Fair to complain?

spen666

rubertoe wrote:

both my mrs and i work full time - luckily

We both want kids - but we cant afford them - so i feel no sympathy for these people and they are clearly socially irresponsible - although saying that at least they are making the effort to work - which is mor than can be said for a lot of large families.

maybe they will have to sell their bikes...

So, by working and supporting their family by their own efforts they are being socially irresponsible?

You and your Mrs obviously want your lifestyle to remain as it is. This couple have put kids ahead of their lifestyle. Who is to say which is wrong?

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

My child needs food in its mouth and clothes on its back. If I can do that for myself I can provide that for my child.

Right.
What if the current food and clothes are reliant on benefits. Then *you* cannot provide, so would you then reconsider a child? I'm not arguing for a specific salary but at some level there must be the acceptance that there is not enough money to provide without asking for help. If you know that you're not likely to reach that level then you should make any decisions with that knowledge in mind.

jds_1981

spen666 wrote:

This couple have put kids ahead of their lifestyle.

They've put their want to have kids ahead of their ability to support them.

DonDaddyD

There are some really nasty people coming out of the woodwork on this website at the moment.

airbusboy wrote:

' If you can't feed them, don't breed them'.

I believe we as society we do have a responsibility to make sure the children are fed and watered, but on the flip side i detest funding the irresponsibility of the parents. Prices have increased, and of late but like many people i have cut my cloth accordingly and still manage to survive.... mainly because i haven't built an unsustainable financial situation over the previous years.....

If prices are increasing then it is entirely plausible to conclude that what was once a sustainable financial situation has become unsustainable due to the... er... price increases.

Seriously it doesn't take a genius to work that one out. Example (for fun) guy with a BMW who was paying £100 a month on insurance. Petrol goes up, insurance goes up, VED (commonly referred to as road tax) goes up. Suddenly the car he could afford has become to expensive.

(Right as i'm having a rant, not directly linked to the above article) Why should people have to go to work, work long hours to raise children, while someone else gets funded to stay at home (if ""able''' to work, or get a job) and bring their children up..... not only do the workers contribute more to society (financially) but they spend less time bringing up their children..........

I don't have children, and don't plan on it in the near future.....

:roll:

Sigh...

CyclingBantam

shm_uk wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

This family ... apear to be in a precarious position, which is self inflicted.

No it's not. They were managing perfectly well supporting themselves.
Their reduced working hours is out of their control.

I've got two kids. My wife is not working currently. I am fortunate to earn sufficient income to support the four of us.

If the cost of living, or interest rates on my mortgage, or whatever, increased to such a level that my pay no longer covered basic expenses would you say it was all my own fault for daring to have a wife & 2 kids?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I'm sure if this family knew how badly & quickly the world would all go wrong in 2008 they would have planned accordingly.

First off, I am trying to get away from just this family however, it is absolutely self inflicted.

I have a mortgage. When I took it out, I could have potentially taken out double what I took but I didn't because I knew, or rather didn't know, there was a posibility things could get worse. I knew interest rates could go up, I knew I could lose my job (just like anyone else could). Because of that I am reasonably well prepared to cover everything but the most extreme changes.

Had I t\aken a full mortgage amount out, how would it be reasonable to then complain i can't afford it when I had put myself right up to the limit when things change.

Please don't bring this down to a thread where we have everyone accusing each other of 'dictating what people should do'. that isn't the case it is simply observing and commenting on what people think is reasonable to do.

DDD - I don't think anyone has ever suggested people should earn x amount before having kids. The point is, if you have kids and you are getting closer and closer to the breadline (as in effect happens however rich you are) there must be a point where you look at it responsibly and consider if having more children is reasonable.

They didn't just wake up one morning with 7.

Disclaimer - If this is a family with septuplets I unreservedly apologise.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

I never said that anyone should expect a state handout. Seriously read what you've quoted, where have I written that. What I said was

And where have I said that you specifically thought anyone should have a state handout? Possibly you should read what I said; in answering a post, not everything has to relate to exactly what that poster said!

