Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

In thinking people should be paid to not have children?

45 replies

Hammy02 · 26/01/2011 09:18

I know I will get flamed for this but just thought I'd put the idea out there. Seeing as the world is unable to sustain population growth at the current rate, how about paying people to not have children? Reaching 50 you get say, £30,000. Think of the money saved on education, healthcare, green resources etc of children?

OP posts:
LacksDaisies · 26/01/2011 10:06
Biscuit
mamatomany · 26/01/2011 10:07

If they are worth £30k each to buy, can I rent them out pro rata ? I wouldn't be without them all the time but a break would be nice Grin

KnittedBreast · 26/01/2011 10:08

It would be a bad idea to encourage people in the uk to not have children as we have an aging population and not enough new people to support the older ones.

how would this scheme work? at age 50 do you get the pay out? if done any younger they might take the cash and have a child anyway.

Its quite disgusting to comment that only the rich should have children.....

marantha · 26/01/2011 10:24

Nice idea, but I suspect it would be hell of a thing to work out in practice.

frgr · 26/01/2011 10:33

Education and empowerment of women through financial training.

It is well enough documented in social studies and government reports that there is a negative correlation between the number of children per family and the educational level of women in a household.

Saddam Hussein, hardly at the forefront of the fight for women's equality of opportunity, found this out to his cost, I believe, back in the day. He was embarassed about the level of illiteracy rates shown for the country, so decreed that women should attend basic educational classes, to learn how to read and write (and raise the country's standing internationally, etc. - maybe it was for more aid for all I know).

If I recall correctly, initial resistance to the idea was smashed when men refused to allow their women out to the schools via threats to cut off utility supplies like water to the home.

Unfortunately, their government discovered an alarming trend as a result of this policy: the birth rate decreased. The government drive was stopped.

Educate women, and you educate future generations.

It's only by providing that, plus freely available contraceptives, telling religious leaders to fuck off with their rhetoic, than this planet has any hope of sustaining our race in the luxury to which the western world has become accustomed to.

mamadiva · 26/01/2011 10:33

OP there are FAR too many exceptions to the rule on this one. How would you deal with
-Addicts who were too wasted to care
-Men who deny parentage
-Adoptive parents
-Infertile couples?

The first 2 don't deserve a penny in my opinion but you cant havea scheme like this and nrefuse these groups. The second 2 are alot more deserving but I think they would be insulted by the crappy gesture!

Surely the amount of people who would deny parentage would cost more to test than you would be handing out anyway so what is the point?

Being very logcal in my mind... but there is also the fact it's just a crap idea generally. But if you just thought it up then you can be forgiven :o

cory · 26/01/2011 10:34

And these 30k presumably will come out of the taxes paid by the children other people did have. So what if everybody decides to be childless and take the 30k- who is going to pay them? Hmm

frgr · 26/01/2011 10:34

p.s. some interesting articles on micro loans to women in third world countries out there. These schemes prove that empowering women works to bring people out of poverty in the long run, increases the ability for them to access education, and thereby have more control in their lives when it comes to major decisions such as when or how many children they have.

ApocalypseCheeseToastie · 26/01/2011 10:35

Oh fuck off

[bbiscuit]

PlanetLizard · 26/01/2011 10:36

YABU

StuffingGoldBrass · 26/01/2011 10:36

If you do fret about world population growth, OP, why not get involved in activism for the one thing that does reduce the birth rate - empowering and educating women in developing countries?

BuzzLightBeer · 26/01/2011 10:37

you know most of Europe is below replacement level birth rate?

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 26/01/2011 10:46

you're going to have to lower your age thing though OP if you want it to be a global thing.

20 countries in the world (10% of them) have a life expectancy under 50. And a heck of a lot more of then life expectancy isn't much more than 50.

You know if you really want to tackle the poor countries with this one then you need to make it an age which most people can expect to live until........

But then again we could just empower women through education and such like. And try and spread the wealth around a little you know. I mean Brazil - its a poor country right????

Well no - economincally it's very rich - it's one of the richest in the world - it's just the majority of the population don't get any benefit from it's vast wealth of resources...

And the food thing........plenty of that to go around too if we didn't have food quotas and a lot of greedyness and waste.

I'm not uptodate on these things these days but I believe there has been some talk of removing the CAP food quotas (or some may have been removed???). But there are "food mountains" - where surplus food is basically chucked in a warehouse because there's too much of it to export/import to other countries/for people to use.

Ciske · 26/01/2011 10:46

And who will pay up those £30k? Certainly not MY kids with THEIR hard earned taxes!

And if you accept the £30k, do you then foresake any help you might need in old age from the younger generation, seeing these youngsters are selfish existing in the first place?

OTheHugeManatee · 26/01/2011 10:47

Daft idea. The whole business of old age pensions is predicated on population growth, especially on there being more younger/working people than oldies.

If you start paying people to not have kids, then you end up with a disproportionately elderly population and no tax revenue to pay their pensions. Then either the oldies starve, or the youngies have to pay a disproportionate amount of their earnings to keep the oldies in compression tights and sherry.

It's kind of happening at the moment, and is part of the reason taxes are so high and house prices are so unaffordable for first-time buyers. Why would you want to make it worse?

meantosay · 26/01/2011 10:50

So, someone can't have children but really wants them, spends years and years trying, feels really sad about it and then gets a wad of cash when they're for 'not having children'??
Very sensitive.

meantosay · 26/01/2011 10:50

Sorry, when they're FIFTY.

ivykaty44 · 26/01/2011 10:51

One state in India has started paying married couples a bonus payment if they delay having their first child and then delay have a subsequent child. This is to reduce numbers of overall children. The payments are not made until the first child is born.

There is take up of this and some couples do fall off the wagon - then they don't get any money

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 26/01/2011 10:51

yes, only rich people should have many children Hmm

ivykaty44 · 26/01/2011 10:58

Far better to organise a sensible scheme to pay for teens not to have babies until the reach the age of 21.

calculating the initial cost of babies to teens and then applying that similar expenditure to go out to young people would in itse;f be a saving.

Long term there would be more savings. As we have the highest rate of teen pg in eurpoe it could be worth looking at and with excellent contraception aides not a problem for teens to such a scheme and get contraception aid at the same time to make sure morning after pill and abortions weren't used as a form of contraception. The teen would say have to sign up other wise they wouldn't be illegiable at a later date to claim the money

New posts on this thread. Refresh page