I think it's important to remember it's not just those on payments who may be living beyond their means and continuing to have children they can't afford. There are families out there where dad earns a good income, mum is at home and may or not get FTB and due to poor financial decisions they are really struggling. This might include over extending themselves on a mortgage, buying heaps of crap, etc.
I think some are automatically assuming that it's only 'dole bludgers' that fit this category. As I said earlier, for me it isn't about income, it's how you are doing financially. You can have a family living well within their means on 40k and a family on 80k that just spend and spend and are actually worse off from bad financial decisions. In this case I would say the 80k family who are about to default on their mortgage should be having a child less than the 40k family with savings.
Is this question really as complicated as some are making it out to be?? My answer is - NO. You shouldn't even be considering having more children if you are struggling to provide for the one's you have. Commonsense really (or maybe not for some).
I realise unplanned pregnancies are always going to occur and obviously if support is needed in this circumstance then it should be provided. However, I believe to actively TTC when you are struggling financially is purely selfish.
I grew up in a poor house hold. Whilst we always had shelter and food ( looking back it wasn't very nutritional just something to fill the hole) there was also alot we missed out on because we didn't have the cash, which included essentials like proper uniforms and school supplies.
We were reliant on handouts. Whilst it was because of a relationship break up ( so unforeseen) I do feel once my sister and I were at school mum should have gone back to work full time.
She still is relying on handouts and hardly making ends meet and has gone without essential needs ( ie picking healthier option for food) just because she can't afford it ( note she now has a medical condition where she should be eating right but due to lack of funds doesn't )
So in response to the OP question based on my own experiences I believe that you shouldn't rely on handouts as its, and especially shouldn't have more children if you really can't afford them.
I believe it's creating a poverty / welfare depended cycle that is hard to get out of. I'm free after working my but off my my sister is still repeating history.
I believe allowing people to rely on handouts is cruel and picking on the already vulnerable. it doesn't help people to break the cycle and be dependent, also when the kids grow up the handouts dry up leaving you in a worse situation and relying on other handouts.
What do i mean by the statement above? I know a girl who has 6 kids with her partner, he is partly indigenous so she has led me to believe they get higher rates of handouts because of this ( have no factual evidence going off her word only). They make more from handouts and benefited ( meaning subsidised housing, transport, health care cards etc) each week that my husband and I - and we are on above average wages.
I was ****ed at first that I'm working my butt off but then it occurred to me- they make more now but in 18 years time their youngest will become an adult and they will loose most of their current "income". They will be relying on newstart and won't have their own place, where when our youngest turns 18 DH and I will still have the same income ( and have another 15-20 years earring that income), and should have our own house paid off.
I was simply trying to make a point that its not that black & white, in that someone who is totally reliant on benefits is so distinguishable from someone who only partly relies on benefits.
I think a big point in this whole discussion is that children are our responsibility for 18+ years. Anything can change at any time during that time and does for many. Being able to provide the basics at the start when they're babies doesn't necessarily mean one will be able to in 6 months, 2 years, 5 years from now. I was very lucky I had savings when my ex and I split when I was pregnant, otherwise I would certainly have been in the situation if relying totally on government benefits, BUT, that doesn't mean it would have been that way forever and heaven forbid I would have been told I should abort my baby because I no longer had my ex's financial stability.
But yes I do know the topic is about being able to afford the basics at the time someone decides to conceive and I don't know why anyone would make such a decision, however it really is an arbitrary kind of question which is why I was pointing out the difficulty and dynamic nature of financial stability. It's not that I didn't understand your points kw. Just coming from a different angle
But I do somewhat agree that living solely off payments with no end plan, and continuing to have child after child is a really bad idea.
Jeez HW, have I done something to p*ss you off?
You're reading far too deeply into my posts, and surely it's not difficult to see that what I was saying isn't about you and your situation.
I'll make it a bit more black-and-white to make it easier to understand:
*Couple A don't work. They have no plans to work. They live in public housing and barely scrape by each week. Some weeks, they have to get charity assistance just to feed their kids. They decide to have another baby.
*Couple B don't work. One half was working full-time while the other studied to better their job prospects. The working half of the couple was made redundant shortly after finding out they're expecting another child.
Couple A are the idiots. Couple B have just found themselves in a tricky situation.
Does that make it a bit clearer?
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!