Big families

I agree that if they pay for themselves then it is their business. I think I would feel differently if one person in the family paid tax and NI and the rest assumed that this would cover them all, however.

I am all for choice and people living how they wish, but not if doing so forces others to support their choices financially. My friend, for instance, has four children. She has not worked since the first was born, and her daughters are saying that they don't plan to work either, despite having had university educations - instead they will rely on their husbands' contributions to 'cover them'.

My friend's husband works and contributes, but I doubt if it is anywhere near enough to cover the cost to the rest of us of all six of them, when you consider child benefit, education, the NHS, her pension, roads, public buildings and all the other things that come out of taxation and NI.

It galls me that there are people on low incomes who are taxed at source, and effectively forced to subsidise her family, and that she would definitely not see them as equivalent to a couple (or small family) on benefits. IMO it is exactly the same, which is one reason why I think that the Universal Credit system is so unjust.

It is tricky, as it would be horrible if we had a cost/benefit analysis applied to every baby who came along, but I do feel that we need to look more closely at how our society is funded. What we then do with that information is a whole other debate, of course, but I don't feel that we should buy into the demonisation of those at the 'bottom' - there is as much subsidisation of people who identify as middle class.

My sister in law by marriage had 11 children and never did a hand's turn. What irritates me is that she and B in L will probably get more state pension than myself and I worked 40 years for mine.

I still think it is selfish, personal responisibility goes way beyond an 'I'm alright, Jack' attitude.

I still think it is selfish, personal responisibility goes way beyond an 'I'm alright, Jack' attitude.

I think as this couple dont live on benefits then the size of family they have is their business.Of course some will say but they'll use the NHS and education etc.Their parents will pay taxes like everyone SHOULD .I remember reading about a family of immigrants who were abused and told to go home ,they pointed out that their family of 8 included 3 doctors ,2 lawyers a nurse and 2 teachers ..so who 's to say this family wont people services where they live .Its ONE family if every second house had 22 kids we should be concerned ,those days are gone.My GGGM had 18 ,only 4 survived ,those 18 included twins and triplets .

To be fair in this case I think they are self supporting, but will of course will get child benefits etc.

quizqueen I assume you wish to choose your own selection for the lucky 10%

Having a lot of children is totally irresponsible especially when the taxpayer often foots the bill. Family allowance and any other benefits should be limited to the first two only. The world is overpopulated. M0nica says it should be halved, I think 9/10 should go.

In this current day and age when most children live to adult hood. Replacement rate (2) is sufficient, 3 acceptable and 4 pushing the limits.

There is a world population problem, currently caused by too few deaths rather than too, too many births, but the world population should ideally be half its current level, so I think this behaviour selfish.

It is on google news today that their 18 year old D is also pregnant.
They really will have full house.