Would you let finances determine family size?

[babyhopes2010]

absolutely if we couldnt afford one we wouldnt have one

 

[lau86]

It's a personal choice. Tbh I even think the benefits thing is a tricky one- I don't believe being on benefits should mean you can't have children, it's more complicated than that. I know some brilliant mums on benefits, their children will contribute to society in the future. The government have made it so that it's not financially worth people working, if I was in that situation I'd stay at home with my children too. As it is my earning potential is very good so I'm not worried and plan to have 3 or 4 children. It's not meals out or trips that make a happy home although they are nice.

I have to disagree with you on this one. If you are on benefits and actively TTC, then you are planning on bringing a child into the world that you have no intention of supporting yourself. It really makes me angry that I spend forty hours a week away from my baby and then part of my paycheck goes to pay someone who chose to have children while on benefits. It's not a matter of whether or not the child will contribute to society. Its wrong to expect society to hand you money on a platter because you chose to have a child you knew you couldn't support.

I agree that government has made it way too easy for this to happen. But what happened to responsibility? Why do you think that you deserve to have the taxpayer provide for your children? I realize that sometimes you will make more money on benefits than you would from working. But taking the lazy way out is unethical IMO. I know that sometimes things happen, but planning on having the government support your family long term is irresponsible and completely wrong.

I appreciate most people won't agree with me there. I just think there are subtleties to each situation and you can't make a blanket statement "all people on benefits shouldn't have kids" what about those that have chosen to home educate their children?? The government seems to squander tax payers money wherever it goes!!! Apparently we don't pay nearly as much of our tax to peoples benefits as we think. I don't know if that questions was rhetorical but just to add I've never received benefits and have a decent job.

 

[Mummy Bean]

It's a personal choice. Tbh I even think the benefits thing is a tricky one- I don't believe being on benefits should mean you can't have children, it's more complicated than that. I know some brilliant mums on benefits, their children will contribute to society in the future. The government have made it so that it's not financially worth people working, if I was in that situation I'd stay at home with my children too. As it is my earning potential is very good so I'm not worried and plan to have 3 or 4 children. It's not meals out or trips that make a happy home although they are nice.

I have to disagree with you on this one. If you are on benefits and actively TTC, then you are planning on bringing a child into the world that you have no intention of supporting yourself. It really makes me angry that I spend forty hours a week away from my baby and then part of my paycheck goes to pay someone who chose to have children while on benefits. It's not a matter of whether or not the child will contribute to society. Its wrong to expect society to hand you money on a platter because you chose to have a child you knew you couldn't support.

I agree that government has made it way too easy for this to happen. But what happened to responsibility? Why do you think that you deserve to have the taxpayer provide for your children? I realize that sometimes you will make more money on benefits than you would from working. But taking the lazy way out is unethical IMO. I know that sometimes things happen, but planning on having the government support your family long term is irresponsible and completely wrong.

you kinda suggest then that the poor shouldnt have children? some how i dont think that is fair.

classifying all people who are on benefits under one caterogry again is not fair. I have plently of friends and my parents included who work 35 hours a week on minimum wage as it the only work out there, they recieve working tax credits and housing benefits...so because they are unable to earn enough they should not be allowed to have children?

yes the benfit system is flawd and promotes people to stay at home and not look for work...but that is something the government needs to sort out. what happens if you your self fall into financial difficulty...we are in a recession with people loosing the jobs...will you not take any help for the government?

having a child is a basic human right which all should be entitled to.

 

[Lara310809]

If I cannot afford to raise a child; to feed and clothe him/her, I wouldn't have one, full stop. But I'm not the type of person that needs savings behind me to have one. Basically if I know I can pay for a child on our monthly earnings; do it. If we had waited until we had enough money behind us, in savings, then we would never have had children. As it was we knew it would be hard but that we could stretch our finances to accommodate having a child, so we did.

When we wanted a second our finances were worse than before we had any kids, so we were umming and ahhing about it. We went ahead and did it though, figuring the same thing; that we would make it work, and we have made it work.

Our children may not have every toy I want to buy them, or all the cute clothes I see in the shops, but they have enough. They have plenty of toys (be it cheaper or older toys), they have plenty of clothes and look nice with them (unless they've soiled them LOL), and they have everything they need. We don't claim anything from the government, and we don't rely on charity. We look after our children ourselves.

