Capping benefits at 4 kids?

lostinrates

clearingout wrote: »

marisco, I agree. It's the 'what ifs' that matter....I think most of us don't think about that until either it actually happens or it happens to someone who is close enough to us to make us realise how it would impact us if it had happened to us. But then, perhaps we are cautious people. One of the reasons my ex regular cited for leaving me was that I had an unreasonably high expectation of security and that consequently, I am risk averse. I don't consider this true - for many reasons I won't go into - but being what I consider sensible is definately something that contributed to the breakdown of my marriage. Would you credit it? You ask for your husband to be sensible with money and you end up on benefits when he !!!!!!s off with the book-keeper....honestly!

If somethig had already been in place to cap at four kids for ''security'' would you have a fifth? (no moral judgeent a question on the ''what ifs'' I guess.)

clearingout

I didn't set out to have three children - the third is a result of carelessness and a morning after pill failure so I held my hands up and took responsibility (more than the ex has done, believe me!). If I had stayed with my husband I would have insisted on one of us having the ability to have children removed! As it is, I started a family late and am now past 40 so no, wouldn't have anymore cos I've been lucky with what I have and any more would be pushing it for me, the child and the children that I already have (assuming a 'new' child had a disability, for example).

Had I started a family in my early 20s, divorced in my early 30s and then re-married, it may well be feasable that I had had more children. I would like to think that I wouldn't be marrying someone who wasn't able to jointly take responsibility for us all being financially secure but I understand the desire to have a biological family with someone you love so perhaps having 5 children wouldn't have been out of the question in those circumstances. However, my need for security and sense of general responsibility is such that I wouldn't be having more children on purpose whilst reliant on benefits, no.

lostinrates

clearingout wrote: »

I didn't set out to have three children - the third is a result of carelessness and a morning after pill failure so I held my hands up and took responsibility (more than the ex has done, believe me!). If I had stayed with my husband I would have insisted on one of us having the ability to have children removed! As it is, I started a family late and am now past 40 so no, wouldn't have anymore cos I've been lucky with what I have and any more would be pushing it for me, the child and the children that I already have (assuming a 'new' child had a disability, for example).

Had I started a family in my early 20s, divorced in my early 30s and then re-married, it may well be feasable that I had had more children. I would like to think that I wouldn't be marrying someone who wasn't able to jointly take responsibility for us all being financially secure but I understand the desire to have a biological family with someone you love so perhaps having 5 children wouldn't have been out of the question in those circumstances. However, my need for security and sense of general responsibility is such that I wouldn't be having more children on purpose whilst reliant on benefits, no.

I think all of that is very very sensible and right. And why people tking responsibility in a climate where only payment for up to four children was given would pause for hought after number three.


I too, despite my peronal beliefs on over population, I would be unilling to impose my view on the ideal numbers of children on anyone else: we have the RIGHT to choose our own paths, however, with that right comes responsibilty. I think the responsibility to your own children is paramount.

further I'd add that any people living a time ...short or long...on benefits (which again I reiterate I do not think should be halted) are able to live making some but not total reduction in lifestyle, so payments for ''four'' children could be made go as far as possible.

onlyroz

For myself, I couldn't justify having any more children than I was financially able to support. It is for that reason that I had a 3.5 year gap between my children - because I knew that I would not be able to afford nursery fees for two children at once. With this age gap, my children were only at nursery together for two months, before my eldest started school. I *could* afford a third, but it would mean forgoing the annual overseas holiday, and it would mean that we would never be able to afford to move to a bigger house (and so two of the three would have to share a fairly small bedroom).

Cat501

Nara wrote: »

(who has 4 children 2 with 2 other women and 2 with my sister) cannot work because boohoo hes depressed!!

Grow up and get a job !!!!!!.

I sincerely hope you or any member of your family is never struck down with depression or any other debilitating mental health problem. You're not immune, you know. Nobody is. And it's not pleasant believe me.

neverdespairgirl

skipsmum wrote: »

As a foster carer I have personally looked after children with ricketts due to poor nutrition, who were found (aged 2, 4 and 5) going through peoples bins.
Obviously this is the extreme end of the scale but I feel the need to point out that there are many children born and living in this country who live in poverty and do not have sufficient access to nutritious food.

That's not a lifestyle that a family on benefits leads, though, without major other issues.

elaine373

claire16c wrote: »

How on earth would someone have 8 children through no fault of their own?

I actually meant no fault of their own, by having to go on benefits .

MarilynMonroe_2

I don't really know what I think, I would hate to see kids suffering because they had many brothers and sisters, then again, there was a girl on Jermey Kyle who was 25 and had 7 kids and neither her or her current partner had ever worked, theres somehting not right there (I am an 'older' mum to one and I wouldnt have more than one for love nor money - theyre hard work!)