Cost v's number of children

black-saturn

viktory wrote:

Not actually right. If you had bothered to read the other thread you would know that.

Heres the post in question. I've read it again and you said you relied on council housing and benefits until your wonderful OH came along:

viktory wrote:

OK, I have read this thread from beginning to end and it is a very interesting thread. I feel that I am able to comment as I have been in the position that many of the posters here are currently in.

I had my DD at 17 years old. I was given my own council home (a 17th floor flat in the least salubrious part of town) after spending 18 months in temporary accomodation sharing the kitchen and bathroom with another family. I was a benefit claimant and was also in an abusive relationship. When my daughter was less than two I ended the abusive relationship as I knew it was damaging her as well as me. I won't bore you with all the gory detials as I am sure you have heard it all before, but I can assure you that my own horror stories are just as bad, if not worse than those on here. I didn't need to leave my home - I simply waited till he went out and changed the locks. When he turned up and kicked up a fuss I called the police. Eventually (after a long time) he gave up and left me alone. Well, actually he found another stupid teenager to impregnate but that's another story.

My daughter is now 18 years old and an extremely grounded and sensible young woman. She has a good job, excellent prospects and she loves her Mum! When her father and I parted ways, I was honest to a certain extent as to why he had left but never forgot that my job, as a loving mother, is to protect my child. This is what I did. What her father did to me had no bearing on her or our relationship. She met with him twice at her instigation (he showed no interest in her at all) and then decided she didn't want to see him again. Her choice.

I never harped on about what had happened to me, in fact, I glossed over it to protect her. Why should I burden her? it was my mistake, not hers. I think that is partly why it has not had such a negative impact on her.

The benefits I received were (in total) £60 a week. Out of that I had to pay a small amount towards the rent and pay for electric and food. Easily done. Alright, I couldn't afford a car (but I can't drive anyway!) or a holiday but I had a cheap penthouse flat, food on the table and a thriving daughter.

Eventually I got lucky. I met my husband who adored my daughter from day one, went to college, got an NVQ at level 3 and started working. Funny really because when I started working we were actually worse off than if we had stayed on benefits. It took a fair few years for us both to start earning a decent wage and actually seeing the benefits of work. We carried on, though, as we wanted the children to have a strong work ethic and there is such a sense of pride.

I have said this before and I will say it again - benefits are not supposed to give you a comfortable life - they are supposed to put food in your tummy and a subsidised roof over your head. It is not supposed to a long term way of life but an emergency stop gap.

I have absolutely no problem with single parents that are bringing up children and struggling alone because their crappy partners have had it on their toes. I have been there. What really gets my goat is those that refuse to go to work because they are better off on benefits. Or those the keep having child after child, breeding like rabbits because they wil get more money, a bigger home.....

However, there comes a point when the breeding has to stop, the children can no longer be an excuse and every college course known to man has been attempted. It is time to re-join the real world and get a job. Start paying taxes, rent, a mortgage, etc. A child of 14 is more than capable of bring him/herself home from school while mum or dad works. It will do them no harm.

When I was about eleven myself and my siblings used to come home from school to an empty house because both my parents were working. We would clear away the breakfast things and prepare the vegetables for dinner. We also always did the wshing up after dinner. It did me absolutely no hard at all and my children were also bringing themselves home from school, doing chores and taking care of each other until I got home from work. I never found it a burden as Black saturn seems to think - I was proud to be helping my parents.

My children now have a fabulous work ethic, they can cook, clean, iron clothes, change beds and so on. They are wonderful people who will lead independant lives based on the upbringing they have had.

I do think a lot of single parents these days have large chips on their shoulders and need to complain less. They do all right on benefits - I know I was there once and I managed. Life is hard, !!!! happens. Pick yourself up, get over it and get on with life.

EDIT: Just need to add - you think you have got it tough now? When I was very young my Dad slipped a disk in his back and the doctor told him to take 6 weeks off work. He didn't get sick pay so Mum went to the benefits office - they offered something in the region of 36p per day. For six people. Clearly Mum and Dad couldn't manage on that so Dad went back to work. He had no choice. Now that is having it hard.

Lotta_Littlies

black-saturn, you only seem to be reading what you want to and picking and choosing what you want to see.

Viktory also said in that post that:

Eventually I got lucky. I met my husband who adored my daughter from day one, went to college, got an NVQ at level 3 and started working. Funny really because when I started working we were actually worse off than if we had stayed on benefits. It took a fair few years for us both to start earning a decent wage and actually seeing the benefits of work. We carried on, though, as we wanted the children to have a strong work ethic and there is such a sense of pride.

I have said this before and I will say it again - benefits are not supposed to give you a comfortable life - they are supposed to put food in your tummy and a subsidised roof over your head. It is not supposed to a long term way of life but an emergency stop gap.

