Would you let finances determine family size?

[Hanskiz]

what about people over in africa who have 8+ children when they dont even have clean water to drink no-one gets mad at them for takin billions of pounds worth of charity.....

Because they don't have access to free contraception and so they don't have a great deal of choice!

 

[Yammas]

Yes but contraception isnt the only means of birth control, and it doesnt work for everyone anyway.

 

[xemmax]

I think that if you are working whether or not you receive a top up through working tax or housing benefit then at least you are contributing something so dont see anything wrong with ttc then unemployment is a bit different though if they were to go work once child reaches school age (assuming their a lone parent) then thats fine too. While im on this point everyone gets soo riled about large families on benefits but what about people over in africa who have 8+ children when they dont even have clean water to drink no-one gets mad at them for takin billions of pounds worth of charity.....

I can't believe you would make this comparison. Benefits are not charity - charity for "people in Africa" (I assume you mean people in underdeveloped countries) allows people living in dangerous circumstances, with little or no healthcare, education, food and clean water the essential resources to survive. They are often not fortunate enough to be in a position to decide the size of their family and they most certainly don't have babies because they rely on charity! Why would anyone in their right mind get mad at them or resent the charity they receive when we are so much more fortunate than them in terms of what is available to us?

I also disagree with accepting unemployment benefit when you are capable of working just because you want to stay at home with your children until they are of school age. If your family can support that role then great, or if you genuinely cannot work then by all means claim. But why should others have to work while their children are young just to pay taxes so that other people can claim and stay at home just because they feel like it? We would all love to spend our time with our children I'm sure, but if everyone decided to take 4 years worth of benefits (or more for subsequent children) and stay at home with their children, what would happen then? It isn't a bottomless pit of money that people are entitle to claim when they choose, it is there for people in genuine need.

 

[Yammas]

I in no way resent charity and the great work they do but Im making the point that its still paying for someone to raise children they cant afford or even provide the basics for, and yes I should have said underdeveloped countries its just that most of the charities on tv are based in that country. I am just highlighting the point that our taxes still go towards supporting them.

Also my mother didnt 'choose' not to work she is a single parent and had no family support.

 

[xemmax]

I in no way resent charity and the great work they do but Im making the point that its still paying for someone to raise children they cant afford or even provide the basics for, and yes I should have said underdeveloped countries its just that most of the charities on tv are based in that country. I am just highlighting the point that our taxes still go towards supporting them.

Also my mother didnt 'choose' not to work she is a single parent and had no family support.

I'm sorry but your point just isn't valid - charity doesn't pay for someone to raise children, it aims to create living conditions which enable families/communities to SURVIVE. It is completely different. They aren't receiving charity to enable them just to get by and pay their bills, they're in receipt of charity which enables them to live and receive basic healthcare and opportunities which are not available without it.

If it really troubles you though then just research the percentage of tax expenditure which goes towards overseas aid in comparison to the percentage which goes towards welfare. You will see welfare as a huge majority and aid as a minuscule amount in comparison.

I didn't say your mother chose not to work and I recognise that particularly for single parents without family or a support network around that it can be essential to claim - I have absolutely no issue with anyone claiming benefits for the reasons they are intended. I was referring to people who choose to be stay at home parents just because they know they can, because huge flaws in the system allow it.

 

[Yammas]

Benefits is paying for someone to survive the same as charity its just the amouns they get paid are different.

 

[xemmax]

Even so, are people in this country who claim benefits really comparable to those in underdeveloped countries who receive aid? Do they receive a set amount each week to spend as they please, or do they receive food packages and reap the benefits of the school and healthcare that are provided by charity donations? It's just completely different. No matter how poor we are or how destitute we feel our life is we will likely never be without clean water, healthcare and education. Receiving aid to enable people access to these things is on a different scale to handing people an income to spend as they decide to.

 

[pinklightbulb]

I think a lot of the countries in Africa are run by corrupt governments. The charity money that is given is often squandered by these governments, which is awful. (I could be wrong, just my understanding of what's caused all the problems there.) Otherwise I couldn't really explain the level of poverty, given the amounts of money handed over by other countries that never seems to make any difference. It isn't a comparable situation at all.

 

[Yammas]

So what about the numbers of homeless that die on our streets every year,they dont get benefits and die as a result benfits is meant to cover the basics the same as charity does in foreign countries. The point im trying to make is that no one tells them how many children they should have yet everyone gets their back up about those on benefits who are in a smilar (although yes not as extreme position).

 

[steph.]

First, Africa is a continent, not a country. Second, the people who accept charity are is desperate living conditions. They lack the basics-food, medical care, shelter. They have so many kids through a lack of education and lack of contraception, and I'm pretty sure most of them are back at work pretty quick. The donations they receive are mostly through people who willingly give money to help them, instead of tax payers money. So the comparison you made is pretty flawed imo. Also if you are that concerned about homeless people dying, dont you think people who rely on benefits should have less kids so theres enough for the homeless too?!?!

 

[Natsku]

Back to the point about mothers staying home on unemployment. Although I think thats wrong (as unemployment is for people actively looking for work, not people wanting to stay home) I do think the government should support mothers staying home in the early years with some kind of benefit (I know some mothers prefer to work but I'm sure lots work because they have to, not because they want to) because I do think thats best for the kids.

And the benefits/charity comparison is just a bit silly, they're not similar at all.

 

[Dk1234]

Benefits is paying for someone to survive the same as charity its just the amouns they get paid are different.

