How do we solve this if people hate benefits?

[is30tooyoungformidlifecrisis]

I've been mulling this over for a while and really trying to avoid a goady post but I'm genuinely interested in what people think.

The reality is in the UK we have a rapidly declining birth rate and an ageing population, so in a decade we're going to be in trouble as a country.

On an individual level, people (that I see online) seem to be very anti-benefits for parents. I always see the line 'if you can't afford kids don't have them' etc. But the reality is that the cost of living is going up, childcare is up, housing is up, and if people literally cannot afford kids they won't have them and that's what we're seeing happen now.

On a wider society level, we need to encourage people to have children to keep our population stable, especially since politicians and the media have stirred up so much hatred towards immigrants so we can't rely on immigration to solve our population problem. The only solution I see is to increase benefits for having children and make it easier - eg. increase maternity pay, subsidise childcare costs, increase child benefit maybe in a means-tested way. But I think all that would go down like a lead balloon with people crying 'the government shouldn't pay for your kids, pay for them yourself' - but really, if the government have got the country to a point where it's a real problem, it's on them to sort it. What do you all think?

It’s not the benefits I object to - per se - it’s the fact that jobs do not pay a decent wage and 2 working adults should be able to afford housing and childcare without too much financial pinch -

I see parent ‘grateful’ for reduced childcare costs - they shouldn’t be - they should be able to afford it out of their own pockets - being given a boost for 3 years instead of a decent pay rise - doesn’t make it ok.

Imagine childcare fees of £800 a month every month for the foreseeable - it doesn’t make sense.

In 1925 the average life expectancy in the UK was 56 for men and 59 for women.

Of course it wasn't that most adults died in their 50s it was the fact many babies died.

I think retirement age will just keep rising.

And of course healthy life expectancy hasn't increased in years.

I think the problem is definitely housing. Just 20 years ago, far more households could afford for one parent to only work part time or to have longer off work when children were young. At our school, a middle class primary, this was the norm in the early years and most people weren't on benefits.
The costs of housing aren't going to change any time soon though, so I do agree there needs to be some kind of additional help for parents.

My parents are only 21 years older than me, and our lives couldn't be more different.

They had me young (clearly) and have been retired for over a decade.

I met DH when I was 37, had DD at 42 - both parents had retired at 60 having "worked hard all their lives" which actually amounted to about 35 years each.

They paid off the last of their small mortgage with some of the lump sum from their very good final salary pensions and in fact have exactly the same income as when they were working. They have full state pensions, free prescriptions, free bus passes, and the winter fuel allowance (which they they do not need) so while they have indeed worked hard, they've also had a wonderful retirement so far - long may it continue.

DH and I live in the South East, and although we've bought and sold our homes at the right time, making a nice amount each time we've moved, we will be working until at least 67 to pay off our mortgage. Our pension projections are such that we will have approximately 60% of our current income.

DH and I have both worked since we we're 16, but made the decision that in reality we couldn't afford more than 1 child due to the cost of child care and being able to support her into adulthood. We both have stable jobs in the public sector but even so, we don't live the life of Riley.

I don't know the answer and wish I did, But I would absolutely support greater means testing of certain benefits. I'd also like a fairer state pension system - my parents certainly don't need it at the moment, and maybe won't ever need it given their private pensions. DH and I are working on the assumption that when we retire a state pension may not exist. There is no bottomless pot of money, and benefits should rightly to go where they are most needed.

(we don't get CB, salary just over the threshold)

Tommy Tiernan did a funny bit on getting rid of 80year olds. Pretty sure he’s not wasnt serious either. On a serious note I do think we put a lot of resources into the elderly which aren’t necessarily well thought through. Ive had very elderly relatives attending appointments for a variety of conditions that they can’t treat but want to keep an eye on when dying from something else. Getting someone who is very elderly, frail and incontinent up to hospital to hang around for several hours is a huge endeavour sometimes and not necessarily in their best interest as nothing positive will come.

Of course that would have an effect on population size, if people died earlier than they do now, plus the fact as you say many babies died in infancy.

I’m not sure this wouldn't be a good idea for those of us who don't fancy a lingering demise in a nursing home!
I would quite like the idea of being able to say, yes, thats it I've had enough now, off to dignitas even if there was no terminal illness.
It’d be very handy to know how much to save in a pension too, if you knew when you were going to check out!

They won't be entitled to the wfa if they get a full state pension. Labour abolished it for all pensioners except those on pension credit.

