Where I work, parents earn more than childless people... and it annoys me

[MustBookADentistAppointment]

So, where I work, parents receive an allowance because they have children. I don't have any children, but I would really like them. The argument is that people with children need the money because it's expensive having kids. Which I don't disagree with for a minute, but it pisses me off, nonetheless.

I'm single. Which means I have to pay all my rent/mortgage etc on my own, which is expensive. More expensive than if I lived with a partner. But I don't qualify for extra salary. Clearly, it's my choice to live alone, and I'm not blaming being single on my colleagues but hopefully you see what I mean. I'd also like a dog, but wouldn't get extra money to pay for dog daycare/walkers etc (I am NOT comparing having children to having a dog, just explaining that my lifestyle choices don't qualify for extra payments, like they would if I had children).

I can totally see the merit in an allowance for children, but am I being unreasonable to be pissed off about it? I'm slightly jealous of them, and am also paying through the nose for private therapy to try and manage/get over being alone and feeling sad about it - I just feel that their lifestyle is being subsidised, whereas mine isn't, even though it's kinda expensive too.

Do y have children sonyaya?

If you don't have children, you ought to be thanking your lucky stars that other people are paying for the expense of doing so, so that they can fund all the public goods and services you'll enjoy in later life

Now this is grade A bollocks.

Do you really expect people to believe that you had children for the good of the nation? for the good of other people? Because that is delusional.

Having children is a necessity for the continuation of the human race. Stop this "life style choice" bollocks. If people don't want to have kids, that is ok! But generally having children is what humans do!

Children are not a lifestyle choice. A poodle is a lifestyle choice. Twigs and pebbly shit are lifestyle choices. Children are people.

If we in the UK had had a few more of them between 1970 and 2004 we wouldn't have ended up with such a messy immigration problem for a start. And there might be enough young people paying tax and being carers to make our own old age a bit less fraught.

FFS

If you don't want the costs associated with children, don't fucking have children. Don't have children then expect others to be paid less for doing the same job as you because you made an expensive lifestyle choice.

And one might equally say then that those who don't have children and bear the expense and effort of raising them are expecting a free ride on the future taxpayer's expense, not having paid to produce any future taxpayers but expecting to live off other people's children's taxes when it comes to it.

Don't like that argument? Don't come out with the equally stupid "children are a lifestyle choice" bollox then. Unless you want the same kind of daft far-right logic to be applied to you.

All these benefits mentioned such as subsidised childcare and private school fees paid for are payments in kind. The employee is paid more because they have kids. They are just calling it a benefit rather than actual cash salary.

boney This isn't about subsidizing. When you want to retain talent you need to take a persons personal circumstances into account. A single person expected to travel who doesn't have DC just does not have the same overheads as a parent with the same expectation. To keep talent in certain positions you need to pay more. The policy worked very well for my fathers company. They retained many more women by paying extra. The divorce rate also fell as the financial pressure of having a travelling spouse decreased.

scottishdiem Well if you are single and have no kids, you don't have the same overheads. You also don't know if the child was planned or not. Some families had foster children with them that were their nieces and nephews. When the employee asked for a week off to settle the children my Dad gave him a handshake, a cheque and 6 months off on full pay (same as maternity).

Piglet I disagree. In business if you have a necessary expense you can deduct it. For taxes you have an allowance as a recognition of the cost of existing. Just because I might earn GBP50k doesn't mean I earn GBP50k. After taxes and childcare it would be at or close to zero.

For these people who think it is unfair, do you think it is fair that working parents are often earning less than minimum wage once you net their salary against childcare costs?
I work for less than minimum wage once you net my salary against my rent. Should my employer be paying my rent then?

'Hmm try and encourage even more disadvantaged groups back to work? That sounds hard I think I'll just keep moaning instead'
But people choose to have children. I considered work v. SAH and childcare costs v. salary before deciding to have DD. It's not the same as people who can't help their "disadvantage", e.g. people with disabilities or people from minority ethnic groups.

What about companies offering access to a gym, should they give money instead to someone who can't use it for a physical reason?

My company does this.

We have an amount that we can use for various lifestyle benefits.

It can go towards extra holiday days, or gym membership, or sports clubs. People have successfully got massages with this money (in that case you buy the thing yourself then submit a receipt).

*If you don't have children, you ought to be thanking your lucky stars that other people are paying for the expense of doing so, so that they can fund all the public goods and services you'll enjoy in later life

Now this is grade A bollocks.

Do you really expect people to believe that you had children for the good of the nation? for the good of other people? Because that is delusional.*

So you are planning to take a free ride off other people's taxes in the future, without bearing the cost of producing those future taxpayers yourself?

Yes, don't come out with such daft neoliberal rubbish as "lifestyle choice" blah blah, if you don't like the same argument coming back the other way.

Try to think of children as people, who will one day form the society that you will live in. If you talk about them like they're the equivalent of buying a buy to let or an expensive car, you're not only a dupe of right-wing ideology but also lacking in a sense of humanity as anything beyond commercialism.

