AIBU to think those who never have kids should get a lump sum from the government because they haven't burdened the state?

[daytimelightning]

Starting at this from two viewpoints
a) having children is a lifestyle choice, not a necessity. In much the same way, my dog is a lifestyle choice, not a necessity. The government currently asks some taxpayers to subsidise the expensive lifestyle choices of others (but I don't see my dog getting 30 hours free daycare)
b) the world as a whole is overpopulated. Should the UK find itself short of labour in the future, immigration will provide a source of educated healthy adults in the required numbers.

AIBU to think that anyone who does not have children when they reach the menopause (or equivalent for men, to be clawed back if they subsequently have their first child unusually late in life) should be given a lump sum in recognition of the fact that they have not burdened the state. This could perhaps include

• child benefit, equivalent to 2 children for 18 years = £32198.40 at current rates
• two uncomplicated births on the NHS = £5580 (Guardian figures)
• putting two children through state education age 4-18 = £154,000 (IFS figures; add more for your free nursery hours and any higher education)

(Full sum to be paid to married couples, half each to single people)

I'd also pay those who have only adopted or foster children (as they not responsible for bringing the children into the world) or only children who have died before their 18th birthday (because otherwise it seems a bit harsh).

I'd oppose removing child benefit and the like from those who have children purely because of the impact on child poverty, which impacts those who did not choose to be in that situation and has all sorts of counterproductive effects on things like educational attainment and health outcomes.

However, in short, why are people who choose not to, or who are unable to, have children, asked to pay for those who do choose to have children? Why shouldn't they get something in recognition of how much money they've saved the state? It might also concentrate the minds of those considering having children on a whim / because that's what people do / just because. With the above, everyone ends up getting the same amount sooner or later, it's just that some have it spread out over time and others get it as a lump sum; it would be fairer than the current system.

Ok but then you also can’t smoke, be overweight, go on tanning beds or sunbathe, not exercise, binge drink, do extreme sports,

All lifestyle choices with expensive outcomes.

Don’t be ridiculous. .... and I don’t even have children.

Think of it as that money was spent on the CHILD, not the parents. A child’s birth, a child’s socialisation, a child’s education. No child ever asked to be born. Also, you were given the same as they so you’ve already banked it ....

YABU. What a silly and offensive suggestion from OP. Parents do the state a huge favour with their unpaid labour to produce the next generation. The state rightly helps out with a number of subsidies like free education.

Private birth, medical, dentist, everything.
Private playgroup, nursery (no free hours), school, everything.
Never had a penny from the government, don't even know what "child benefit" or similar is.

My child uses roads and streetlights and things like that... but I expect you do to.

GIVE ME MY PAY OUT!

Comparing dogs to children, how weird.

the one child policy in china actually backfired a bit as those that lost their children late in life (think mva, illness etc) have no one to care for them and now the state has to provide care service....
so maybe at one end of the spectrum a childfree person might seem to not cost the government at other points in their life they will.

*too

Um no. Babies are the tax payers of tomorrow.

Oy Theresa !
Nothing to do in No. 10 ?

How much were you thinking op?

£10k? £20k?

Like the government is just going to send you a nice little form to fill out ( don't forget your bank details ) and bam- the money will be in your account by next Tuesday.

What fucking planet are you actually on?

Ps why not send a nice polite letter to Her Maj asking for this to be law, I'm sure she needs a bloody good laugh

I also want a refund. I wasn’t in this country for most of my pregnancy. I funded my own ivf, paid independent midwifes for my what I wanted to be home birth. Ok, I did end up going to hospital in the end and spent about 14 hours there.

We also only have one child and we don’t get child benefit. We lived abroad for just shy of a decade and the entire time we were out of the country, dh paid full NI contributions and got nothing in return. Dh grew up abroad so he has taken next to nothing from the U.K.

Depending on the year our household income is more than 2 or sometimes 3 times the 40k required to be putting money in. So we are in serious serious credit. How much of a refund are we due? It should be very very substantial for dh. The only operation he has ever had was done privately. Even dd sees a private dentist.

If you have children but would prefer cash can you return them???

I do agree that tax should be linked to your contribution to society but I am not sure children is the problem.

Maybe some sort of twatometer to decide how much you need to compensate society for your existence?

Not looking good for you OP...

Pappa
No, they won’t fit back in unfortunately. But I believe you may be able sell them on or surrender them to the state. You’d get two cash payouts if you choose the former. Beware, reductions for previous expenses may apply. 😨

The OP hasn't returned, so obviously very tired after writing so much for their first time? on MN.

Possibly got enough to write that essay or article, though.

Possibly got enough to write that essay or article, though.

Or to tell No 10 that as an idea it ain’t gonna fly.

What about those of us who are still net contributors despite having children, should we get something back too? Unfortunately we all have to support the workshy scum who refuse to support their own kids.

The OP is essentially correct. I'm amused to see how much opinion is against her. There's a saying that you can't make a man (woman) understand something if he (she) has a financial interest in not understanding it.

Money back to childless is essentially a convoluted way of achieving the goal of parents paying for their own children. Which is what 99% of parents have done for 99% of human history. Nothing odd or controversial about it. Unless you are a parent in a country with good social provision, and hence likely to lose out.

(My version of the OP proposal would be that people who earned earned enough to do so would repay all social benefits they receive via a replacement for National Insurance. Social benefits would include a notional cost of state education and healthcare for their children, so people who didn't have children would indeed pay less. But lots of people would not be able to repay, and the cost of writing off their bad debt would be spread among everyone.)

This only works if it is means tested as I have 4 children BUT DH and I pay over £50000 a year in tax which over a lifetime is considerably more than my childless aunt who only pays £2000 a year in tax!!!!

The thing is, if we all start only paying for ourselves and what we benefit from, from the state, then that's the end of us as a civilised society. It's every man and woman for themselves.

We all pay for each other, so that everyone benefits according to their need. Inevitably some will 'get' more than others. Rise above it!

Wow you must be really bored OP, hope you feel sufficiently entertained now.

Take it somewhere else.

I’ll keep it brief OP.

You are an idiot of epic proportions.

But how would it work Firesuit? I have two children. We don’t receive any CB, have private healthcare (can’t remember the last time any of us saw an NHS Dr) and they will be privately educated. I do use the 15 funded hours because they’re automatically applied. Is someone going to look at the individual circumstances of every family to see how much they ‘owe’? If I was having to essentially pay for state education and NHS healthcare id probably start using it, instead of the private options. More burden on the state.

This is a rather large insult to those who'd love kids but can't have them " well done you infertile person have some money as a reward for not making our life harder when we know all you'd love to do with said money is give it to your child"

Bearing in mind as well that we already pay approx £40k a year in income tax.

YABVU

I don't smoke and am a healthy weight - so even though I have kids surely I'll be due something back