Struggling with money because you've got kids

itchyextremist

I sometimes can't hide my irritation when I see yet another news story about a couple struggling with money and struggling to feed their kids.


You're struggling because you've got kids! Don't have them, if you can't afford them. You're in horrendous debt because you've got kids.


All these cooking shows about money saving meals to feed your family. What about money saving meals for yourself and you partner? Everything seems to be focused on parents and families.


Why don't they ever focus on a couple that doesn't have any children who are struggling but have wisely chosen not to have children.


I consider myself to have a family. My family is me, my girlfriend and our dog, but we get treated like second-class citizens because we don't have any children.

tykesi

itchyextremist wrote: »

I consider myself to have a family. My family is me, my girlfriend and our dog, but we get treated like second-class citizens because we don't have any children.

If this is the impression you get from watching TV maybe you need to turn it off and get out more? It's you with the choice not to watch the programmes if you don't want.

lulu_92

Maybe they're struggling because someone like you decided it would be a laugh to lump them with debt that's only half theirs:

itchyextremist wrote: »

I think saddling an ex with loads of debt is the best revenge possible. Nothing messes up someone's life better than screwing with their money. Will take years to pay off the debt, endless poverty, credit ruined - I mean what better revenge than that!


It's a great feeling when they're grovelling you to pay your half, but it's not legally enforceable. I pretend I'm going to pay, then just tell them to sod off. The best revenge is the one that you can keep using :-)

itchyextremist

lulu_92 wrote: »

Maybe they're struggling because someone like you decided it would be a laugh to lump them with debt that's only half theirs:

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Indie_Kid

itchyextremist wrote: »

You're struggling because you've got kids! Don't have them, if you can't afford them. You're in horrendous debt because you've got kids.

Er, things change? My parents had us when they could afford to. They didn't, I'm sure, plan for dad to have an accident at the age of 43 (when his youngest was 13) and for him to be off work for 2 months. They didn't also plan for him to be made redundant twice or for him to be out of work for some months whilst trying to find a job.

lulu_92

itchyextremist wrote: »

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Well, it does. You don't know why people have no money.

We were desperately skint when I was in secondary school. Does that mean my mum shouldn't have had us back in the late 80s because one day her circumstances might change?

Why do anything because one day you might find yourself in a different situation and end up struggling one way or another.

ETA: cross posted slightly with Indie. Great minds, eh?

Jagraf

itchyextremist wrote: »

I sometimes can't hide my irritation when I see yet another news story about a couple struggling with money and struggling to feed their kids.


You're struggling because you've got kids! Don't have them, if you can't afford them. You're in horrendous debt because you've got kids.


All these cooking shows about money saving meals to feed your family. What about money saving meals for yourself and you partner? Everything seems to be focused on parents and families.


Why don't they ever focus on a couple that doesn't have any children who are struggling but have wisely chosen not to have children.


I consider myself to have a family. My family is me, my girlfriend and our dog, but we get treated like second-class citizens because we don't have any children.

I have a child but I don't have a dog. I can't afford a dog as well, unfortunately.

I'm not sure how they would incorporate dog food into a cookery programme.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

itchyextremist wrote: »

I sometimes can't hide my irritation when I see yet another news story about a couple struggling with money and struggling to feed their kids.


You're struggling because you've got kids! Don't have them, if you can't afford them. You're in horrendous debt because you've got kids.


All these cooking shows about money saving meals to feed your family. What about money saving meals for yourself and you partner? Everything seems to be focused on parents and families.


Why don't they ever focus on a couple that doesn't have any children who are struggling but have wisely chosen not to have children.


I consider myself to have a family. My family is me, my girlfriend and our dog, but we get treated like second-class citizens because we don't have any children.

They need family sized homes to film in. You can't fit a cameraman, soundman, lighting tech, producer, their equipment, a presenter and the couple being filmed in a dingy basement bedsit with mould on the walls.

Even with somewhere a bit bigger, nobody's going to be interested in a programme showing how myself and the OH spend about £10 a week on food, but actually need to spend nearer £5. It boils down to a big bag of onions, a bag of spuds, lentils, a tube of tomato puree and the occasional reduced to clear veggies from the supermarket. Which isn't particularly exciting television. Few opportunities for product placement, either.

itchyextremist

Jagraf wrote: »

I have a child but I don't have a dog. I can't afford a dog as well, unfortunately.

I'm not sure how they would incorporate dog food into a cookery programme.

Did you know there are human taste testers for dog food?!

kingfisherblue

As Indie and Lulu said, things can change. I have three children, all born when I was married and we were both working. We could afford our children (no fancy holidays, only one car, etc - we lived within our means). We had no debts to pay off, as we didn't overspend.


Then one of our children was born with severe disabilities. We still managed, although I did give up work after our last child was born. I started to claim Carer's Allowance. When our youngest was five years old, my (now ex) husband decided to start a new family elsewhere.


I've been a single mum for over ten years now, and receive benefits from the government. My son still has severe disabilities and will never be 'cured'. He will need a high level of care for the rest of his life. Even now, at age 17 (almost!), he cannot go out alone or stay in the house unsupervised.


There are many families that take the mickey out of the benefits system. We all know that. But equally, there are families who could afford their children when they were born, but circumstances have changed. A job is no longer for life in most cases. People have accidents or become ill. Sometimes children are born and are disabled, needing a higher level of care, regular hospital appointments, etc (getting childcare for a disabled child can be nigh on impossible). Families split up. Without a crystal ball, nobody can predict the future (well, being honest, nobody with a crystal ball can either, but that's beside the point!).

zarf2007

itchyextremist wrote: »

I sometimes can't hide my irritation when I see yet another news story about a couple struggling with money and struggling to feed their kids.


You're struggling because you've got kids! Don't have them, if you can't afford them. You're in horrendous debt because you've got kids.


All these cooking shows about money saving meals to feed your family. What about money saving meals for yourself and you partner? Everything seems to be focused on parents and families.


Why don't they ever focus on a couple that doesn't have any children who are struggling but have wisely chosen not to have children.


I consider myself to have a family. My family is me, my girlfriend and our dog, but we get treated like second-class citizens because we don't have any children.

I think you'll find that everything is geared towards people with children and I resent my taxes paying towards this. You also see this time and time again in African countries, starving couples with 5 children, why have them? Surely after 20 years of famine and corruption they would realise that it makes sense to have as few as possible.