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.

Toast

Global population growth is mostly a result of past high fertility. In developed countries, migration is the key factor - with fertility alone populations would decline in these countries. Not necessarily a bad thing but certainly challenging economically and socially

Want2bSupermum

I have no problem with paying to keep talent, I have an issue in that if I am doing the same job as you I get paid the same as you.

The personal overheads of what the person should have no influence on a firm. If a firm wants to pay someone who is back from maternity leave more to keep then that is fine, but if I am doing the same job then I should be on the same rate and I for one won't expect well they have kids as an argument to pay them more. .

papafran You think that is extreme?!? For 3 DC aged 5 and under, while both parents work FT, GBP25k is low. Friends in the UK who are doing what we do are paying for a nanny and paying about GBP30k in the NW. The hours are a minimum of 50/week more when one of them is travelling. That also doesn't include activities that their youngest is taken to.

Banjo 'Ultimately having children is discretionary - no individual has to have children.' Actually having children is a very normal part of life for the vast majority of adults. Employers who pay more to parents are recognizing the difference in costs. Childcare is one, larger home, supporting a spouse not working etc.

My Dad found that paying extra to working mothers helped keep them working during the early years. My Dad supported a working mother through having 4DC and paid her more for each DC she had because he wanted to retain her. Her DH was the SAHP, not her. He had a good career and went down to a 40% schedule because her career was the one they decided to follow. It also helped reduce the divorce rate of the men whose wives stayed at home. Overall, paying more to parents enabled him to keep the workforce he wanted.

TonaldDrump

The parent pays more or the family unit pays more?

And yes from a VAT point of view parents are going to pay more as they have to pay for the child to eat, be clothed etc.

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

Exactly. Of course they do. That is also why people would rather spend thousands on IVF than considering adopting a child without a home (although I admit that adoption holds its own challenges). People want to carry on their own genetic line. Overall, the word needs the birth rate to slow down. People who do have children are not selfless and people who do not are not selfish.

Care is about more than infant and child care. Contributing to the care of the ageing population is far more selfless and altruistic than paying for nursery care. You get very few rewards from it, yet someone has to do it.

We should support all carers, no matter who they care for. We should not stigmatise or bully those who do not have children or presume they are getting a 'free ride'. They are not. There are also many children born with conditions that mean that they are unlikely to ever be productive members of the workforce. They also need care and their parents should not be treated less favourably because their child will not grow up to be a doctor/banker etc.

Employers who pay more to parents are recognizing the difference in costs. Childcare is one, larger home, supporting a spouse not working etc.

Don't need childcare if a spouse isn't working. Don't necessarily need a larger home either.

So those that have disabled partners then. Did your dad pay them any more or these 'bonusrs'

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.

Oh for heaven's sake. You've never heard of a devil's advocate argument before?

I'm trying to point out to you the bollocks that is the "children are a lifestyle choice" stuff. If you believe that, you should equally believe all that that implies in the terms of the same logic. If children are a lifestyle choice, then those who don't choose to have them should equally believe that it would be a "lifestyle choice" to depend on those children in old age. No? You don't think so? Then drop the silly right-wing stuff about "lifestyle choice" or you will find that people will start applying it to you.

Humans have children. Some people care for others at different times in their lives, and get various forms of compensation for that work they do. Some people can't have children, or don't, or care for other relatives, and some people end up "taking" more out of the system than others because they are disabled, or ill, or unlucky, or any number of other things. And some people pay in more than they get out, and they might also be lucky, or clever, or earn more, or blessed with wealthy families, or whatever. In society, we pay in and get out uneven amounts, but that's also because we recognise that someday we might need something back as well.

