Trying for baby number 5??

pigpen

smk77 wrote: »

no, children used to be a economic asset - they're now a financial burden. Don't misquote me on that phrase...

The average family can afford weddings/uni/property help for 1 or 2 children. You'd to have a massive income to be able to provide the same for 20 children.

I could theoretically afford it.. but I would refuse to pay it..

Education I would do my utmost to provide.. it gives them the tools to provide for themselves.

a mortgage and a wedding get them nowhere in life, they are not vital to their future... they are like.. a holiday.. nice to have but not an absolute must.. a decent education is a must.

Pink_Mummy

smk77 wrote: »

no, children used to be a economic asset - they're now a financial burden. Don't misquote me on that phrase...

The average family can afford weddings/uni/property help for 1 or 2 children. You'd to have a massive income to be able to provide the same for 20 children.

The average family nowadays could no way afford to put 1 or 2 children on the property ladder!! No way!!

I had to pay for my own wedding and before we sold our property my hubby and I saved every penny with no help from my parents!!

pigpen

I paid for my wedding too.. my mother paid for the reception.. because she wanted me to have one.. I was happy to go for a meal after. My dad contributed not a brass farthing. My mums friend made my cake as my wedding present.

HariboJunkie

pigpen wrote: »

They have more than enough in terms of clothes, food, toys and money.. not that they need money being children and all. I can't believe you would even consider the thought children would go without basic things like food because there are more than 2 or 3 of them.. what a very bizarre thought. I went without food as a child so my then 3 younger siblings could have breakfast I'd go to school with nothing if that was what was to be had, I wouldn't dream of it with mine.

!

But your children have enough because presumably you have a good income coming into the house. You have managed to pay off a huge debt, raise 9 children and give each a "substantial" amount in their post office account. You couldn't do that on benefits.

Aside from the comments where people are saying it is selfish to have a large family I think most people are saying that if you earn enough to look after them and don't rely on the benefits system to pay for your family than the choice is yours. Most people object to families which continue to grow in the full knowledge that there will do so on benefits rather than earned income.

vroombroom

pigpen wrote: »

I could theoretically afford it.. but I would refuse to pay it..

Education I would do my utmost to provide.. it gives them the tools to provide for themselves.

a mortgage and a wedding get them nowhere in life, they are not vital to their future... they are like.. a holiday.. nice to have but not an absolute must.. a decent education is a must.

surely a mortgage would provide them with stability? And as for holidays.....we had holidays every year as kids and grew up over Europe as my dad was in the army. I learnt languages and got to work abroad. I definitely want the same for my boy (and the sun and sangria for me:cool:)

Alikay

We've only got 3 of our own and are fostering 2 more. As so many others have said, provided the parents are covering the costs of such a large family as well as meeting each child's individual needs, that's great. Otherwise I think they should find alternative ways of satisfying the urge to nurture (fostering, dog-breeding, gardening :rotfl:).

I personally disagree with older children taking a major role in raising younger siblings, but I know lots of people think it's OK.

smk77

pigpen wrote: »

I wouldn't pay for a wedding or a house if I had 1 child.. they want it they work for it same as I did. They are luxuries to be earned and worked for. I will provide as much as possible in terms of education and practical support but there is no way I would consider helping with a wedding or house.

Mine all have post office accounts with substantial lumps of cash to help with uni or a house or whatever they want to spend it on when they need that first helping hand.

‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ is increasingly helping children with their first step on the property ladder simply because without the help they're have to save longer.

JC9297 wrote: »

I think most people pay largely for their own weddings these days and since when were parents expected to help their children buy a house?

Did I use the work "expect"? No. The point I was making is that ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ do help their children...in fact, about 80% of them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/buyingsellingandmoving/8404056/Rescue-plan-help-at-last-for-first-time-buyers.html

If you're not in the position to help your children then they at a disadvantage compared to those that have that help. The more children you have, the less able you are to help your children.

vroombroom

I will be a bank of mum and dad x

pigpen

I did what was necessary to provide what I can for my children.. Obv. we still get tax credits and such.. but we got those when I just had 1 child too... and I received income support then too.

I think it would be more fair to say.. if you do not rely SOLELY on benefits then it is less offensive than if you do.

I know a couple of people with more than the usual number of children who I find repugnant.. mainly because their priorities are greed and themselves rather than the welfare of the children. They should have been forcibly sterilised way before they got to where they are now. Their children are neglected, dirty, never at school etc.. that is wrong, they are the ones who mean everyone who chooses to have more than 4 children maximum is type cast and made out to be the same when in fact most families I know with large families their children are lovely, clean, well fed, educated, socially adjusted lovely people.. and I don't even like other peoples children! Same as everything isn't it.. a few bad apples!

mexicanhat

Go for it Pink Mummy ! I have 4 and have no desire to have any more but I can see that an extra one would not have a significant impact. If your others are still young then it will be hard work for a while but going ' back' to the baby stage when they are older may be even harder.

People make all sorts of judgements about you when you have more children than the 'norm' but that is their problem. Enjoy your wonderful family as they are all too soon grown up x