Please can you tell me how this and the extract I showed you in my post above by the OP are in any way similar and please, please explain how the OP is right in her statement. I'd be interested to know your take on the OP's comment.

Lotta

black-saturn

Because Viktory is slating anyone who relies on benefit to look after their children. She fails to mention that she relied on benefit herself.

Tigertomato

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.

It is easy to find work and there are loads of jobs out there, especially at the lower end of the pay scale, what isn't necessarily easy is to find work that suits. I was made redundant and it took me from November 2000 to November 2005 to get a permanent job that actually allows me some spare cash. I had to claim benefits for some of that time but never for very long and certainly not for all of it. I took temp jobs and I took jobs that barely covered my outgoings that I was vastly overqualified for.

When it comes down to it it's about whether someone would rather swallow their pride and work at something that they consider themself too good for or whether as an able-bodied adult they'd rather take hand-outs from the state. I chose the first and did a job for two years that barely covered my financial needs. I got promotion and now earn a reasonable salary, quite considerably more than I would get on benefits.

It can be done.

Lotta_Littlies

But isn't there a difference between relying on benefit to look after your children after circumstances have put you in the situation in which you need to be on benefit in the short term, and between knowingly and willingly having children that you admit you can't support without claiming benefits and treating the benefits as a right rather than an aid?

Lotta

Lotta_Littlies

black-saturn wrote:

Because Viktory is slating anyone who relies on benefit to look after their children. She fails to mention that she relied on benefit herself.

That doesn't answer my question as to how the two extracts are at all similar. Please could you give us your take on the OP's comments?

Thank you,

Lotta

tawnyowls

Tigertomato wrote:

But that doesn't mean your partner couldn't, does it?

And in any case, it's complete nonsense about that being the way the coil works. That's anti-contraception propaganda that's been put about by pro-life groups. It's been proven over and over again that the way the coil works is by thickening the mucus at the entrance so the sperm find it difficult to swim through, and by the copper ions screwing up the sperm's direction-finding system, so they swim round and round in circles until they peg it. Granted, you could probably find a way of being upset that the sperm are killed too, but the condoms will do that just as well.

tinkerbelluk

Reading this thread has made me so angry :mad: :mad: :mad:

My husband and I have waited and saved until now (we've both just turned 30) to make sure that when we have kids that we don't need to reply on goverment handouts even though we have both paid into the system for 15 years each!

For the posters on here that think it's OK as someone else is footing the bill for you to stay at home to look after your kids should take a long hard look at yourselves. It seems that because we have chosen to wait and will have to continue to work once we have children to upkeep our standard of living that we are the bad ones as we go off to work everyday.

Just thank your lucky stars that we are out working so you can stay at home and play happy familes :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

tawnyowls

Lotta_Littlies wrote:

But isn't there a difference between relying on benefit to look after your children after circumstances have put you in the situation in which you need to be on benefit in the short term, and between knowingly and willingly having children that you admit you can't support without claiming benefits and treating the benefits as a right rather than an aid?

Totally, and if I read their posts correctly (and I suspect both you and I read them the same way), Viktory is the former, and the OP is the latter. And that's what irritates people about the OP's attitude.

akin_drum

helpafriend wrote:

My older sister has just really shocked me. She has told me she is booked in to have her tubes tied. The thing is she only has one child, a 7 year old daughter. I always thought she was an only child because my sister and brother in law were having problems conceiving.

I asked her the reasons why she is taking this drastic decision and she says it is because she wants to give her child a good life. They do have a nice life, holidays, nights out and 2 cars but surely family is worth more? She says she would like more, but she does not want to give up her comfortable life.

I felt life she is having a dig at me as I have made no secret of the fact I would like a large family. We have 2 now and are trying for another. My husband only earns £13k, but we get tax credits and get by. I don’t worry too much about how we are going to feed and clothe them as my tax credits go up every time we have a baby. We are in debt, but are working hard to reduce this. I don’t see why money worries should stop us having as many children as we like.

So over to you. Has the cost of children impacted on the number you are going to have? Is my sister selfish? Should you worry about money when planning a family?

I have lurked here for a while but now i am going to have to put my opinion. I have the utmost respect for your sister who is obviously a well balanced, level headed lady who has one child for whom she will provide the best possible upbringing and her and her husband will have a relatively comfortable lifestyle. You on the other hand, are the sort of person that in your ignorance is helping drag this country to it's knees. If your husband earns £13k a year then surely it doesn't balance out that you should have a flock of children and expect your sister and the rest of the sensible taxpayers to pay for you to sit at home and extend your brood. If you can't afford to pay for your own children's upbringing then why the hell should the rest of us pay for it?