15 kids and counting

suburbanwifey

For that money even I would have 10, I could afford to have someone else look after them all and still be in profit

elvis86

I totally agree that benefits should be capped at 2 or 3 kids and assistance with rent capped on a 2/3 bedroomed house. You should only have more if you can afford them without the state's assistance.

serious_saver

I didn't catch the programme but I find people's reactions to large families fascinating. We think of big families as strange these days but it wasn't that long ago that it was quite common. My grandfather, who only passed away recently was the eldest of 14 who survived into adulthood. I suppose it's because we now have more freedom to choose whether we want children or not. Thank goodness for readily available contraception!

elvis86

serious_saver wrote: »

I didn't catch the programme but I find people's reactions to large families fascinating. We think of big families as strange these days but it wasn't that long ago that it was quite common. My grandfather, who only passed away recently was the eldest of 14 who survived into adulthood. I suppose it's because we now have more freedom to choose whether we want children or not. Thank goodness for readily available contraception!

We also used to think that women being second class citizens was normal. Ditto shops and pubs refusing entry to blacks and the Irish.

Fact is, free contraception is now widely available, so it is grossly irresponsible to continue to have kids that you can't afford. And by afford, I mean afford without generous handouts from the state, afford from the wages that you take home at the end of the week/month.

angelbob

Hi i watched it, and don't agree with it. not just the money thing, they worked so well done them, but
i was one of 7 (step family also but all in one house) and it wasn't good, not enough attention, older ones doing all the chores, no privacy or made to feel special. i would not recommend it to anyone, now i only have two boys and have been sterlized.
Plus that mum having the twins (10 & 11) could easy die, and can't believe when she was going to hospital to have lung tests, the dad said 'its all worth it'.
i think its very selfish, no one needs more than 4 kids.

angelbob

serious_saver wrote: »

My grandfather, who only passed away recently was the eldest of 14 who survived into adulthood.

My nan was one of 18 :eek::eek: but like your gf only 14 lived to be adults. she lived till she was 92, best nan ever.

Shashwoo

Smilver wrote: »

Not true, take away all their public funds and what kind of a life can they afford?

Quite a good one depending on the jobs they have. You don't know that they have any help from the state, they may well be entitled to it but choose not to take from the state in any form of benefit.

Their are plenty of good paid jobs out there that would mean that the family didn't have to have any benefit help.

(apologies for any spelling mistakes)

keys_2

I watched it and had mixed views on alot of it ,
However the mother whom has been told since her fourth child that it was very dangerous to have more I think should definitely Now stop as this is very selfish if she thinks leaving all those children behind is good if something happens to her ...

This couple also thought that it is against religion to use contraception :eek::eek::eek: and plan to only stop when she doesn't conceive :eek::eek::eek:

She also teaches the children from home instead of letting them go to school - The eldest girl looked sooo bored as she was teaching the same to a teenager whom was sat at the table with a 4 yr old along with the other mixed ages .
I wonder if these children will be affected on the social side along with the fact the mum did not have any qualifications for teaching and spoke that she only teaches what she knows :eek:

As for the other family where parents were adopted I found these more acceptable , genuine and showed a working life with routine structure better .

Overall I personally found that these families would probably find it very difficult to let any of their children pursue a hobby or interest due to lack of money and time , and that the older children came across to me like they will also be starting having children young and alot of them , so a short lived childhood for them if this happens

VfM4meplse

angelbob wrote: »

older ones doing all the chores, no privacy or made to feel special.

I felt like that, and there were only 3 children in the home! But as a result of this I love being on my own, as does my younger brother - but strangely not my elder sister!

drc

Smilver wrote: »

Very interesting just did a check on turn2us/entitledto website. They only let you calculate up to 10 kids so these numbers could be a lot more.

But if a family with 10 kids were living in nice part of London in a 9 bedroom house lets just say rent was about £4000 per week. (Some families are getting this much with less kids) They would also get about £500 child tax credit. About £200 child benefit and £300 income support. Not to mention council tax benefit which would be paid 100%.

So well over £5000 per week. Or £260,000 per year.

Not anymore. Housing benefit was capped at 4 bedrooms and a maximum of £400 per week but they can still get a lot of child tax credits and child benefit to pay towards the rent (roughly £50 per week per child for tax credits and £13-20 per week for each child for child benefit) not to mention all the other benefits, so it is definitely possible to pay a very high rent if you dip into the other benefits if you have enough children.