That's just the thing. In many cases, the one's were taking about, you aren't paying for someone to survive. You're paying for cigarettes, alcohol, nice cars, and big tv's. The point is people take advantage of benefits. I don't think people in Africa are sitting on their ass popping out more children do that my taxes will buy them their cigarettes.

 

[Yammas]

Well in that case then yes I agree that is different and its wrong that the system does that but its only a minority of claimants, and i was talking about it being used as it was intended for - to cover the basics.

 

[xemmax]

So what about the numbers of homeless that die on our streets every year,they dont get benefits and die as a result benfits is meant to cover the basics the same as charity does in foreign countries. The point im trying to make is that no one tells them how many children they should have yet everyone gets their back up about those on benefits who are in a smilar (although yes not as extreme position).

Very very few (if any) homeless people die for the same reasons as people in underdeveloped countries. Everyone in this country has access to healthcare. People on the streets generally don't die because they don't get benefits, the majority of deaths are caused by drug or alcohol addiction, suicide and accidents. The leading cause of deaths in underdeveloped countries however is disease... one of the leading leading causes is diarrhoea. Do people die of that in this country?

It's by the by. My point is, it's ridiculous to compare entire populations of people in dire situations to people in this country. I know times are had for people here but we will always be some of the most fortunate in the world and there will always be opportunities available to us which those dying of preventable and curable disease and starvation can only dream of.

 

[Sarahkka]

I think only a very few people do not consider finances when planning a family. It is certainly one of the biggest considerations for me. I was gung ho for a third until a few months ago. Even though the expenses get disproportionately ridiculous when you go above the 2 kids "norm" (think house size, car size - try getting three car seats to fit in your average vehicle! - education savings, etc), I still think my biggest barrier to a third right now is... me. I already feel stretched to give both of my energetic boys the attention they need from me and balance that with a part-time workload. I just don't have the energy to deal with another baby right now, let alone the toddler that baby will grow into!
Husband and I are very much on the fence about baby #3. If finances were not a consideration (as in I would be able to take care of everything from house reno costs to vehicle change to a nanny service so that I could still have about 20 hours a week of professional time), then I would probably go for it. Probably. Maybe. Hmmm. Get back to you all on that in a few more months?

On this talk of benefits, I have to say that one of my greatest frustrations is a LACK of national subsidized childcare in our country. How many couples do I know that are in our position: childcare for two kids pretty much wiped out one income - we cannot AFFORD to keep our fulltime jobs. I am fortunate that my husband's job allows me to choose to stay home and work on call (so that I don't go crazy and so that I can maintain a toe in the door in my field). But I love working and it is a big part of who I am. I wish I had more options for safe, decent childcare. And having so many professionals basically blocked out of our fields while we raise toddlers isn't great for our economy, either. I think we should be a lot more creative and design a system for working parents that allows for choice. I think it can be done.

 

[Liesje]

I think only a very few people do not consider finances when planning a family. It is certainly one of the biggest considerations for me. I was gung ho for a third until a few months ago. Even though the expenses get disproportionately ridiculous when you go above the 2 kids "norm" (think house size, car size - try getting three car seats to fit in your average vehicle! - education savings, etc), I still think my biggest barrier to a third right now is... me. I already feel stretched to give both of my energetic boys the attention they need from me and balance that with a part-time workload. I just don't have the energy to deal with another baby right now, let alone the toddler that baby will grow into!
Husband and I are very much on the fence about baby #3. If finances were not a consideration (as in I would be able to take care of everything from house reno costs to vehicle change to a nanny service so that I could still have about 20 hours a week of professional time), then I would probably go for it. Probably. Maybe. Hmmm. Get back to you all on that in a few more months?

On this talk of benefits, I have to say that one of my greatest frustrations is a LACK of national subsidized childcare in our country. How many couples do I know that are in our position: childcare for two kids pretty much wiped out one income - we cannot AFFORD to keep our fulltime jobs. I am fortunate that my husband's job allows me to choose to stay home and work on call (so that I don't go crazy and so that I can maintain a toe in the door in my field). But I love working and it is a big part of who I am. I wish I had more options for safe, decent childcare. And having so many professionals basically blocked out of our fields while we raise toddlers isn't great for our economy, either. I think we should be a lot more creative and design a system for working parents that allows for choice. I think it can be done.

Childcare in this country is disgusting! It's literally 2-3 times MORE than university in my area!
I can't help but think it's purely to discourage people from becoming single parents and women working.

 

[JASMAK]

I think people put too much emphasis in money. What makes a happy home? Money??? No. Having some helps, but for me, it was never a decidin factor...now, maybe if I was planning on TEN or something... Luckily, I do have a decent family income, but I grew up poor....very poor, and I have lived both....money doesn't make or break a childhood, although there is less oportunities ect...there is also LOTS of help for low income families....free daycamps, sports, scholarships ect.

 

[meli1981]

i want my kids to have the "extras" i want them to have family trips, and opportunities to eat out etc. i grew up poor, and it was so hard to see other kuds with nice clothes, good lunches, and huge houses. money will be a factor into having a third, although im going back to school, so we will eventually have a duel income household which is why i want a third!

 

[PitaKat]

I think finances should always be a factor, although not necessarily the determining factor. It's just one of the things you take into consideration: Do I have time for another baby? Energy? Patience? Room? Money?

As long as we're not dependent on the state for anything, then finances don't really factor into the size of our family, though it definitely was a determining factor in timing. We waited to start a family till we bought a house, paid off all student loans, and had some savings.

My husband and I both grew up poor. It taught us that there's so much more to life than money and things. We don't want our child growing up to be materialistic.

 

[meli1981]

wanting my children to have extras, wont make them materialistic