You can detest as much as you like that the notion of having a child is something you can or can't afford but that is life in a rich country. I detest the thought that there are murderers and rapists in the world but that doesn't alter the facts that they exist. If it bothers you that much, move to a poor country. Though there you'll obviously also have high infant mortality.

DonDaddyD

dhope wrote:

I wouldn't count home ownership as a prerequisite for having kids, nor necessarily having a job at that precise moment in time.

I don't know your parents circumstances so apologies if the next bit sounds harsh.
If, having had you, your parents had struggled for 12 years and been barely able to make ends meet, struggling to feed or cloth you without assistance, moving homes regularly with no reliable source of income then I would have thought that they would have thought better of introducing your brother to a similar life. Love is not enough, there should be stability too.

It doesn't sound like this was the case, it sounds like there was a valid expectation that any recent redundancy was a low point in an otherwise stable life. You've not said anything about those 12 years so I've no basis to form an opinion.

Quality isn't entirely subjective though, a parent should have the ability to examine their situation with some detachment and take an objective view. I'm not deigning a base salary per child but a degree of pragmatism doesn't take the magic* of kids away.

* I have no kids, any inferred magic is entirely speculation.

My parents gave me stability and as they climbed the "professional ladder of wealth" so did the luxuries improve (my brother went to private school, that wasn't disrupted by having both parents out of work).

My perspective as a child growing up is seeing my parents develop financially as I grew up. What irks me is that people seem to think that they immediately have to give their children the best of everything from the moment they are born. It's like they've forgotten that their parents had to develop into the wealth they have now and probably started with a lot less than we have and still managed. How many of us are prepared to take second jobs, compared to those in the 60s - 80s?

This is why I say you give them the best of what you've got (at the time).

spen666

jds_1981 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

This couple have put kids ahead of their lifestyle.

They've put their want to have kids ahead of their ability to support them.

Really? Think you are inventing things here.

They aresupporting their kids within their means.


Are you suggesting that before having kids you should have sufficient funds in the bank to pay all their costs for the next 18 years?

I may be in a good job and able to afford kids today, but what happens if my employer goes bankrupt next year owing to an earthquake in Japan? I can no longer support my family in the same manner as before, is that my fault?

If I wait to have sufficient funds to support children till they leave home, I and my partner will be too old to have kids

rolf_f

CyclingBantam wrote:

I have a mortgage. When I took it out, I could have potentially taken out double what I took but I didn't because I knew, or rather didn't know, there was a posibility things could get worse. I knew interest rates could go up, I knew I could lose my job (just like anyone else could). Because of that I am reasonably well prepared to cover everything but the most extreme changes.

Exactly- you need to be realistic about what happens if things go wrong. 7 children supported on two relatively poor jobs that certainly aren't guaranteed to be that secure (what job that requires no qualifications is really secure?) doesn't sound resilient to me. If they'd stuck at three they'd have still had more than most and twice the headroom to cover for difficult times.

spen666 wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

This couple have put kids ahead of their lifestyle.

They've put their want to have kids ahead of their ability to support them.

Really? Think you are inventing things here.

They aresupporting their kids within their means.


Are you suggesting that before having kids you should have sufficient funds in the bank to pay all their costs for the next 18 years?

I may be in a good job and able to afford kids today, but what happens if my employer goes bankrupt next year owing to an earthquake in Japan? I can no longer support my family in the same manner as before, is that my fault?

There is a balance. Is your employer likely to go bankrupt? How easy would it be for you to get a similar job if they did? Have you put every penny of your disposable income into a huge mortgage that you'll default on if you end up out of work? Have you saved nothing?