Falling birth rates are only a problem if you want to keep the same size of state and infrastructure. We could easily have a managed decline, with whole areas turned back into natural habitats.

Small villages demolished. Small towns emptied and levelled, followed by the roads that were used to get to them.

Over time, we would lose whole towns and eventually cities. But if ee chose not to replace any of the infrastructure then we wouldn't need as much tax revenue.

We are also currently supporting a monstrosity of a government. The "state" is too big, too intrusive and too expensive. We need to get rid of state sponsored micromanagement in people's lives.

We can't afford the armed forces we currently have, let alone the one our government aspires us to have.

Managed decline to a sustainable level is the only viable option.

@2dogsandabudgie no I was saying the average adult didn't die in their 50s, infant deaths pulled down life expectancy.

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/aug/18/misunderstanding-life-expectancy

Falling birth rates are only a problem if you want to keep the same size of state and infrastructure. We could easily have a managed decline, with whole areas turned back into natural habitats.

So what does the interim period look like. In the 60s it was 5 workers to 1 pensioner, now it's 3:1 & not far off 2:1. What does managed decline look like? We don't have the infrastructure to cater for the changing demographics, so again how is that managed?

Where we live childcare is incredibly cheap, I’m talking about £120 a month, wrap around care is readily available and free, school meals are free, parental leave is both generous in pay and time, flexible working is the absolute norm for parents. The birth rate here is very similar to the UK.

Benefits, childcare etc will likely only lead to a small number of people having more children. We’re only really now seeing the impact of parenthood being a choice, there is still a stigma, but thankfully that ia reducing year on year.

Absolutely. Instead of getting angry about low pay and austerity the sheeple decide we should all meekly line up to be killed once we’re no longer of use to the economy. It should be a scenario confined to dystopian novels, not a matter for actual debate.

FFS wake up, sheeple.

If I'm going to be culled at 70 I would like to pack up work a bit sooner please.

Yes I agree with you and see that decrease in stigma as a positive. For women in particular. I also think it’s true for having one child. This is quite popular here, and I understand that.

I must be dim as I don’t understand the birth rate falling problem. As a society a small amount of people pay most of the tax, a big majority are hey takers and this is on the increase. With more and more people being born with disabilities and needing support for the whole of their lives, I cannot understand how having more is good for society. We are intent on keeping people alive when they don’t know who they are, where they are or who anyone else is.

The planet certainly doesn’t need more peopk, it has to be the most un green thing for the world to do.

So why are we constantly told that we need more babies when it would appear that unless they are all too rate taxpayers, it will actually make the situation worse. Or is this actually about capitalism and keeping the rich rich?

With more and more people being born with disabilities and needing support for the whole of their lives,

So fewer dc are born but more are disabled now. Is that factual or made up?

The reason falling birth rates are a concern is because even people who aren't top rate tax payers pay tax & our current model means todays workers pay for todays pensioners etc so it's not sustainable when you no longer have a pyramid population shape. A shrinking tax base & more older people puts more strain on public services.

"The data shows that an 85-year-old man costs the NHS about seven times more on average than a man in his late 30s. Health spending per person steeply increases after the age of 50, with people aged 85 and over costing the NHS an average of £7,000 a year"

Governments have used immigration to fill the gap but that's not that popular so who knows what is next.

Thus is likely true as medicine save much younger babies now. I used to work in school for profound disabilities and the nature of those disabilities got a lot worse over a couple of decades according to an older teacher I worked with.

But there is also more screening now

"The number of babies born before 27 weeks' gestation who survive and leave hospital increased between 1995 and 2006, but the proportion who experience serious health problems into childhood remained largely unchanged, according to new research published in the British Medical Journal."

We need to get away from the population ponzi scheme being the answer to paying for the older generations as they get old. I am far from clever enough to work out how, but this needs to stop being the answer.

I do think that the Assisted dying bill does need to come in though.

I like this idea. We completely miss childcare equity in this country. We want equality but it’s always a choice of mother or father to take leave, why not both and then Level the playing field in work too in terms of career gaps and progression. We need to encourage people to work, not end up with social gaps at the end (retirement), middle (maternity) and beginning (young people struggling to enter employment). We need births and we need to encourage working, not punish people who do both. Many women feel disadvantaged through taking maternity leave, it should be normalised across the workforce.

We need to get away from the population ponzi scheme being the answer to paying for the older generations as they get old. I am far from clever enough to work out how, but this needs to stop being the answer.

Would you stop immigration then?

I do think that the Assisted dying bill does need to come in though

realistically that is probably the answer.