People who say "you aren't paid less" - what do you think would happen to this money if it were not being given to parents?

Would it be spent on new carpets for the office, or might some of it end up in smaller pay rises for everyone?

If we in the UK had had a few more of them between 1970 and 2004 we wouldn't have ended up with such a messy immigration problem for a start

OK, ease off the xenophobic crap please...
The truth is that not everyone needs to have children in order for society to continue. However, I fully agree that it should not be seen as a lifestyle choice, because someone has to have them. But a slowing birth rate is not necessarily a bad thing and nor is immigration for that matter.

Also, do not assume that childless people do not contribute because very often they end up caring for elderly parents. That is just as important as the new generation. Sadly, carers for the elderly tend to get marginalised in favour of parents, but both are doing a vitally important job.

Wow talk about a pity party. Get over yourself. You're just upset about being single. Hell you even said so yourself. We used to get a payment to help cover the cost of working outside normal childcare hours but lost it because of people like you. It meant that parents stopped working outside of childcare times and singles were expected to pick up the slack. And as for the time off work. It's not like it's a holiday. It's unpaid time to deal with emergencies and everyone is entitled to it. Unless you want a vomiting toddler in your office?

None of these opinions matter anyway, because if individual people negotiate particular salary packages, they can contain money for whatever the company chooses.

If some people in well paid jobs are offered even more money to make them stay once they have children, so fucking what? What difference does it make to any of you?

If you don't have children, you ought to be thanking your lucky stars that other people are paying for the expense of doing so, so that they can fund all the public goods and services you'll enjoy in later life. Perhaps a small perk from their employer isn't too much when you consider that you're depending on other people having children in order to provide you with a whole society of taxpayers when you're older.

Absolute rubbish. Are you telling me that your first thought when having DC was this? Don't say that people calling having DC is bollocks when you then post this rot.

You are also assuming that the reason that some don't have DC is because they chose not to not because they can't.

so in effect, you are paid LESS because you don't have children, by choice or circumstances. You are paid LESS because your baby died. Yes, sounds fair.

do you think it is fair that working parents are often earning less than minimum wage once you net their salary against childcare costs? How would you feel working for less than minimum wage while your single colleagues moan about how parents are giving preferential treatment?

Well, I am a mum. I am not earning less than the minimum wage, I am earning a certain amount and what I chose to do with it is up to me. Childcare, holiday, mortgage (South East is damn expensive) or Prosecco. Should I be paid more than someone with a smaller mortgage too?
People need a roof, food and ideally running water. Are you planning on deducting all the living costs from someone's salary to compare with minimum wage?

Wow talk about a pity party. Get over yourself. You're just upset about being single

Feelinglikeablueturtle you really and truly are a dick, aren't you?

"Wayfarersonbaby"

So we have children as a lifestyle choice or a tool of capitalism? I can understand that children can be seen as an economic tool in families who need children to work in the countries where that is still a thing but I havent seen the get-your-future-paid-for-have-more-kids leaflets in maternity wards.

It is easy to find people to work on a planet that is overpopulated and so many countries struggle to get people contraception and sex education. Unless you mean you only want of white Brits? Children are a choice. Nothing else.

wayfarers

What a genuinely terrible argument. I think paying a huge amount of tax into society which funds free nursery places/the education system/SMP etc means I (if I don't have children) am not expecting a "free ride" off anyone.

I make no complaints about this. Quite happy to pay taxes to help parents via child benefit, working tax credits, state education etc etc. Children are part of society. That is a totally separate issue.

But to tell a non parent their labour is worth less simply because they haven't - or can't - become a parent is completely indefensible.

And I agree with PP that it is ridiculous to suggest people have children for the good of society. People have children because they want a family.

andknowitsseven

No, I don't. Interested to see where you go with that.

Wayfarersonbaby

I haven't come out with any life style choice bollocks, (that is what it is) I am responding to your post that I should be grateful because you had children.

I am paying towards the upkeep of your children in many ways, NHS, Schools etc.

So I am in no way "freeloading" from your children. It is a quid pro quo situation which I am quite happy with, but I don't have to put up with the bullshit that you had children to benefit other people.

Who knows what the money would have been spent on? No guarantee that scrapping child allowances would lead to a raise for everyone in my workplace, it'd probably just be considered a 'saving' and not passed on and there would be no winners. Lots of losers though including parents with disabled adult children and dependent elderly parents.

Children are a choice. Nothing else

Not always.

Having children is a necessity for the continuation of the human race.

But a pretty bad choice from a global ecological perspective. We're hardly endangered, as a species.

Boney

It's a fiscal demonstrated fact that parents eventually pay in more than they get out once you consider what happens when their children become working age.

Not a reason to have kids if you don't want but something to bear in mind.

DH works for a European bank based in the UK and gets an additional £200 per month for every child he has under the age of 5.

Not always

I accept that. The vast majority are.