My guess is that you know the answer to these and have assessed the probabilities to at least some degree and would know what to do if it happened.

rubertoe

spen666 wrote:

rubertoe wrote:

both my mrs and i work full time - luckily

We both want kids - but we cant afford them - so i feel no sympathy for these people and they are clearly socially irresponsible - although saying that at least they are making the effort to work - which is mor than can be said for a lot of large families.

maybe they will have to sell their bikes...

So, by working and supporting their family by their own efforts they are being socially irresponsible?

You and your Mrs obviously want your lifestyle to remain as it is. This couple have put kids ahead of their lifestyle. Who is to say which is wrong?

We both certainly do not lead a lavish lifestyle and we plan to have kids (well at least one) in the future, as was said by jds "They've put their want to have kids ahead of their ability to support them."

i come from a large family (i have 6 brothers and sisters) so it is comparable to their situation - however at no time was there any issue with regards our parents not being able to support or put food on the table or clothe us and my Mum has never worked a day in her life. I guess that i was lucky enough to have Dad that supported us all even though he was by no means a high earner and was made redundant a couple of times.

i Guess i was one of the lucky ones.

MrChuck

spen666 wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

This couple have put kids ahead of their lifestyle.

They've put their want to have kids ahead of their ability to support them.

Really? Think you are inventing things here.

They aresupporting their kids within their means.

But they're not though. They're on handouts from a food bank.

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

This couple have put kids ahead of their lifestyle.

They've put their want to have kids ahead of their ability to support them.

Really? Think you are inventing things here.

They aresupporting their kids within their means.


Are you suggesting that before having kids you should have sufficient funds in the bank to pay all their costs for the next 18 years?

I may be in a good job and able to afford kids today, but what happens if my employer goes bankrupt next year owing to an earthquake in Japan? I can no longer support my family in the same manner as before, is that my fault?

If I wait to have sufficient funds to support children till they leave home, I and my partner will be too old to have kids

I've missed your rational arguments and razor sharp delivery!

CyclingBantam

DonDaddyD wrote:

dhope wrote:

I wouldn't count home ownership as a prerequisite for having kids, nor necessarily having a job at that precise moment in time.

I don't know your parents circumstances so apologies if the next bit sounds harsh.
If, having had you, your parents had struggled for 12 years and been barely able to make ends meet, struggling to feed or cloth you without assistance, moving homes regularly with no reliable source of income then I would have thought that they would have thought better of introducing your brother to a similar life. Love is not enough, there should be stability too.

It doesn't sound like this was the case, it sounds like there was a valid expectation that any recent redundancy was a low point in an otherwise stable life. You've not said anything about those 12 years so I've no basis to form an opinion.

Quality isn't entirely subjective though, a parent should have the ability to examine their situation with some detachment and take an objective view. I'm not deigning a base salary per child but a degree of pragmatism doesn't take the magic* of kids away.

* I have no kids, any inferred magic is entirely speculation.

My parents gave me stability and as they climbed the "professional ladder of wealth" so did the luxuries improve (my brother went to private school, that wasn't disrupted by having both parents out of work).

My perspective as a child growing up is seeing my parents develop financially as I grew up. What irks me is that people seem to think that they immediately have to give their children the best of everything from the moment they are born. It's like they've forgotten that their parents had to develop into the wealth they have now and probably started with a lot less than we have and still managed. How many of us are prepared to take second jobs, compared to those in the 60s - 80s?

This is why I say you give them the best of what you've got (at the time).

I'm not saying they should have the 'best of everything' nobody ever does. They should have a reasonable level of things though. In my opinion, not enough food for their lunch box's isn't a reasonable level and not feeding your children is accepted as child neglect. My objection is that having seven children means it pushes you closer to the position where you can't feed them all. There is no need to have that many kids.

Also - R.e. there being a lot of nasty people on 'here'. It is an internet forum, we are all probably in broad agreement but you will never perfectly get your point across.

rick_chasey

Ah, the thread should have been concluded with my quality 3 liner.

