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.

Oh dear just realised I fell for it, OPs not been back, I bothered to answer when I should have just given the Golden Biscuit of Darwin. My bad.

Although I've just realised you've not been back so actually you're just a twat.

Cross post Judas

ODFOD

Nope. Because educating children etc is all of a benefit to the ‘state’ and to all those childless people who I presume still want someone to serve them in shops, mechanics, Doctors, nurses, dentists etc

I’d be in favour of more benefits/discounts for single people

I've always thought the single occupancy Council Tax discount is unfair and should be 50% not 25%.

Thanks for playing.

:o Yeah alright love!

Would you like some gin with those bitters?

😂😂😂

What countries are you hoping to plunder for immigrants when all our young people run out? Because I hate to break it to you, despite what the daily mail might have you think, most people don't want to move here, they have countries of their own - and certainly not enough to keep our entire society going. So if you don't mind no hospital care and nobody serving you in shops...

What a miserable sod. I can't stand this Thatcherite 'i only put in what I get out' mentality. Until you are ill or disabled or otherwise suddenly in need of help, but that's ok then because you're different, a special kind of unfortunate snowflake, unlike all the other scrounging toads who demand state help.

www.mumsnet.com/SearchArch?mustmatch=&dontmatch=&nickname=daytimelightning&src_displ_option=s_m_d_m&fromDate=&toDate=&topicmode=All&availtops=-1

Nice goady first post.

Reported.

Clip clop over the rickety rackety bridge ....

Fingers, great name! "I've always thought the single occupancy Council Tax discount is unfair and should be 50% not 25%."

It's considered to be the property and the persons therein to be taxed, half and half iyswim. So a single bod gets a discount on the persons part only, not the property. Because that single person is still in the whole property.

What a fantastic incentive for even more men to abandon their responsibilities should they get a woman pregnant, as long as they leg it before being put on the birth certificate they'll still get their money, won't they op?

OK. I think you're absolutely right, and you've made me see the error of my ways.

I have two DC - I'd like to return them please, and get my money back.

Do you understand the concept of not means tested? Dimwit.

Ah I never knew that lovely , that makes sense. Although it would probably be nice still for a bigger discount for single people!

This is quite funny. However the state exists for the people rather than the other way around.

my husband paid near on 40 years of NI contribution. Was never Sick until a short illness took his life. Can his estate claim back a percentage of his NI contribution for services he never used? No state pension, no hospital stays or years of medication, no bus pass, winter fuel payments and no such thing as a widows pension anymore.
Ehh NO it is not how the system works.

Goady Fucker Thread Alert

Would you like some gin with those bitters?

Brilliant thought OP. While we are at it , could myself and the millions who have never received benefits due to low income , unemployment etc also get a massive cheque because we also have not burdened the state.
You don't have any children? Praise the Lord for small mercies.

What a spectacularly naive argument, you have not understood taxes and public expenditure.

(I am glad our primary school involves the school council in PTA spending, so even the reception children understand collective spending better than OP.)

But where do we draw the line? Should people over retirement age have to pay a special 'I'm-still-alive-tax'?

People are living longer, should we get rid of them? Who chooses the most and least deserving? (And where does that road even start, who should then choose who and whom cannot have children?)

Where does this road end? Do you drive? If not would you rather spend money trying to decipher who pays for roads that you also use - whether or not you drive? Who pays for infrastructure? How do we figure it all out?

We'll have spent a bloody lot of money and come up with nothing by the time we get into a place a policy that even resembles something close to what you suggest.

There are serious discussions to be had about child bearing, rearing and ageing populations, but not from the anger and venom which you have spouted.