Cost v's number of children

Lotta_Littlies

black-saturn wrote:

One of the problems with some of you is that you presume it is easy to find work. Some people get made redundant through no fault of their own and have to either take low paid work or go on to full benefit as there arn't that many jobs available.

That's true and that's what the system is there for, to help people in the short term when they need it. It might be after a job loss, it might be a parent looking after a child until they are able to work, but the underlying fact is that it is not a long term solution and way of life.

Eg, a parent might be left to raise a child alone and be unable to work. They may have all intentions of going to college/returning to work when child is older etc and that's fine. Stuff happens in life you can't control and that's what the system is there for.

However, my neighbour is in her mid thirties. She has two young children and has never worked in her life. Not one day. Ever. She had her first child at 16 who at 15 went on to have her own child. Her eldest has been given a house and she is claiming. Neighbour is getting her rent paid on a 3 bed house down a private road. She has no intention of ever working because as she says, she gets everything she needs so why should she?

The former is what the system is there for. The latter is what it's not there to do.

Lotta

cupid_s

One thing that I disagree with this

helpafriend wrote:

All the people I know with under 2 children are on good money (£25k+). There is no reason financially why they should not have more kids. It is just selfish. My sister’s husband is on about £35k. For her to suggest that one or two more children would cramp their lifestyle is laughable.

I know we don't know the ins and outs of her sisters finances but depending on your outgoings 35k isn't necessarily enough to have limitless kids (or even 2-3)
By the time my husband has a salary of about 35k (resulting in a take home pay of around 23k) we expect to be paying a mortgage of approximately 12k a year. This will allow us to live in a medium sized 3 bed semi in an ok area somewhere relatively near to where I am now so i'm not expecting too much.

So with me staying at home to look after the kids we'd have 11k to spend on everything else. With at car to run and the sort of holidays i'd like to take us on more than one kid would affect the finances.

And although there will be certain benefits how much do you think a couple earning 35k will actually get in benefits?

catkins

black-saturn wrote:

I presume all the childless people on this board will all be pensioners one day. So the tax our children pay when they get to working age will be paying your pensions and seeing as you have no children of your own paying it I think this is a little selfish of you. Also when your really old you won't have anyone to come and visit you or look after you but thats OK because you will have a huge pile of money to sit in.

I wasn't going to bother posting on this board because to be honest I get bored with the attitude of some posters to childless people on these boards but this post made me so angry! I have worked since I was 17 never had time off to look after children, paid tax and full National Insurance. Should I have had children just so I would not feel guilty at taking a pension (what wonderful sum is it that pensioners get paid nowadays?) I have never received any kind of benefits even when OH was out of work and we were desperately short of money oh no we weren't entitled to anything because we had no children. I was not even bringing home enough to pay our rent let alone bills etc but apparently tough luck!

Let me know where the huge amount of money is that I will be sitting on cos I only have a few years before I retire and I've yet to find this huge pile

Also to say when a childless person is old they won't have anyone come visit them or look after them well what a stupid remark. What a real good reason to have children - so they can look after you!!! You could outlive your children, they could emigrate, they could fall out with you AND there have been studies which show that often the people with the least visitors in old peoples homes are people with children!

helpafriend

cupid_stunt wrote:

One thing that I disagree with this


I know we don't know the ins and outs of her sisters finances but depending on your outgoings 35k isn't necessarily enough to have limitless kids (or even 2-3)
By the time my husband has a salary of about 35k (resulting in a take home pay of around 23k) we expect to be paying a mortgage of approximately 12k a year. This will allow us to live in a medium sized 3 bed semi in an ok area somewhere relatively near to where I am now so i'm not expecting too much.

So with me staying at home to look after the kids we'd have 11k to spend on everything else. With at car to run and the sort of holidays i'd like to take us on more than one kid would affect the finances.

And although there will be certain benefits how much do you think a couple earning 35k will actually get in benefits?

It is all about choices though isn't it? You talk about paying a 12k a year mortgage and having nice holidays. You already have a mortgage as it says in your sig, which will be paid off in 5 years. Surely you have equity in your current property, which will allow you to take on a smaller mortgage when the time comes for you to trade up.

