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.

OP, so you have never received nhs care or state education? Should you forfeit your imaginary lump sum as you have taken out of the pot?

You've never benefited from other peoples children who have become doctors, nurses or teachers? Never benefited from the police force or fire brigade?

Have a word with yourself

Just enjoy the money you've saved by not having children to feed, clothe, house, transport, educate and entertain any children and quit yer whinging.

I argue that overpopulation is caused by women who aren't given enough control over their fertility & by living in situations where you don't know if your children will survive to adulthood, plus lack of pensions.

In places with good birth control & low infant mortality & decent pensions, birth rate plunges. Places with poor social care and women pressured to show the man's virility off => big families.

On the basis that recipients are not allowed to receive any services from those younger than themselves once such a sum is paid ( doctors, nurses, carers, council services, electricians, plumbers, bus drivers, blood donations etc).

Yeah right .....

Lols.
Who do you think Will pay for your pension etc once you've retired?

[santa]
Who's going to contribute all their taxes towards the NHS and Pensions and all the other public services and this imaginary payment you think you deserve if all us selfish people decided not to have future generations of children to work and contribute. You haven't really thought your plan out? Have you op

What is the male equivalent of menopause? Tony Randall was having kids into his 70s.

It is these kids that will be caring for you in old age, helping society progress and propping up the older generation in the future.

Surely that's worth paying for?

Nice one, OP. I wonder what you'll be tipping the people who wipe your bottom in the nursing home

Exactly what I thought what WOULD you do if there wasn’t a generation born and you need your arse wiping in the future?

Back to ththe drawing board.

No, it bad enough that people are burdening the state by having children then not providing for them (not all of us do btw) but now childless people want cash too! Why are British people so entitled? Where do you think all this money is coming from?!

Great idea OP. I wonder what else it could apply to.
Maybe if you get to 70 without developing cancer you could have the equivilent of what you "saved" the NHS.

So so you earn over £100k and send kids to private school you should be entitled to this lump sum as you haven’t burdened the state at all?

Or if you are a single parent earns over £50k you don’t get the child benefit anyway? How do you envisage that working?

I have never qualified for child benefit and my children are privately educated. I also pay the higher tax bracket - presumably under your ethos, I will get some sort of lump sum for not burdening the state too?
I thought the idea of taxes and benefits is to help people who need it, not just those you deem to deserve it?

What a bizarre thread.

Lots to think about. And laugh about.

But people who foster and adopt also get child benefit and assistance with childcare.

So you just have an issue with people giving birth rather than actually raising kids?

I remember I read some academic in the early 90s said something similar. Well, it was that middle class people in rich western countries should just stop having children. The reasoning behind this was that western children use up too much of the world's resources, and labour could be imported from poor countries, thus redistributing some of the worlds wealth and ensuring social mobility.

I've also heard said the poor people in western countries such just be paid to not have children. Reasoning, fewer children born into poverty, and the jobs these children would have done could be imported from the developing world, redistribution and social mobility argument again.

I do wonder if the national wage (whatever it's called, giving every adult enough money to live on, no questions or means testing involved) would have any effect on the birth rate.

Should the UK find itself short of labour in the future, immigration will provide a source of educated healthy adults in the required numbers.

I think we tried shipping people over to do our work for us once before...

As someone who is currently childless (and likely to remain that way). Fuck off to the far side of fuck and beyond. I think you'll find we live in a society.

I love the UK and it’s welfare state. We set an example to the world in that respect. It’s the decent thing to do in a society that is designed towards making people struggle perpetually.

Shame on you, quite frankly. It’s not just the rich who deserve the fulfilment a child can provide.

If you don’t want to pay taxes then move abroad or get a job which pays less than 11850.

Parents pay tax too. They also pay tax before and after the childrearing stage. There are plenty of things I don't use that my tax goes towards.

Well, they do say it takes a village to raise an idiot.

Op your village wants their idiot back.

Interesting idea but why don't we reverse it and say that childless couple who reach 60 should be taxed more as they will potentially be a bigger burden on the state when they get old?
Many families do a lot for their older members without turning to the state so are saving the state millions of pounds. Who does that for childless people?

I'm not serious, of course, as I hope the OP isn't either 🙄

I take it your post also applies to your parents and all generations before.