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.

No it doesnt work. Plus how would you measure that they took out less and so deserved a lump sum? One of my cf friends is always tearing ligaments and breaking bones because of her hobby. Shes used a lot of nhs time and resources especially with aftercare.

BigEthel if it’s any consolation, I spent it mainly glued to the sofa with a baby attached to my nipples, sobbing.

Brilliant idea provided it comes only from the taxes of those who have never had kids. Otherwise

It’s a shame people have instantly gone on the attack with this because it’s an interesting thought experiment and good for a debate. Also - if you have private healthcare and put your children through private school, should you be refunded? I think there’s an argument there! It’s a shame that people don’t want to discuss/debate and would rather shout GF. There is at least some merit in the idea....

But then they ARE burdening the state by having a lump sum paid to them.

Are you going to repay everything that YOU cost the state as a baby and child, OP? Wouldn't that make more sense?!

Some parents have private healthcare, insurance and schooling, you know. And they don't get child benefit either!

YABU
In fact you should pay compensation. The money we pay into the system isn't for us. It is to provide services and to fund the older generation or those unable to work
Once you claim a pension you haven't provided anyone to fund it
Therefore you should be heavily fined

There is absolutely no merit in the idea. People who have children, raise and nurture them contribute to the future and build the future society. It cannot be like we to having a dog or any such other thing. And there are far more draining things on the nations economy and the tax payer. All the senseless wars we enter into without any say, who pays for that? Stupid, stupid post.

It's your choice to not have children who are the next generation and will be paying for your care when you are elderly!

😴😴

The Farce is strong in this one

you make a good point but bad solution the correct solution is not to give money out because people decided to have children.

No. Because the next generation will be paying for your pension, looking after you in your old folks home, being the police officers who turn up to help you in your time of need etc.

I've invested hundreds of thousands of pounds bringing up 4 children to be responsible useful tax paying adults. When you are old or ill and rely on someone else's child to care for you, nurse you, operate on you, or someone's child fixes your electric supply, or removes your rubbish or deals with your sewage I think you should give their parents money to repay them for providing you with people who can do these things.

When would you get the money? When you're no longer fertile? How would that work for men? What would happen if you got the money and then got pregnant - would you have to give it back? How would you give it back if you'd spent it? What about these people who cost the state loads of money in other ways such as those with health and mobility problems - are they to be penalised even more than they already are? Who will look after the children who are born due to accidental pregnancies and then abandoned because their parents would rather have the cash? Sorry if these questions have already been answered but I stopped reading when I was so overcome with the idiocy that I just couldn't continue.

Haven’t RTFT but this is OUTRAGEOUS! This isn’t how the state works. Yes, generally speaking, children cost the state money (obviously some people pay for private healthcare, private education and don’t qualify for benefits), BUT so do disabled people, old people, smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts... the list goes on!

Should people get lump sums if their parents die early so they didn’t burden the state with their old age care?!?!

Ridiculous.

I do think you have a point. Maybe the way forward in future is for free education healthcare and so on for two children only. That would cut costs by a lot.

Having children isn’t really a lifestyle choice though isit, it’s much more fundamentally and, well, primal than that. And what a horribly divisive notion, totally ignoring the idea of a society and common good, future needs.

I do think you have a point. Maybe the way forward in future is for free education healthcare and so on for two children only. That would cut costs by a lot.

It's not a child's choice to be born and to suggest denying a child an education and healthcare is abhorrent.

'Having children isn’t really a lifestyle choice though isit' absolutely is and people seem to think it will be paid back well only if the make more than 40,000

Yabu

I don’t even know where to begin.

What if you had a lot of illnesses needing loads of nhs care compared to a healthy family who didn’t?
Also this seems to devalue children - we were all children once and actually as children, had the same needs eg education etc. Not being a parent - that doesn’t detract from the fact that you were once a child.

Ridiculous idea.

people seem to think it will be paid back well only if the make more than 40,000

Our household income is around 3x that so should our parents get a rebate?