Cost v's number of children

Lotta_Littlies

The OP has stated that she will not be able to get a job to cover her payments that she would lose. When she has more children, for which more payments are given, she would then need an even higher paying job to cover those additional payments. If she can't cover the payments now I strongly doubt she would be able to do so in the future and I suspect that she will still be using the same argument.

Lotta

Broken_hearted

The one thing I don't understand about this thread is the point where those with/without children decided to start shouting eachother down. The point surely is that if you choose to have children you should be able to support them. That being at the point you choose to concieve, you have thought about how you will feed and cloth the child.
If you end up on benefits through other issues later on that is a different matter, as is those who fall pregnant by accident.
The decision is with the adult. I love being a mother. I have a friend who don't want children, that is their choice.

Scarlett1

Broken_hearted wrote:

The one thing I don't understand about this thread is the point where those with/without children decided to start shouting eachother down.

unfortunately its turned into playground bullying and I see that a few posters have come out of the woodwork to join in, where is the boardguide cause I think this witch hunt should now come to a close :rolleyes:

black-saturn

krisskross wrote:

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?

I'm retraining in a different career, remarrying and re everything and I'm 36!!

black-saturn

Katinkka wrote:

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.

Have you ever noticed how the working parent relies on the stay at home parent to be able to work (i.e. a childminder). If it werent for the SAHM no one with children would be able to work at all.

Heth_2

black-saturn wrote:

Have you ever noticed how the working parent relies on the stay at home parent to be able to work (i.e. a childminder). If it werent for the SAHM no one with children would be able to work at all.

I would class a stay-at-home-parents as someone who does just that, stays at home, not working, to look after his/her children. Proper registered childminders are doing a job they get paid for, so they are working parents too, just like people who are working at home are still working parents.

Lotta_Littlies

This isn't about working parents v stay at home parents Black Saturn. It's about being able to support your children and not having more children with the intention of claiming benefits to support them.

Lotta

Katinkka

black-saturn wrote:

Have you ever noticed how the working parent relies on the stay at home parent to be able to work (i.e. a childminder). If it werent for the SAHM no one with children would be able to work at all.

I think many must also use nurseries as well? A childminder isn't just sat at home, she's WORKING not to mention many childminders dont have children at home anymore.

Lotta_Littlies

I'm a working parent and have never relied on any childcare. If you are determined and willing it can be done.

Lotta

black-saturn

Lotta_Littlies wrote:

I'm a working parent and have never relied on any childcare. If you are determined and willing it can be done.

Lotta

I'm working and don't rely on childcare either.