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.

Will you be paying me for the years of food I provided from my own body and for the gestation of 3 humans and all the late nights and unpaid years of work raising 3 emotionally mature, intelligent, kind and skilled said humans?

All this bollocks about "lifestyle choice". Any human you may like to have an intimate relationship with was just someone's "lifestyle choice" to bring into the world, love and raise I suppose?

How utilitarian.

Posting this on mumsnet of all places - what kind of reaction would you expect lol

🖕🏻

Sorry children not a neccessity? If no one had children then the human race would die out!! Makes them necessary. I agree having more than one is a lifestyle choice though.

Yabvu.

Hope OP isn't a smoker, overweight, or drinks to excess - because if she is, she has no doubt taken advantage of free education and health care herself, and is now on her way to being an even greater drain as her poor lifestyle choices put further strain on the NHS. The children of today will as a generation smoke much, much less than Op's age group, and the resources/healthcare/welfare state they are able to access will be pitiful in comparison.

I'd be prepared to bet that OP (given she's typing away on MN I'm assuming she's an adult) has got more out of the state and has had more social leeway to make poor "lifestyle choices" than any of today's children.

I suppose you think you'll be forever young and healthy, and somebody's child who's grown up won't be caring for you in hospital or a home or even your own home in later years then. 'Burden' is subjective isn't it? Since you obviously hold the key to eternal youth health and life can you share the details please?

Unless you're going to start with pro-rata or some such 🙄

OP I don't want to creep you out
But I think I love you
So YANBU at all.

I was prepared to listen until you equated people to dogs. Dogs don't put into the system at all, don't become productive members of society etc

Dog ownership is known to benefit physical and mental health, possibly saving NHS money?

It's your choice to not have children

Some have no choice!

Also - if you have private healthcare and put your children through private school, should you be refunded?

Oh don't be ridiculous. I have private healthcare, I last saw an NHS doctor almost 27 years ago; my son went to a private school and last saw any doctor when he had his MMR-27 years ago.

My Council tax pays for roads, bins, water, street lighting which I use and masses of services which I do not use (and hopefully won't need) but no I do not deserve a refund.

1/10 troll/goady post attempt. No kids, no future, no one to change your butt in the nursing home. Kids are necessary, whether you are the one who had them or not.

Your bitterness is quite distasteful.

You are being ridiculously unreasonable.
For those who never had children, the nhs would have paid for their own birth/care of their mother. Likewise the government would have paid for their own schooling and child health needs, child benefit etc.
So the way I see it, the government looked after my mother in labour to deliver me. I attended school and had free healthcare checks etc etc. So when I pay tax I am repaying what I was afforded as a child to go to the next generation.
I am not paying tax for my own dc in particular.

I guess it would be paid for by the taxes of the children that selfishly used up all that money...

I just assumed this was another obvious goady HCB post tbh.

I know it seems like a troll but I met someone who thought this once- Marnie - is that you?????

Why do people bite?

I would really have liked to have produced some future taxpayers but was not eligible for IVF on the NHS.....

Whether you agree with op or not there are some nasty thoughtless posts on this thread...

'My kids will be paying for your sad, lonely old future. Try having dementia with no children, grandchildren or younger generation'

'It's your choice to not have children'

A bit of sensitivity for those who cannot have a child through not fault of their own. I think some of us are aware of our future without children without being reminded it could be sad and lonely.

Lilmisskittykat I look after an aunt in her 80s. She has dementia and I had to get her into a home a few months ago. Not having children doesn't automatically mean people will be sad and lonely and having children doesn't guarantee they will care for you.

I honestly don't think any of those comments were meant to hurt people who can't have or chose not to have children, just irritation about someone posting such a nasty divisive post. They succeeded though as they have divided people.

Londresdemain I worked with two women who had this view. They were always telling those of us with children how they were subsidising us. It got really annoying in the end. I think they expected us to bow down and worship them for their generosity.

Who's going to look after you in your care home? Who's going to come to your house, get you out of bed, toiletted, washed dressed, fed, made comfy, chatting so you don't feel lonely, and all the rest, when you're unable to look after yourslef but don't want to leave your home?

Oh, that'll be the children of the people who did procreate, wiping your arse, cleaning your shit, washing your hair.........

Are you in full possession of your faculties?

My children are not a burden on the State.

My husband and I both work and always have.

We pay our taxes and NI contributions and we don't receive child benefit.

So you don’t benefit from doctors, nurses,solicitors etc etc. They are the result of education.