Alas.

thelawnet

shm_uk wrote:

i feel no sympathy for these people and they are clearly socially irresponsible

Que?

If I read the article correctly, the family were managing to live within their means before the whole world went wrong, i.e. they could afford 7 children.

They've never taken the soft option and resorted to claiming benefits.

I don't believe that for a moment.

Let's just do the sums:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/taxcredits.htm

Child Tax Credit Family element £545
Child element £2,555 * 7 = £17,885
Working tax credit £1920
Couple element £1950

Total = £22,300 but this is 'taxed' at 41% (used to be 39%)

A school dinner lady is not doing many hours and with seven kids they are not going to be cleaning that many offices by night either.

It's reasonable therefore to assume they are working 16 hours per week (which, as any low income family/worker knows is the magic number required to earn you 'tax credits'), probably at £6/hour (minimum wage or thereabouts). So they will earn £4,992 per year each = £9,984 together.This reduces their tax credit award by 9984-6420 * .41 = £1461.24

This leaves them with £20,839 in tax credits, plus £9984 in income.

On top of this they are looking at:

Child benefit
£20.30 + £13.40 * 6 = £100.70 per week
£100.70 per week * 52 = £5,236.40 per year

Council tax I guess they are in band F, so £2,100/month, which will net them another £1500 in benefits.

So in total they are likely claiming £27,575.16 in direct cash benefits alone. (And there's a good chance they get more than that if any child has a disability, which by numbers is likely with 7 kids)

On top of that they are getting:

* free school meals (they earn less than £16k/year) for numerous children
* free prescriptions
* free dental
* free optical
* discounts on council leisure services and other facilities such as waste disposal charges

Quite clearly neither are contributing a normal adult 40 hours/week, cleaning offices at night with 7 kids, and one working as a dinner lady.

Neither is it likely that they are doing more than 16 hours per week each - they are currently both below the income tax threshold, £6,475/year, but another 4 hours a week would take them over that and they would be taxed at 72% (income tax + NI + tax credit withdrawal), so they would be crazy to do any more.

I don't really find the blather about not being able to find enough work particularly plausible. It's unlikely that their tax credits have been touched, even if the father is just below 16 hours, so the £1950 couples WTC element is most likely still there; let's not forget their bottom line:

earned income £10k
benefits around £30k

Accommodation could eat up £15k/year of that, but that leaves them with nearly £500/week to buy food and such like.

The cost of food is NOT the elephant in the room here, but it's totally characteristic of the BBC to ignore that.

You can't blame the family for the global economy going so massively wrong in 2008.
Nobody really saw that coming.

Well you can certainly blame them for having seven kids without the ability to support them. There's a big difference between David & Victoria Beckham deciding to have a fourth child and a family like this. If I have another child the cost comes out of my pocket. If this couple has another child the government sends them a few thousand more to cover the costs.

It's well-documented that the marginal cost of having children falls the more you have, so at this point (and for quite a while in fact) they are being paid to have children - the extra costs incurred are going to be less than the extra 'income' received.

People will say 'But what if they used to be successful businessmen but their business went bust, it's not fair not to payout for all seven kids'. Let's be honest - that happens VERY rarely, the usual case is child after child while only working the bare minimum to stay under the tax/tax credit thresholds and to clock up the £4k/year WTC benefit.

CyclingBantam

spen666 wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

This couple have put kids ahead of their lifestyle.

They've put their want to have kids ahead of their ability to support them.

Really? Think you are inventing things here.

They aresupporting their kids within their means.


Are you suggesting that before having kids you should have sufficient funds in the bank to pay all their costs for the next 18 years?