Our collective healthcare, pensions and whole welfare state works on this principle. It only works because we as a society collectively agree that our society doesn't work unless we pay in things at some time and take them out at another time. There is no special fund of all your own personal taxes waiting for you to draw down when you need it: all your future needs will be met by future taxpayers. If you want to spout the bollocks that is this sub-Thatcherite "lifestyle choice" thing, be prepared for the fact that you can't cut the strings of paying for others if you want anything back from the system yourself. Perhaps you would do better to think of having children as hard necessary work that some people undergo and it means the whole collective structure of society can carry on. That doesn't mean that you have to do it in order to be part of the system. It does mean that you ought to be obliged to recognise that you will depend on those children as well, and if you don't participate willingly in society, with all the respect for humanity and collective endeavour that that implies, that you are a hypocrite for expecting that other people will do so so that you may benefit.

pointstaken

Re Should I be paid more than someone with a smaller mortgage too? as I said upthread, there is a company in my city where my DB works where yes, you would get a higher pay packet if you had a £30k mortgage than if you had a £20k mortgage because the employer pays half the interest on a mortgage up to £30k. They will do this for both parties if a couple who works there shares a mortgage.

There are loads of ways that employers pay certain employees more, especially in sectors or areas where there are skills shortages.

I still don't understand how the additional payments for children is different from maternity payments or bonuses beyond statutory minimum.

Actually there is another company in my area who gives parents additional paid annual leave to accommodate emergencies/child sickness etc.

Boney

The parents bear the vast majority of costs of children. Those children grow up and become productive. This outweighs all the social investments. For society, the net result is positive.

Wayfarersonbaby You quoted me. I never said that it was a lifestyle choice I was just pointing out the flaws in your arguement.

I also have DC but rant away...

Want2b given that the majority of the population of this country earns less than 25k per annum and the majority of parents work, yes, you are paying at the upper end for childcare. It may be normal or even low in your social circle, but in others, you will find people having to rely on nursery and/or childminder to keep the costs down.

The argument was meant to have flaws, Piglet, that was the point

Perhaps you would do better to think of having children as hard necessary work that some people undergo

I literally cannot believe you just wrote that.

Your argument doesn't work. Give it up.

Incidentally I want nothing more than to become a mother one day. My fiancé and I will TTC once we are married. It's what we want to do. I don't understand how or why that is analysed as anything other than a choice on our part.

TonaldDrump

The parents bear the vast majority of costs of children.

As they should do. But society supports by VAT free clothes, education, nursery subsidies, education, health care etc.

Those children grow up and become productive.

Most do, some don't but yes generally.

This outweighs all the social investments. For society, the net result is positive.

Hence the quid pro quo part of my post. Society aids in paying for the child, and society benefits.

No real argument from me.

Previously pointed out, but it isn't direct discrimination.

It could theoretically be indirect discrimination on the grounds of age, sexual orientation or possibly disability - but a claim would only succeed if the employer failed to demonstrate that the policy was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Assuming that those without children are paid at least market rate and therefore aren't directly impacted by the company's decision (i.e. Their salaries aren't reduced), it probably is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of retaining highly skilled staff who might otherwise be unable to work full time.

That's how I'd argue it, anyway

happypoobum

Bonuses are paid based on performance, or even general behaviour. They are not paid based on how well your reproductive organs work!

Actually there is another company in my area who gives parents additional paid annual leave to accommodate emergencies/child sickness etc. I do know a few who do that, and it's bloody unfair too. I think legally you can have 5 more days anyway. What about people who have to care for family members? If you need time off, just take a holiday or unpaid leave.

The money is here to help with childcare? It's bollocks, some parents have free childcare anyway, others don't.

Having your wage calculated based on your family circumstances is not right.

Sorry pointstaken I meant maternity pay or maternity bonuses (paid on return) that are above the legal minimum. These are additional cash payments made only to parents.

I didn't mean performance type bonuses.

I disagree that childcare expenses are in the same league (as a pp said) as rent, holidays or prosecco. Childcare is something I only use in order to go to work - if I didn't work I would still want a home, holidays and drink; but I would not need childcare. It's more similar to a travelling expense that you need to pay to get to work.
Whether or not employers should pay such expenses is another matter, but it isn't a voluntary expense for parents.

Piglet He had two disabled employees on the shop floor (in a European country) and the government paid their wages in full. My Dad tried to pay them and they said it wasn't allowed. One had a mental age of about 12 and it was explained that paying them would cause more harm than good. When my Dad sold the facility he included a clause forbidding the new owner from firing both disabled employees. Penalty of GBP5 million per disabled employee paid into a trust f/b/o the disabled employee. Both are still working at the facility.

