Big families

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

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.

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.

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%

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 .

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.

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 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.

Sorry, Charleygirl5 - I didn't ignore your post. It just took me ages to write mine . I know how annoying it is when someone comes along after you (one) has posted and says the same thing sith no acknowledgment, but that isn't what happened.

Who are we to judge? There are small families who do a terrible job of parenting and large families, as other posters have commented, who give back to society tenfold. My maternal grandmother raised 12 children in a 3 bedroom council house between the 1920s and 1940s. All survived, a hardworking family with not much to go round.
Such large families are rare nowadays so I don't feel the need to get too exercised about it.

22 children! Just wonder why nowadays anyone would want that many. My DH came from a family of 9, one brother died in childhood, but this was back in the 1940’s and 50’s when contraception was not readily available. And he was from what was considered even then a large family.
Personally, I feel my two AC and five GC are more than enough for me to love and worry about.

Surely the damage to the planet if many people followed this family's example somewhat over shadows any pettey bickering of whether their decision is under pinned by government money.

Who is doing petty bickering?

There is no suggestion that many people are likely to follow their example, surely? I don't know anyone who would want to have so many children - even in the past when a lot of children died in infancy a family of that size would have been very much the exception.

Only two children receive child benefit Monica. There are more old people in Britain than young, who is going to look after us oldies?

Well obviously all the children from huge families midgey.

You are right MOnica very succinctly put.

I don’t think there is a limit on how many children you can get child benefit for, although I believe there is a tax implication for high earners. You cannot get a Universal a Credit for third or subsequent children but this only applies to children born after April 2017.
I agree if they are self supporting it is up to them, up to point, but I can’t imagine why anyone would want more than 6 at the most (only had 2 myself).

Slightly ashamed to admit I had 5!

Dh is one of 4 boys but there were only 10 grandchildren and I'm one of 4 and there are only 6 grandchildren so surely there is a bit of swings and roundabouts, isnt there?

It's not as though everyone has even one child never mind lots.

A beautiful family, too many but lovely and I bet they pull their weight as contributing adults when they grow up. I was one of 7 and I love having a lot of siblings, we all became professional contributers

Isn’t the increasing population bad for the environment? I’m sure I read somewhere forget the recycling and the electric cars, just don’t have kids!

The Radfords earn shed loads of money from Channel 4, not to mention new clothes, kitchen, furniture, baby stuff etc., etc.

There will no doubt be a documentary about this latest baby before very long.

Exactly merlotgran.

Not sure what to think. It's an addiction I believe and as such, surely less harmful than other addictions!

We had 4 which was a bit above average back then. We knew several families with 6 and more.

All 4 of my DGP came from families of 8 to 13. I can't imagine what that must have like for their poor mothers.

We have 7 DGC and that will be all.

When I had my fourth I was called irresponsible. My answer was that my children would be an asset to the world and they certainly are, all holding valuable jobs and raising another generation.
When the third world comprises 75% old people, who is going to look after them or pay taxes to support them?