Cost v's number of children

wigginsmum

You're right, Pavlov - I tend to be extremely assertive when I feel strongly about something.

I apologise to anyone I've offended for the tone of some of my posts, but not for the basic view behind it.

Lotta_Littlies

black-saturn wrote:

You clearly can't afford so many either then.

So you are against a couple who have decided to provide for their large family on their wage and not rely on help, and supporting someone who has stated that they want more children and has acknowledged the fact they can't support the children themselves but is safe in the knowledge that the state will? Not only does the OP give large families a bad name but also genuine claimants who need benefits in the short term but do not view it as a way of life.

I have twice in this thread asked you your opinion on the OP's statement of "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." but you've not answered, yet you seem quite quick to demand answers of others.

I've not been rude to you. Please extend the same courtesy to me.

Lotta

black-saturn

Lotta_Littlies wrote:

I have twice in this thread asked you your opinion on the OP's statement of "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." but you've not answered, yet you seem quite quick to demand answers of others.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the OP. But it is everyones own personal right to have children. The OP has not said that she will be on benefit forever and is planning to retrain and then get back into the workforce. She won't be on benefit forever and when she works she will be paying back into the pot again. Same as how you are all paying into the pot now and you won't have pensions forever.

Katinkka

helpafriend wrote:

My kids have decent food, decent clothes. You don't have to grocery shop at M and S or buy your clothes from Next to get good quality.

No, you cannot live on love, but you don't need £50k a year to raise a family as many people on here seem to think.

Of course not. Thats not what I was saying. I have three children but still don't have much left at the end of the month because our expenses are still close to the incomings same as most people. If we want to save money and move to a better house in the future we need to stop having kids now and start thinking about the future ie me going back to work when all the little ones are in school. Yes, I would love to have lots more cute little babies but I have to draw the line somewhere. They will grow into big hungry teenagers with uni fees before long and I can only stretch our finances (and time) so far.

Norma_Desmond

My final words on the subject! Helpafriend is obviously too blinkered and ignorant to even imagine that a lot of people on here don't want children in their lives. Full stop. She cannot (or will not) respond to any reasoned 'argument' on a subject which she brought up herself.
I may well be smug and self-satisfied but I know that I contribute to society, pay my dues, don't indulge in anything I can't afford and above all wouldn't DREAM of questioning other peoples lifestyles in the manner of the OP.
All that's certain is that I wouldn't swap places with Helpafriend for all the tea in China. And if that's selfish, then TOUGH!

cupid_s

helpafriend wrote:

If everyone waited until kids were affordable they wouldn't have any.

That's just not true. My mom married my dad when she was 20. She waited 9 years before even trying for a baby because in that time they saved and saved and saved and then saved a bit more so they could pay off their mortgage.

So when my sister came along, and then me 2 years later my parents could afford the things they classed as important. We had nice holidays spent lots of time together, and not just spending money. We spent more time with my parents than anyone I knew. Mainly because my mom only had to work part time while we were at school, and my dad didn't have to work evenings and weekends or crazy shift patterns like the OPs hubby does, as we didn't really have to worry about money. As a result our family life was perfect and I don't think i could have had a better upbringing.

I know if my mom had just popped one out whenever she felt like it and not waited until they really could afford kids, I would have had a much less happy childhood.

Tondella

They say that young parents have more energy to spend on their children and older parents have more money to spend the money on their children. I can see benefits to both.

wigginsmum

My parents were 33 and 37 when they adopted me, and had a daughter naturally two years later. We never had much money at all, but I do remember never being bored and them always doing creative things with us.

krisskross

black-saturn wrote:

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the OP. But it is everyones own personal right to have children. The OP has not said that she will be on benefit forever and is planning to retrain and then get back into the workforce. She won't be on benefit forever and when she works she will be paying back into the pot again. Same as how you are all paying into the pot now and you won't have pensions forever.

I absolutely have to disagree. It is not a right to have children that you are unable to support. That strikes me as idiotic in the extreme, and no different to me saying that I am going to have an Alpha Romeo car that I cannot afford.

This is all nonsense about re-training and getting back into the workforce when you feel your children are able to be left (school leaving age is the impression I get). You will be approaching 40, have you any idea how difficult it is to break into a new field at this sort of age?

A person on full benefit with a couple of children will get approx £12,000 worth of support a year.This could be for 10 years or so so £120,000. This same person is then going to "retrain" and pay enough into the pot in what remains of their working life to repay all this plus pay in enough to fund their pension which will be paid for about 20 years. Ain't gonna happen is it? Just be grateful for the people who either choose not to have children or those dreadfully maligned creatures the Working Mothers, who always pay and seldom take out.

Katinkka

I absolutely have to disagree. It is not a right to have children that you are unable to support. That strikes me as idiotic in the extreme, and no different to me saying that I am going to have an Alpha Romeo car that I cannot afford.

If you do ever get one, remember its Alfa Romeo not 'alpha'. I have a 147 and costs me a fortune. 22mpg and group 14 insurance

A person on full benefit with a couple of children will get approx £12,000 worth of support a year.This could be for 10 years or so so £120,000. This same person is then going to "retrain" and pay enough into the pot in what remains of their working life to repay all this plus pay in enough to fund their pension which will be paid for about 20 years. Ain't gonna happen is it? Just be grateful for the people who either choose not to have children or those dreadfully maligned creatures the Working Mothers, who always pay and seldom take out.

Completely aggree. I bet most never pay in half as much as trhey have taken out.

I do laugh when people say they are taking care of their own with their benefits etc. These people don't realise where the money is coming from! They boast they do the right thing by staying at home but fail to realise that its the working people and parents that pay for it.