I may be in a good job and able to afford kids today, but what happens if my employer goes bankrupt next year owing to an earthquake in Japan? I can no longer support my family in the same manner as before, is that my fault?
If I wait to have sufficient funds to support children till they leave home, I and my partner will be too old to have kids

Spen, nobody is saying that. What would be your fault though is if you had pushed your expenses (with things that were not a necessity) right up to the limit of your earnings, leaving yourself no way to manouver. You then had some/any event that pushed yourself over the edge. Why wouldn't it be your fault that you hadn't taken 'reasonable (and I know this is open to interpretation) steps to prepare yourself.

jamesco

spen666 wrote:

So, by working and supporting their family by their own efforts they are being socially irresponsible?

They're relying on foodbanks, so not supporting their family by their own efforts.

spen666 wrote:

You and your Mrs obviously want your lifestyle to remain as it is. This couple have put kids ahead of their lifestyle. Who is to say which is wrong?

They've put having 7 children ahead of their ability to support their children.

rick_chasey

jamesco wrote:

They've put having 7 children ahead of their ability to support their children.

What's the alternative? If people want 7 children, you can't really stop them.

CyclingBantam

Rick Chasey wrote:

jamesco wrote:

They've put having 7 children ahead of their ability to support their children.

What's the alternative? If people want 7 children, you can't really stop them.

The alternative is, despite wanting them, to not have them. Nobody is suggesting stopping people having kids, simply commenting on if it is a reasonable thing to do if you can't afford them.

Are you on commission to get this thread finished?

spen666

CyclingBantam wrote:

spen666 wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

This couple have put kids ahead of their lifestyle.

They've put their want to have kids ahead of their ability to support them.

Really? Think you are inventing things here.

They aresupporting their kids within their means.


Are you suggesting that before having kids you should have sufficient funds in the bank to pay all their costs for the next 18 years?

I may be in a good job and able to afford kids today, but what happens if my employer goes bankrupt next year owing to an earthquake in Japan? I can no longer support my family in the same manner as before, is that my fault?
If I wait to have sufficient funds to support children till they leave home, I and my partner will be too old to have kids

Spen, nobody is saying that. What would be your fault though is if you had pushed your expenses (with things that were not a necessity) right up to the limit of your earnings, leaving yourself no way to manouver. You then had some/any event that pushed yourself over the edge. Why wouldn't it be your fault that you hadn't taken 'reasonable (and I know this is open to interpretation) steps to prepare yourself.

Like children?

So you are agreeing that I need to save up enough to cover 18 years of expenses before you have children.

If you had children, you would be aware that they have an incredible ability to expand their cost to meet all of your money

dhope

spen666 wrote:

If you had children, you would be aware that they have an incredible ability to expand their cost to meet all of your money

So children are the only way to rein in the missus...

CyclingBantam

spen666 wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

spen666 wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

This couple have put kids ahead of their lifestyle.

They've put their want to have kids ahead of their ability to support them.

Really? Think you are inventing things here.

They aresupporting their kids within their means.


Are you suggesting that before having kids you should have sufficient funds in the bank to pay all their costs for the next 18 years?

I may be in a good job and able to afford kids today, but what happens if my employer goes bankrupt next year owing to an earthquake in Japan? I can no longer support my family in the same manner as before, is that my fault?
If I wait to have sufficient funds to support children till they leave home, I and my partner will be too old to have kids

Spen, nobody is saying that. What would be your fault though is if you had pushed your expenses (with things that were not a necessity) right up to the limit of your earnings, leaving yourself no way to manouver. You then had some/any event that pushed yourself over the edge. Why wouldn't it be your fault that you hadn't taken 'reasonable (and I know this is open to interpretation) steps to prepare yourself.

Like children?

So you are agreeing that I need to save up enough to cover 18 years of expenses before you have children.

If you had children, you would be aware that they have an incredible ability to expand their cost to meet all of your money

No I'm not saying you should save up the full amount. Don't be obtuse.

I am saying there is a balance between saving up naff all and saving up the full amount. The point is, by having 7 children (which is not neccessary) you are opening up to massive cost, like you clearly point out, despite having no way of paying the cost (there is no doubt that has happened in this case).

