"16 Kids and Counting" - how do they afford it?

HappyMJ

flashnazia wrote: »

Is that profit or turnover though? They are hardly frugal so I don't see how they could survive on that, even if it is profit.
If its turnover I wonder what's on their tax credit form.

It's not turnover...A bakery would turn over much more than that. It's either take home profit or gross profit.

You need to read the family blog. It is possible. There is a lot of re-use and recycling.

They fed the family for a week (dinner only) for £60. The other meals are cereal and milk with bread and pastries from the bakery.

MerlinMags

They prepare 7 meals for 18 people on £60 ? Crikey.

What is the link to their blog please? And how the hell do they have time to write one?!

Wifey commented the mum looked heathier and had more energy that we ourselves did (a mere 3 kids!). There's some other tricks up their sleeves too, it seems.....

flashnazia

HappyMJ wrote: »

It's not turnover...A bakery would turn over much more than that. It's either take home profit or gross profit.

You need to read the family blog. It is possible. There is a lot of re-use and recycling.

They fed the family for a week (dinner only) for £60. The other meals are cereal and milk with bread and pastries from the bakery.

But they can still claim tax credits can't they? The figure I got from entitled to is in excess of £430 per week (probably much more because the calculator only goes upto 10 children).

pigpen

MerlinMags wrote: »

Someone mentioned £221.30 in child benefit per week....I doubt that even pays for the Tescos bill.So there must be some cunning money-saving going on.....?

plus that is assuming all the children are eligible which I doubt they are.

£60 for 7 meals is easy peasy! if you are used to it. £250 a week shopping is about right.. my bill is about £150 tesco plus milk bread fruit veg etc so probably about £200 a week and there are 12 of us here.

My BIL has a very successful butchers and it is always very busy, he works 15 hours a day sometimes more and they have 1 child and are still entitled to some tax credits.. there is no way they don't qualify.

hunters

gunsandbanjos wrote: »

The other family shown neither of them work do they? The man has multiple degrees apparently (though not sure how much practical use a doctorate in philosophy is?).
Guess the tax payers are footing the bill.

that family I do object to, neither working to at least pay for some of the upbringing of their children.

Soubrette

MerlinMags wrote: »

Wifey commented the mum looked heathier and had more energy that we ourselves did (a mere 3 kids!). There's some other tricks up their sleeves too, it seems.....

I think there's a lot more delegating down to the children from the adults when you have a wide spread of ages in the children.

If you have three below 10 it's hard to put one in charge of the others but if you have 16 between 1 and 20 then it's easier for the 20 year old to look after a couple or have some designated jobs.

Like someone said previously, economies of scale but this time in the workload as well as money savings.

shoppaholic_returns

I suppose I am going to get flamed, but I found the fact that we pay child benefit for all of these children extremely disheartening, and I strongly feel we should limit the amount of child benefit/other benefits we pay out to those who do not pay into the system.

If you are going to have a big family and pay for it YOURSELF, then good luck to you. However, having this many children and not contributing is irresponsible and selfish IMHO. I can understand if you have been put into this situation by being made jobless, but for g*ds sake stop having kids at this point!!!

sassyblue

HappyMJ wrote: »

the blog they get a lot of leftovers from the shop for free.

Was going to suggest this, all their bread, cakes, butter, flour, eggs could come from the shop, as 'leftovers'. . The van might double as the company car. Every little helps.

Maybe the buggies are secondhand, clothes handed down. A lot of us do that anyway, they just do it on a larger scale.

sassyblue

shoppaholic_returns wrote: »

I suppose I am going to get flamed, but I found the fact that we pay child benefit for all of these children extremely disheartening, and I strongly feel we should limit the amount of child benefit/other benefits we pay out to those who do not pay into the system.

I thought this thread was about the father who owns and runs a bakery? So he's contributing into the system, and IMO we have no right in his private life if they are supporting themselves to a large degree.

I agree with you in cases where the parents have lots of kids but never work nor intend to, and bring up the poor kids with the same outlook, but how do you limit their child bearing?

hunters

shoppaholic_returns wrote: »

I suppose I am going to get flamed, but I found the fact that we pay child benefit for all of these children extremely disheartening, and I strongly feel we should limit the amount of child benefit/other benefits we pay out to those who do not pay into the system.

If you are going to have a big family and pay for it YOURSELF, then good luck to you. However, having this many children and not contributing is irresponsible and selfish IMHO. I can understand if you have been put into this situation by being made jobless, but for g*ds sake stop having kids at this point!!!

No flaming from me, child benefit should be restricted especially to those who don't seem to have the time to work, whereas the baker guy showed that it can be done.