There were one off payments made to families who had sick relatives but mainly my Dad gave whatever time they needed at full pay. As long as it was agreed in advance all was ok. An employee with a wife who had cancer went part time for 18 months and took 3 months off after she died. They had 2 DC and the family was devastated. My Dad sent over his cook to batch cook for their family 3 times a week when his wife got really sick. There was also a father whose baby was born with significant issues and passed after a week. The wife was given no real help and had significant mental health issues. My dad paid for them to have private help in full and also paid the father more so the wife could take the time off that she needed.

When you have a smaller business which is heavily dependent on the employee's talent you treat people differently. Also, my Dad had a business with high enough margins to pay for it all.

papafran Most with 3DC are not working in a paid job because childcare is so expensive. Some help might see more mothers continue to work. Those with a career can't afford to take time off beyond maternity leave. You will never get back into the workplace where you left if you do that.

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

For heaven's sake

Your future pension, social and healthcare draw-down from the state will many times outweigh the cost you pay towards education, young children etc.

But even if it evened out, you have so COMPLETELY missed the point. The point is that mine and other people's children will be needed to pay for your future costs. You're paying for my child's state education so that they will pay for your future cancer care in old age.

Who else is going to do it? I won't be; you won't be; people who will be dead by then won't be. It isn't written down in stone that you will get healthcare in your old age; it depends on the willingness of future taxpayers to actually DO it.

Before collective health and welfare, how did people live in their old age? If you had children you lived off them. If they could afford a doctor you got healthcare. If you didn't have children, and had not enough money or assets, you probably went to a workhouse or lived off parish charity. You were probably not getting any healthcare if you needed it. Sucks to be you.

Our collective welfare state works on the principle that current taxpayers pay out all the needed costs for current pensioners (as well as the smaller costs for others in the system, education, other public goods, etc.) Your taxes don't get saved up somewhere. If the system is no longer sustainable, and not enough taxpayers paying in, then those at the older end of the "pyramid" will just not get the services they want. (cf. now, look at the incoming healthcare rationing in the NHS.) If other people's children don't fancy paying the tax to fund public services in the future, you just won't get them.

So beware of all of this "lifestyle choice" rubbish. The biggest drain on our current welfare state is the pensions burden, which dwarfs any working-age or 0-18 benefits many times over. We all need people to have children to provide us with a healthy, caring, functioning society. Sneering at it being a "lifestyle choice" is a very odd historical anomaly that simply didn't exist for most of history. People thought of children as a great blessing (and this was when people having children could expect to lose many of them well before adulthood). But all people are a blessing. We are all part of a network, dependent on each other, and talking about other humans in "choice" terms is both shortsighted and inhumane.

Additional leave for people who are parents is statutory, so I don't think you have any grounds for complaint there. (If the company chooses to make this paid, that's up to them.)

Additional benefits for those with dependents is also very standard practice - e.g. Private healthcare; childcare vouchers; subsidised onsite nursery.

Employees who are expected to be mobile (i.e. Relocating frequently at the company's behest) would typically have rent and private school fees etc paid for them as well.

You could also reasonably expect that any flexible benefits scheme would include options that are appropriate only to those with children.

What would be unusual though is a straightforward, cash, salary uplift just for having children. Personally I would trawl through the policies before bringing this up officially. Your employer sounds forward-thinking and switched on, I doubt very much they're doing anything discriminatory.

I see maternity pay the same way than I see sick pay (in a way of course). Whilst of course you decide to get pregnant, you are clearly unable to go to work and it's fair to get help then.

It's a different mindset than earning more because you happen to have a child. It means you are earning less because you don't. I can't understand the logic behind that.

on another note, the children allowance being calculated on 1 salary and not the couple's income is unfair too. It's ridiculous to be penalised for having a slightly higher income than the cut off whilst others who earn nearly double than you are not.

I know a few people who have school fees as a (very good) bonus to their salary

I am not sure how that would work if they didn't send their children to few paying schools