We won't be having more children, the reason being that we don't want any more, but we wouldn't be able to afford a third either, on current earnings. Had we wanted a third, we would either be discussing how to earn more money, or considering waiting a few years and reassessing the situation then; but we certainly wouldn't be considering another one now, with our current situation

I think in a way it makes sense to be responsible and get some savings together before you have kids, but so many people don't and can't live like that. We have only ever earned enough to get by, but never to be comfortable. We've been working over 15 years already; were we supposed ot wait another 15 in the hope of being able to afford a baby? It may be less responsible to bring a child into the world without money behind you, but if you know you can provide for a baby, I don't see the problem in livig that way.

 

[babyhopes2010]

absolutely if we couldnt afford one we wouldnt have one

having said that i dont think people should not be able to become mums because they havent got lots of money.


i will say people thats have a huge amount of kids purely on social kinda p%sses me off

 

[Lara310809]

i will say people thats have a huge amount of kids purely on social kinda p%sses me off

I agree. I appreciate that people may want a whole load of kids, but I think that if you rely on welfare/benefits to feed and clothe your children, then perhaps you should ask yourself if it's a great idea to have loads more. I may have wanted a whole load of kids, but I don't expect other people to have to pay for them. I can't afford to raise 10 kids so even if I wanted them I would have to get over it and not have them. Why should those on benefits be any different?

I'm not saying they can't have kids, I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to claim for all of them on benefits. But perhaps that's more a problem with the government than the people claiming the benefits. Perhaps the government should be clever enough to consider implementing a benefit capping system in which they pay for up to 2 or 3 kids, and after that you're on your own. Not that you can't have them, but that they aren't going to help you support them, because it was your choice to have them. Contraception is free in the UK aswell; it's not like people don't have a choice I realise there are some people that for whichever reason can't use any form of contraception, but I'm speaking in general terms. I am someone who, due to various reasons, can only use condoms at present; but we are responsible and take precautions. If I did get pregnant I wouldn't expect the government to help me out with it, because it's my problem

 

[Randianne]

It's a personal choice. Tbh I even think the benefits thing is a tricky one- I don't believe being on benefits should mean you can't have children, it's more complicated than that. I know some brilliant mums on benefits, their children will contribute to society in the future. The government have made it so that it's not financially worth people working, if I was in that situation I'd stay at home with my children too. As it is my earning potential is very good so I'm not worried and plan to have 3 or 4 children. It's not meals out or trips that make a happy home although they are nice.

I have to disagree with you on this one. If you are on benefits and actively TTC, then you are planning on bringing a child into the world that you have no intention of supporting yourself. It really makes me angry that I spend forty hours a week away from my baby and then part of my paycheck goes to pay someone who chose to have children while on benefits. It's not a matter of whether or not the child will contribute to society. Its wrong to expect society to hand you money on a platter because you chose to have a child you knew you couldn't support.

I agree that government has made it way too easy for this to happen. But what happened to responsibility? Why do you think that you deserve to have the taxpayer provide for your children? I realize that sometimes you will make more money on benefits than you would from working. But taking the lazy way out is unethical IMO. I know that sometimes things happen, but planning on having the government support your family long term is irresponsible and completely wrong.

you kinda suggest then that the poor shouldnt have children? some how i dont think that is fair.

classifying all people who are on benefits under one caterogry again is not fair. I have plently of friends and my parents included who work 35 hours a week on minimum wage as it the only work out there, they recieve working tax credits and housing benefits...so because they are unable to earn enough they should not be allowed to have children?

yes the benfit system is flawd and promotes people to stay at home and not look for work...but that is something the government needs to sort out. what happens if you your self fall into financial difficulty...we are in a recession with people loosing the jobs...will you not take any help for the government?

having a child is a basic human right which all should be entitled to.

I have no problem with people accepting benefits if they need them. Things happen that you can't foresee. I was specifically talking about people who can't support themselves or the children they have trying to have more with the thoughts that taxpayers will pay for them.

I know not everyone agrees, but I'm not a big believer in living your life asking others to support your family. Short term benefits are fine. Expecting to live your entire life off the government is not. There are people who have children and have no intention of ever supporting them. I'm not a fan of expecting something for nothing. Children are a huge emotional and financial burden. If you want multiple children but can't afford them, you need to find a way to change your financial situation (which is easier said than done) rather than expecting to live off the taxpayer.

