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.

hmmm well I'd like the money the government would be spending on educating my child to be given to me, because I am home educating...even half the amount would be fine...

Otherwise, probably not.

I’ve never had or wanted kids, and none of my friends have kids either. I think I can speak for them too when I give this short answer to your question: WTAF is wrong with you? No, we should not he a handout for not having kids!!! Are you raving?!

Hear-hear OP. I feel the same about St.Patric's Day - really rubs in the fact that I'm not Irish and general lack of leprechauns in my immediate vicinity.

That makes great sense on this thread.
Leprechauns - children, all the same...

[oops wrong thread]

wakemeupbefore
I was just about to scroll back to see where the thread had taken an interesting detour

Noam Chomsky discusses this very issue in the documentary 'Requiem for the American Dream'.

He argues that paying taxes that benefit someone other than yourself is a hallmark of a decent civilised society. Eg I am happy to pay taxes to ensure that the elderly lady across the road can access the healthcare she needs. I am happy to pay taxes to ensure that the 2 children who live next door can go to school. I may never need an operation or a state school education but I willingly pay into the pot for others who will because this is the morally correct thing to do.

This 'everyone for themselves/why should I pay for other people's circumstances' maxim that gets trotted out is proof that neoliberalism has done a fantastic job of destroying people's natural empathy and concern for wider society.

no no - lets talk more about these leprechauns! I am interested in their tax affairs for one thing!

Excellent idea, OP.🤙🏻

Seriously.

Leprechauns are well known for evading tax by burying their gold. HMRC just hasn’t got the staff to go chasing rainbows.

There is a red bucket in the middle of woods near us, which the Goblins are trying to fill with gold. When they fill it, they give it to leprechauns who bury it and then make a rainbow over it. It starts off as goblin gold, though.

having children is a lifestyle choice, not a necessity. In much the same way, my dog is a lifestyle choice, not a necessity.

You're so right. I look forward to the next generation of dogs being the ones to look after us in our old age

Hahaha, I will humour you.

Say for the sake of argument that we do go along with your idea. Would we then make adjustments for those who have kids but a) earn too much for child benefit, b) pay for private healthcare and c) pay for private education, so don't cost the tax payer anything that way?

Can I be reimbursed for two out of three of the above on that basis?! 🤣

Equally, with those who choose not to have children, or can't have children, but manage to still cost the tax payer a fortune in other ways (for instance lengthy prison spells)....do we exclude them from your payment for choosing not to have kids because they are still overall a net taker rather than giver?!

The time when we cost the state the most is likely to be in our final few years of life
So you'd really have to work out payments via death duties / credits on the estate !

A very daft and selfish idea, if it was meant to be serious

HelloFreedom, the documentary sounds interesting. I'll try to watch it soon.

You say "neoliberalism" and i'm not sure what that actualky is. Tbf, I thought the "everyone for themselves" thing started with Thatcher. There is no such thing as society, she said....

As a childless woman I would love to agree but I can't.

Having said that though, I do wish there was more help for single, childless people struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and for those saying their children will be paying our pensions, that's really not a fair statement. I have paid into the system consistently since I was 16 years old, I think I've covered my own pension and healthcare!

Plus, on terms of a cut off for having children, isn't the male equivalent of the menopause death?

My dog has no plans to pay any taxes ever. Work shy prick.

Who do you think is going to be working and paying taxes when you are older? Future generations of course.
I’m sorry but you sound a bit bitter - and you’ve not thought this through. A society can’t just take one aspect and give back tax payers money on that ie like not having had children. No one knows what the future holds. A sick childless person may need very expensive free medical care - more than a family of four does.

Situp
That’s easily rectified through modem medicine. Castration, dna profiling of every citizen to ensure every British male is definitely eligible. Simples

I don't agree with everything you have said (troll or not) but yes ..

I have often thought that childfree women should have some sort of tax rebate

Well thought out post but clearly the intentions behind it are to be controversial, unnecessarily antagonistic and personally offensive to people with children so maybe post somewhere other than Mumsnet?!

The individual who posted about Leprechauns did so erroneously. They had put a nasty post on another thread, and, in their haste to be smart/clever posted on the wrong thread. Interestingly enough, the individual has disappeared off both posts - embarrassed eh?

You're so right. I look forward to the next generation of dogs being the ones to look after us in our old age

Surely “looking after you in your old age” is not the reason people have children?

Surely “looking after you in your old age” is not the reason people have children?

I think she meant the next generation of people who will become our drs/nurses/everything else we need to make society function.