberately conceive a child that they know full well someone else will have to pay for.

ETA: I also would personally WANT to be able to take our children on holidays, day trips, to restaurants, afford them hobbies that might cost money, to get them new clothes etc. I lived in poverty as a child, it was enough to make me want to afford my children a much different upbringing and lifestyle. We could afford more children but it would stretch our finances, I feel I owe it to the babies I have to not stretch them to a point of denying them things they might have otherwise had xx

Exactly this!

 

[cat lover]

There's got to be a happy medium IMO. If you are happy to go without luxuries etc but wont be living on handouts then sure.

However if you simply can't afford the basics without relying on the state or family then its irresponsible to extend your family, its a case of being realistic and working out what you can and can't live without