another baby

well, I wish I hadn't started reading this thread, what a lot of judgemental, opinionated people there are on here, all with planned for families I assume?

And, frankly, the amount of young couples I see, with 3 or 4+ children, who don't work (many never have), and rely on benefits, well, I really don't believe it can all be blamed on accidental pregnancies. Lack of education, or stupidity, more likely. I can't be bothered to scroll back to see who wrote this piece of vitriol, but you need to give your head a wobble. Just how do you know, when you see a family out walking, that they are on benefits? Vile

boodymum67 Hope you don't leave without reading my post. I understand exactly what you are saying. No idea when it came into being that people's children were everyone else's problem, except the parents. Too many people feel they are 'owed' from society. " Look at me I have 4 children and counting and I can't afford to feed them?" Disgraceful attitudes and the do gooders will say, it is their right? Who's right? Why not have the family you CAN afford? No excuse in this day and age. Lots of people on the bandwagon about immigrants but in my experience the immigrants are hard working and take care of not only their children but their elderly parents also. It is their culture whereas ours seems to be - let the state take care of it!

I never give to any foodbanks (although to individuals I do) Reason being, too many greedy people who think they are entitled to freebies whether they need it or not. Been there/ Seen/heard it so don't bother disagreeing. Fact is IF you are on benefits with children, you WILL get enough to feed your children and have a roof over their heads but you will not have enough for cars/holidays/luxury items. No child will starve in this country unless parents use their money for other things.

So IF a parent is struggling then why have another? Then complain they are unable to care for their children? Not PC? Maybe not, but true.

Hello Hetty, I`m still here. I have taken time to read and think about all the responses my post attracted.

Some people agreed with me and some didn't. People don't always agree.

As I said before, taking part in a forum like this, is bound to bring opinions of all kinds.

We`re lucky we can voice our thoughts here and many a time when reading posts/responses, I have felt the OPs were harshly treated.

However I do take on board what has been said, although I do worry that the world has so many problems, that having large families isn't wise.

During mine and my husband`s and now my 2 working daughters` lifetimes, we have and still are, paying our taxes, NI, council rates, dentists, TV licences, road tax, plus all the bills we all have to pay.

Due to my disability I have had to spend a lot of money adapting our home to fit my needs. I am not looking for any sympathy for this. Some of you wanted to know my circumstances. I do claim disability payments as I couldn't afford to pay all the bills otherwise.

So yes, I do cost the country a certain amount, but like I said before, we have and still do pay taxes on our earnings.

I`ll let this be my last word on the is thread and hope those who think I am heartless can learn to be a bit more tolerant..as I have now.

Cheers everyone.

Yes Doodledog - and where is the OP? Notable by her absence?

I'd love to know where boodymum's money comes from. Does she reject all state help? Is she truly independent?

This is what I was getting at, Hetty, and I suspect that others were saying the same - I don't think any of us were saying that we see things in terms of cost/benefit, but were pointing out that on that basis most of us would be in deficit, so the OP should think twice before judging the woman with the baby.

I think the situation is being viewed from only one direction - the cost to the taxpayer.

Look at it another way. Who pays most into the 'pot' (not that there is one really, but just imagine)? Working age adults.

Where do they come from? Either they're grown UK-born children or immigrants. We really need them or the money runs out!

My (childless) boss complained, bitterly, about paying tax 'to educate other people's kids'.

I said 'Surely, you're just paying back for your own schooling?' He'd studied a degree with a full grant for three years!

I'd love to know where boodymum's money comes from. Does she reject all state help? Is she truly independent?

Or, is it like the Pink Floyd lyric 'Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie!'

The public purse pays out for treatment of lung cancer in smokers and joint replacements in people who suffer from obesity.
I believe the education system has become so exam focussed that we end up with a lot of kids with low self esteem. Some of them find they are good at having babies. It gives them a role and they feel successful at something.
Just a couple of thoughts, badly expressed!
I have 5 children, by the way!

Yes, quite Bibbity. It may not apply to the OP, but there are plenty of women who didn't work, depending on a husband and therefore paying nothing into the state themselves, that judge poor women for using food banks.

She may pay for carers but who pays for
GP visits, Hospital appointments, Scans, treatment, medication etc
If she’s had children that’s another 10s of thousands.
Very interested to hear what work OP does that means she has paid the hundreds of thousands into the pot so that she can judge others.

Problem is, it’s not much fun being the 4th or 5th child born into a family already stressed & living on the breadline ( or below )
The ‘poor but happy’ line doesn’t always ring true, especially if there’s 7 of you living in a damp, over crowded flat on the 14th floor of a tower block, and mum only has £6.50 in her purse ( to last the week )

The punctuation is all over the place in the above post, and I can't go back and edit, so I hope it makes sense.