And I'm a limited government girl myself. I definitely don't want the government making laws about family size. I just want people to be responsible and support their families themselves.

 

[My_First]

I dont think anyone is saying that the poor (but also the term poor is VERY subjective - define 'poor') should not have children, but should buget accordingly and I dont believe for a second that anyone need holidays, cars, big houses in order to successfully bring up children. Those on the minium wage could either make ends meet, or perhaps wait a little to save, or until the economey picks up and perhaps work towards a slightly higher paid. I do believe it is a human right to have children, I would not dispute that, but not on the expectation that the taxpayer foot the bill.

For the PP that asked the question about how much benefit is actually paid by the taxpayer. Benefits are the single largest payments. Granted the highest percentage goes to the elderly, followed by the disabled, which in then followed by family.

I also add that benefits are there for emergencies, and not a lifestyle choice. So those whose partners/themselves lose jobs/split from partner etc. thats where they kick in to help people back on their feet.

 

[lau86]

I dont think anyone is saying that the poor (but also the term poor is VERY subjective - define 'poor') should not have children, but should buget accordingly and I dont believe for a second that anyone need holidays, cars, big houses in order to successfully bring up children. Those on the minium wage could either make ends meet, or perhaps wait a little to save, or until the economey picks up and perhaps work towards a slightly higher paid. I do believe it is a human right to have children, I would not dispute that, but not on the expectation that the taxpayer foot the bill.

For the PP that asked the question about how much benefit is actually paid by the taxpayer. Benefits are the single largest payments. Granted the highest percentage goes to the elderly, followed by the disabled, which in then followed by family.

I also add that benefits are there for emergencies, and not a lifestyle choice. So those whose partners/themselves lose jobs/split from partner etc. thats where they kick in to help people back on their feet.

someones gotta do the minimum wage jobs! i couldnt TBH i'd be bored stiff

 

[MrsBandEgglet]

We were able to comfortably afford two and we knew that, which was why we had such a small age gap. Thora, our third (and last) was a big surprise and definitely not planned, but she's worth the inevitable struggle and possible hardship that lies ahead. We can't possibly have any more, although I'd love another one or even two in a few years. We just can't so my husband has to go have a vasectomy in case we get another surprise like Thora lol. I believe it is irresponsible to ttc when you really, truly afford another child and we certainly can't so yes finances are dictating our family size. It makes me sad to know I'll never be pregnant again but that's reality. I can't afford to take my children on fancy holidays, I couldn't afford expensive clothes for them, all the latest and greatest toys but what I can afford I don't want to be stretched any further than it already is by having another child.

 

[Dk1234]

I'll say it, I don't think people on full welfare or benefits sjould ttc. They should save up while on benefits until they can afford to support their child. Yes they deserve to have children, but I shouldn't have to pay to support them, their parents should. I don't consider having children a right. Lots of people can't conceive and the government doesn't pay for adoption or fertility treatment. It is a privledge IMO and my husband and I had to work very hard to save up for two years to be able to save enough to pay our insurance deuctible and buy the things needed to have a child. Why shouldn't everyone have to support their children.

 

[Hanskiz]

For the PP that asked the question about how much benefit is actually paid by the taxpayer. Benefits are the single largest payments. Granted the highest percentage goes to the elderly, followed by the disabled, which in then followed by family.

Actually it's defence. Benefits are pretty minimal compared to a lot of government/taxpayer spending (bailing out banks etc).

 

[My_First]

For the PP that asked the question about how much benefit is actually paid by the taxpayer. Benefits are the single largest payments. Granted the highest percentage goes to the elderly, followed by the disabled, which in then followed by family.

Actually it's defence. Benefits are pretty minimal compared to a lot of government/taxpayer spending (bailing out banks etc).

Actually its not, Defence comes way down the bottom...

https://www.guardian.co.uk/news/dat...ar/20/budget-2012-how-taxes-spent-interactive

 

[Liesje]

I'll say it, I don't think people on full welfare or benefits sjould ttc. They should save up while on benefits until they can afford to support their child. Yes they deserve to have children, but I shouldn't have to pay to support them, their parents should. I don't consider having children a right. Lots of people can't conceive and the government doesn't pay for adoption or fertility treatment. It is a privledge IMO and my husband and I had to work very hard to save up for two years to be able to save enough to pay our insurance deuctible and buy the things needed to have a child. Why shouldn't everyone have to support their children.

