I am given tax credits and housing benefit, and guess what, I work full time (40 hours per week) and have by all accounts a fairly decent salary. My childcare cost are very high, due to working full time and the rent in the region I live is also high. So what do you suggest for people like me? Unless massively subsidised childcare was offered as well as a rent cap or more access to affordable social housing, there is no solution. I simply do not have enough wage to cover the basic costs as a lone parent. What's your solution?
Answering your question....
When I am Queen of the World the very first thing I will devise is a 360° policy that -
-enforced child support at realistic levels.
-sanctions of biblical proportions for people who take steps (faux self employment books, hiding assests, declining to work while living with somebody else that supports them) to evade their responsibilities to their children. With a dedicated task force to track, investigate, tail, honey-trap, pressure and anti-PR the fuck out of offenders. Which will be expensive. However in the longer term the more risk averse amoung potential offenders would likely decide the potential cost of evasion is too high compared to savings made via non-contribution. So there'd be fewer offenders to focus efforts on, which would reduce the costs of the policy. I also hold the view that partial and full abondonment of the principle of making your children your priority has long term ramifications for many of the kids in the long term. Which can lead to costs to society, in terms of multi-generational repeated patterns, lost potential, mental health issues and sub clinical emotional issues. I'd hope it would break even in terms of reduced gov spending via lowered health/policing/educational support/SS/child maintence costs. But am not too fussed if it remains an additional expense. Cos... ethical grounds.
-Bird's nest arrangements as standard for the children of seperated parents (specific exemptions when it is not in the best interests of the children). So the parents carry the emotional and logistical burden of a split household, rather than the kids. And one parent isn't lumbered with the real economic/emotional/time/energy investment required by parenthood. While the other pootles around mostly relived of their responsibilities and at risk of ever increasing emotional detachment. It would help cement a "socially acceptable" notion that parenthood isn't something you get to opt out of after you've made real, live children.
As per child care costs. I'd expect people to look into the costs of having children beyond the obvious stuff at birth like nappies/pushchairs etc. But viewing it instead as a large and changing set of costs as the child grows. Costs that will exist even as life's status quo (income, illness, accidents, family stability) changes, perhaps not always for the better. I'd be on board with funding a gov. calculator/economic costs projector so people could be as informed as possible as per what it will likely cost them to raise a child, based on is various ages and stages. With widgets to factor in what it would look like if various curveballs hit. Plus big red reminders that if one should change one's mind about supporting children once the bullet is bitten...the Special Task Force (see above) will be on one's arse with the persistence of a Tom in the vicinity of a Queen on heat.
All the above may be one of the varied reasons why nobody wants me to be Queen of the World.
Back in the real world... I think people need to factor in that it has become socially acceptable enough for parents to opt out of parental responsibilities (all of them. Economic, emotional, time, energy) without suffering any particular social sanction.
I knew that if the worst case scenario hit I could cope and support DS on my own. But 2 or more would not be feasible. Not on the income I earn and am likely to earn. If the shit really hit the fan for my earnings, my family would have been ready, willing and able to support me +1. But more than one would have risked placing too much pressure on them. The late FILs would also have helped in terms of DS if DH had done the dirty. However, that was factored in as a short term source of help, due to their advanced years.
Either the "not so hard to opt out of parental responsibility" status quo changes, or the parent most likely to get lumbered with the majority of the responsibility for any off-speing needs to bear in mind that reality when planning their family.
As long as that is the reality either pushing through sweeping change to minimise parental opting-out, or factoring it into one's family planning (as a possible curve ball) are the only 2 realistic options that give the children the best possible chance of not paying the price for parental choices.
I don't think the gov. stepping in to replace a lack of economic support from one parent has done a great deal to dissuade the numbers who do it. However if the birth rate dropped and people were not shy about pointing to the "might have to do it alone curveball" risk as one of the factors in their family planning, then I think there might be the possibility of policy changes aimed at reducing the extent to which some people opt-out, with little thought to the wide ranging issues this causes their children.
None of which could help you. Because there are no instant solutions. You are living with the result of decades of policy and changes in social outlook.
Which is why I wouldn't advocate stripping away the current support system
- without a robust, tested system ready to be phased in to take its place
- putting into place systems to thwart the causes of need for lone parent support.
-pleanty of time for expectations and mind sets to adjust to a new reality.