I don't have children however, I would bet pretty much anyone one here, when they did decide to have children, considered if they can provide for them or if they would have to live on food hand outs should things get any worse.

That is what is lacking in the case in point.

rick_chasey

CyclingBantam wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

jamesco wrote:

They've put having 7 children ahead of their ability to support their children.

What's the alternative? If people want 7 children, you can't really stop them.

The alternative is, despite wanting them, to not have them. Nobody is suggesting stopping people having kids, simply commenting on if it is a reasonable thing to do if you can't afford them.

Are you on commission to get this thread finished?

But people will have them, like it or not.

Then what? Have children in poverty? Foster care homes are hardly havens for excellent upbringings..

People here are also making out that somehow living with 7 kids purely off the state is somehow luxurious since it's work free.

It's decidedly not, and, in terms of disposable income it's probably not far off the poverty line anyway.

rolf_f

spen666 wrote:

If you had children, you would be aware that they have an incredible ability to expand their cost to meet all of your money

That's a bit of an excuse though. Same as the one about how inevitably expensive cycling is as a hobby. It can easily become so but it is still your fault if you let it.

For what it is worth, my Dad had a reasonable job (middle middle class sort of salary), my Mother a part time job. They raised two children, paid their house off early and saved a lot before they retired. I don't buy into the line that a normal middle class couple can only just scrape the cash together to run a couple of children.

jamesco

Rick Chasey wrote:

jamesco wrote:

They've put having 7 children ahead of their ability to support their children.

What's the alternative? If people want 7 children, you can't really stop them.

That's the sh1t-sandwich. Refusing to pay any benefits for parents with more than n kids results in the kids suffering through no fault of their own; any civilised country will want to ensure that the children aren't punished, so we have to lump it. Doesn't mean we can't moan about it

Anyway, as someone else said, this is a very rare situation. Looking after seven kids sounds like too much work to me, regardless of money!

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Then what? Have children in poverty? Foster care homes are hardly havens for excellent upbringings.

The point is (IMO!) that it is wrong to have loads of kids and expect the state to pay for them but it is right that the state does pay for it.

EKE_38BPM

It seems to me that it is stupid to financially sail that close to the wind. You always have to budget for things going a bit wrong and you should never be right at your limits.

A friend of mine is doing very well for himself. He has two properties in England, two in California, he drives a Range Rover over here and a Mustang over there as well as riding a motorbike. He has a season ticket to a Premier League team and always flies first class or at least business class.
He's 37 and plans to retire next year. Lucky chap, no?

Anyway, when he was building his business up and acquiring all of the goodies he now has, people would say to him "Why don't you get a Ferrari?", "Why don't you get a bigger house?", "Why don't you buy more houses?"
He very sensibly (in my opinion) decided not to do any of these things citing the reasons of "Things are going well now, but suppose something bad happens?" He meant illness, downturn to the economy etc. Now that there has been a downturn to the economy what has changed in his lifestyle? Nothing. He didn't go crazy in the good times so he hasn't had to tighten his belt in the bad times.
He doesn't have kids, but has already put money aside for the private education of two kids up to the age of 12 and with the interest that should earn, it should cover a good few years after that.

This family sailed close to the wind in the good times and now there has been a downturn they are really struggling. The downturn in the economy isn't their fault but they stupidly/naively/irresponsibly seemed to expect things to always be the same way and now that things have changed, they need to use a food bank to feed their kids and/or go hungry.

In my opinion, in this country, unless you have millions in the bank, its not wise to fire out seven kids, especially if you and your partner (if you have one) are in low income jobs. I'm not saying that there should be a formula that says how much you need to earn for each child, but the parents should think very carefully before firing out kids.

thelawnet

Rick Chasey wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

jamesco wrote:

They've put having 7 children ahead of their ability to support their children.

What's the alternative? If people want 7 children, you can't really stop them.