I have no idea how far the average person 'pays for themselves'. If you do a cost/benefit analysis, there would be health care from birth to death, education, use of roads, public buildings, protection from crime and terrorism, all local council services for everyone, plus (for those whose circumstances qualify them there would be child benefits, pensions, maternity leave, sick pay, subsidised housing and care in old age in the 'cost to society' column. There would old be tax and NI in the benefit column. Nothing much else can be measured financially, so would have to be discounted in this view of an individual's worth.

I don't know whether Ms or Mr Average would end up in credit or deficit, but it's a horrible way of looking at people's 'affordability'. As I said upthread, I strongly suspect that a lot of people who pass judgement on others would be surprised at how much they themselves cost, particularly if they are assessed on their own contributions only - ie nothing paid by their parents, spouses or children.

In an ideal world Jennifer people would have small families and live a nice prosperous life and all be well, but life can be messy and unpredictable.

What is it about having more children than you can afford, is it the cost to the public purse? How is that even measured?

A family could have two children but those children may cost the state a lot of money throughout their lifetimes for a variety of reasons.

Posters can be so censorious of other peoples' choices/circumstances.

I completely agree but astonishingly stating the fact that people should limit their family to the size of their budget doesn’t seem to go down well on Gransnet as I have found in the past.

Someone actually replied to a post of mine on the subject to say “so do you actually believe people should only have the children they can afford ?”

That just about sums it up for me too rafichagran

The OP pays for her own care. I too get irritated by people having more children than they can afford, but accept it's none of my business, and I try not to judge. Accidents can happen.

Sorry. The OP

Who is your comment addressed to, Bibbity?

So are we to assume then that you have taken more from the state than you have pod in?

Very well said, Doodledog. People just don't realise that the vast majority of working-age benefits go to those who are in paid work.

Pensioners are in receipt of a pension - classed as a benefit - so are 'benefit claimants' too!

The question of who should be supported by the state is always going to be a vexed one, as the vitriol is always reserved for poor families, or more often for poor women who aren't working, often because the cost of childcare would outstrip their earning potential.

What about middle class women who choose not to work to bring up their families more conveniently? They often claim that their husbands pay for their right to health care, pensions, education, security, etc, but realistically, they don't. The structure of the tax system works against that, and in any case, if the husband is a high earner, he should be paying more tax as a matter of course - not to allow another able adult to avoid contributing their own.

There is also the question of who contributes to society by virtue of their occupation (as opposed to earnings). Arguably, a volunteer who pays no tax but does something like hospital visiting is contributing more than a high earner who 'only' produces profit, but how can that be measured?

Even if we could iron out those anomalies, how can an outsider feel able to comment on someone using a food bank when pregnant? We don't know the circumstances of the pregnancy, or the reason for the mother needing to use the food bank, and nor is she under any obligation to tell us, unless we want to go back to Poor Law conditions where those in need had to plead their case to a panel of 'more deserving' citizens.

I wonder how many people who complain about the 'feckless' poor would actually have any moral right to be on that panel if all things were considered.

Crikey Boodymum. Why be so judgemental about other people's lives?

Esspee says there's contraception (as does oldbat1) - well, yes there is - and it all has a failure rate!

Thankyou to all who replied to my post....a variety of views on the news item. I`d just like to add that the woman was not pregnant when her husband lost his job. Okay the pregnancy may not have been planned. But wouldn't it have been better and wiser to use contraception, in times of need?

Some agreed with me, others didn't. That`s why we have forums like this...to air our views..otherwise what is the point of them?

A note to Chewbacca.....re someone to wipe my bum...I already have that as I am chronically disabled and pay for my care myself.

Some accused me of being uncharitable. You couldn't be further from the truth, as I help many charities.

I`ll leave it there and wish everyone good health.

Since 2017 benefits are not paid for any more than 2 children. Apart from families who already had more than 2. Just saying.

A timely reminder, pensionpat, I'd actually forgotten about that.

I think a couple of contradictory things.

Firstly, I find people who don't control their fertility intensely annoying. We have a huge range of birth control available, free, in the uk. However, I do understand that accidents happen. And although pro-choice, I don't really approve of abortion. I do support the choice of others to make their own decision about their pregnancy tho. But surely, no one should have more than one accident?

Secondly, food banks were needed BEFORE the pandemic due to the systematic lowering of state help for the poor. So of course the need for them has increased, with many people losing jobs, or those on zero hours contracts losing their income.

If you and I don't need food banks we need to be grateful. And sympathetic towards those who do.