If anyone on benefits is able to save anything at the end of the month, they're getting too much.
I hope I don't get half my paycheck taken away so someone can accumulate a nice savings of my money.
If someone is on benefits, get a job. If someone is unable to get a job, they're probably unable to care for a child. If someone is capable of taking care of a child, get a job.

 

[Hanskiz]

For the PP that asked the question about how much benefit is actually paid by the taxpayer. Benefits are the single largest payments. Granted the highest percentage goes to the elderly, followed by the disabled, which in then followed by family.

Actually it's defence. Benefits are pretty minimal compared to a lot of government/taxpayer spending (bailing out banks etc).

Actually its not, Defence comes way down the bottom...

https://www.guardian.co.uk/news/dat...ar/20/budget-2012-how-taxes-spent-interactive

Thanks for the link. I'm confused. We spend loads more on defence as a whole than benefits and if the money doesn't come from taxation....
Totally off topic off course.

 

[Lara310809]

...I don't consider having children a right. Lots of people can't conceive and the government doesn't pay for adoption or fertility treatment.

Good point, although in certain parts of the UK they will pay up to three rounds of IVF for you. Certain parts; it's all down to the local council and their rules on the matter.

It's very unfair if you ask me, because the Joneses may have been trying for a couple of years, then they're given three free rounds of IVF, funded by the government, when in reality they could probably afford it themselves. Then you have the Smiths who are just around the corner, though under the umbrella of a separate council (that does NOT offer free IVF). They may have been trying for double the time, they cannot afford ANY rounds, and they do not get offered any from their council. They're paying their taxes just like the other couple. Hmmm; I wonder who thought that one up...

They, quite appropriately, refer to it as the "postcode lottery" - BTW postcodes are the UK version of zip codes

 

[MarcsMrs]

To me family are worth more than anything else so as long as we can pay the bills & keep a roof over our heads then we will have more babies.....children need love & we have that in abundance! My sisters are my world, we didnt have money growing up but we had eachother & still do....thats what I want for my kids! They might not get big holidays or fancy gifts but they have parents that love & adore them & have all the time in world for them.....to me thats whats important!

 

[Dk1234]

The government wouldn't oay for any fertility here. Some people have private insurance that covers it though. It is rare. That is very unfair though, you'd think in the uk it would be across the board.

 

[My_First]

For the PP that asked the question about how much benefit is actually paid by the taxpayer. Benefits are the single largest payments. Granted the highest percentage goes to the elderly, followed by the disabled, which in then followed by family.

Actually it's defence. Benefits are pretty minimal compared to a lot of government/taxpayer spending (bailing out banks etc).

Actually its not, Defence comes way down the bottom...

https://www.guardian.co.uk/news/dat...ar/20/budget-2012-how-taxes-spent-interactive

Thanks for the link. I'm confused. We spend loads more on defence as a whole than benefits and if the money doesn't come from taxation....
Totally off topic off course.

Im not convinced we do...this is an interesting graph that shows where it all goes:

https://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/11/08/Public_spending_2710.pdf

 

[highhopes19]

I'll say it, I don't think people on full welfare or benefits sjould ttc. They should save up while on benefits until they can afford to support their child. Yes they deserve to have children, but I shouldn't have to pay to support them, their parents should. I don't consider having children a right. Lots of people can't conceive and the government doesn't pay for adoption or fertility treatment. It is a privledge IMO and my husband and I had to work very hard to save up for two years to be able to save enough to pay our insurance deuctible and buy the things needed to have a child. Why shouldn't everyone have to support their children.

If anyone on benefits is able to save anything at the end of the month, they're getting too much.
I hope I don't get half my paycheck taken away so someone can accumulate a nice savings of my money.
If someone is on benefits, get a job. If someone is unable to get a job, they're probably unable to care for a child. If someone is capable of taking care of a child, get a job.

100% agree if someone living on benefits has enough left over to be able to save for a baby then they are getting way to much IMO.

Me and my partner work hard neither have much money left over to save a great deal and that's with both working and living at home

But we manage just fine live comfortably and not beyond our means x