The alternative is, despite wanting them, to not have them. Nobody is suggesting stopping people having kids, simply commenting on if it is a reasonable thing to do if you can't afford them.

Are you on commission to get this thread finished?

But people will have them, like it or not.

Then what? Have children in poverty? Foster care homes are hardly havens for excellent upbringings..

People here are also making out that somehow living with 7 kids purely off the state is somehow luxurious since it's work free.

It's decidedly not, and, in terms of disposable income it's probably not far off the poverty line anyway.

Ah but the point in terms of the poverty trap is that for people in that position is that it looks like an attractive lifestyle choice - have more kids and you will be securely kept by HM Government. They are not choosing between working as a banker in the City and a life of Sky TV and Tesco Extra Value beans; they are looking at the career paths of those around them and concluding, quite logically that having government-sponsored kids is a more appealing option.

My grandparents were manual/domestic workers, my parents went to university, my own kids go to private school, we all aspired for better, whereas the systems set up over the last few decades are instead designed to keep people in their place - if you work a no-prospects, no-future 16 hour/week job, you get handed a lot of government cash. If you decide instead to work 40 hours a week with an eye to making something of yourself the government tax you and they take their money back, so you end up no better off or effectively working for £1/hour.

So obviously you decide that the no-prospects, no-future option is more attractive as it leaves you with plenty of free time compared with working a full week for no more money.

The cynical on the right call this the client state, a deliberate policy to maintain a large pool of voters dependent on the state for survival and therefore a guaranteed source of votes come election time.

DonDaddyD

I think the point of the matter is this.

Whether you like it or not we live in a Country that provides state benefits to those who qualify. "Child benefits" is one of them. Now I don't know about you lot but I like living in a society with these and I don't mind some of my salary going towards these things as there are clear benefits and for me those outweigh the negatives.

There are those, who work and receive benefits who were able to live within their means and who now cannot because either their particular benefit system has changed, the funding has been reduced and/or because the cost of living has gone up. You cannot criticise a family who worked out (pre-election) their finances which includes child benefits or housing benefits and are now complaining because it isn't enough and they cannot make the bills. It's a problem we all may face benefits or not. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to have the financial smarts to make a household budget robust enough to withstand some of the worst inflation we've seen in the past 20years. - To put that into perspective this is the first time in my lifetime such a thing has ever directly affected me.

I do not think these people living a life and claiming that which they are entitled to should be the subject of ridicule and complaint. If I'm entitled to claim a benefit I will be claiming it as is my right and I'm not going to be made to feel bad doing so, nor is it anyone's right to judge.

However many kids a person has is a personal choice. We do not get to decide how many another person 'should have' or if 'they can afford it'. Similarly if parents are unfit to raise those children, then we have, as a society, systems in place to protect those children.

Now seriously, I'm done.

spen666

CyclingBantam wrote:

....
No I'm not saying you should save up the full amount. Don't be obtuse.

I am saying there is a balance between saving up naff all and saving up the full amount. The point is, by having 7 children (which is not neccessary) you are opening up to massive cost, like you clearly point out, despite having no way of paying the cost (there is no doubt that has happened in this case).

I don't have children however, I would bet pretty much anyone one here, when they did decide to have children, considered if they can provide for them or if they would have to live on food hand outs should things get any worse.

That is what is lacking in the case in point.

This family could afford until the economy too ka turn for the worst.

If you lost your job, could you afford to pay your mortgage still~?

No, well then by your logic you have been irresponsible and stupid in taking on a commitment you cannot afford.

There is a world of difference between been unemplyed and poping out kids every 9 months for the benefits you can claim and someone who as a result of a change in circumstances cannot afford their previously affordable expenses.

Someone on here suggested there is a recession every 7-12 years, well if that is true, most people have a risk of losing emplyment every 7-12 years and so to take your logic would be advised not to have children as they may no longer be able to afford them.

fortunately, not everyone is so materialistic and when bad times come, people adjust their lifestyles accordingly