My sisters house (a 3 bed semi) is worth about £210k, but she only paid £60k for it, so her mortgage is very small. She wants to trade up to a 4 bed detached and take on a higher mortgage. That is her choice. You can't have everything. If you want a family you cannot expect the dream house and holidays.

We have a 3 bed terrace (rented) and won't be able to buy for many years. However having a family is more important to me than a fancy house. I just find it so sad that people’s priorities in life are fancy houses and holidays.

cupid_s

helpafriend wrote:

It is all about choices though isn't it? You talk about paying a 12k a year mortgage and having nice holidays. You already have a mortgage as it says in your sig, which will be paid off in 5 years. Surely you have equity in your current property, which will allow you to take on a smaller mortgage when the time comes for you to trade up.

My sisters house (a 3 bed semi) is worth about £210k, but she only paid £60k for it, so her mortgage is very small. She wants to trade up to a 4 bed detached and take on a higher mortgage. That is her choice. You can't have everything. If you want a family you cannot expect the dream house and holidays.

We have a 3 bed terrace (rented) and won't be able to buy for many years. However having a family is more important to me than a fancy house. I just find it so sad that people’s priorities in life are fancy houses and holidays.

Our 12k a year mortgage would involve us putting all our equity down as deposit!
Unfortunately our house is worth only about 100k. It is very small and in quite
a bad area where the local schools have about 30% GCSE pass rate, and the primarys are just as bad. I wouldn't want to send my kids there as I want them to have a better chance by going to a better school. I see this as very important. So we will have equity in our current house, but to buy a larger house in a decent area would cost over 250k now and house prices in our area aren't going up as much as in other areas of the city.

I was saying we shouldn't judge her situation. She may have had a massive mortgage with ridiculously high repayments. As she only has a tiny mortgage I wonder what she's spending all her money on lol!

But you say you can't have the dream house, holidays and a family. But your sister does have all that she just chooses that her family is small.

viktory

helpafriend wrote:

It is all about choices though isn't it?.

Yes it is. And your sister's choice is not to have any more children. So what gives you the right to question her decision?

It's a shame I don't have the choice to cease paying for people that keep churning out babies despite the fact they can't afford them.

helpafriend

viktory wrote:

Yes it is. And your sister's choice is not to have any more children. So what gives you the right to question her decision?

I just think long term it will lead to unhapiness. It is very selfish of her to want to lead the life of a childless person when she already has a child. If you want a big house, career, nights out, don't have kids. I think Bill Cosby once said you are not a real parent until you have more than one. That is very true. If you are going to do something, do it properly.

viktory wrote:

It's a shame I don't have the choice to cease paying for people that keep churning out babies despite the fact they can't afford them.

The cut off point for child tax credit is about £55k. Are you saying anyone on under £55k should not have kids? Children are not just a privilege for the rich.

kate1976

helpafriend wrote:

I think Bill Cosby once said you are not a real parent until you have more than one. That is very true. If you are going to do something, do it properly.

I'm sorry but that's the biggest pile of manure I've ever heard!!

wigginsmum

helpafriend wrote:

I think Bill Cosby once said you are not a real parent until you have more than one. That is very true. If you are going to do something, do it properly.

What an appalling shame that you don't view children as individuals but as part of a clutch; I feel sorry for your children. Still, it explains your attitude to churning them out with no thought if they're all interchangeable like spare parts making up a unit and not valued for themselves.

I'm beginning to think you're Saucepot doing another kind of wind-up. Surely no woman is as daft as your opinions portrayed in this thread. It's just a shame you have so little self-worth and security; you might have been at peace instead of fretting endlessly that your sister's free choice invalidates yours. The selfish one round here is you, not your sister, but you don't understand that, do you.

kate1976

wigginsmum wrote:

What an appalling shame that you don't view children as individuals but as part of a clutch; I feel sorry for your children. Still, it explains your attitude to churning them out with no thought if they're all interchangeable like spare parts making up a unit and not valued for themselves.

I'm beginning to think you're Saucepot doing another kind of wind-up. Surely no woman is as daft as your opinions portrayed in this thread. It's just a shame you have so little self-worth and security; you might have been at peace instead of fretting endlessly that your sister's free choice invalidates yours. The selfish one round here is you, not your sister, but you don't understand that, do you.

Thank you! You summed up what I wanted to say but I was so gobsmacked I couldn't find the right words!!