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.

I trust you would apply same principle to nhs, police etc?
It's a ridiculous proposition, without generations paying in there would b no one to pay out
Life style takes many forms, I agree choosing to have children is a provilodge but as a ft working family you're better off with me in employment and paying my way than no kids and living abroad tax free...

Anyone else open this thread thinking "Uh-oh, here we go...." whilst shaking their head?!

Please: what is HCB?

Yes, and then there's the nasty reference to it being a "lifestyle choice" to have or not to have children. Tell that to my poor niece who has never really wanted anything out of life except a baby and has had to accept that it's not going to happen and that her nephew is all she is ever going to have.

When something similar was said to me I told the accuser that Actually , the tax you pay is to pay for your own education and lifelong health care in arrears.

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 haven’t RTFT, but surely adoptive parents should get paid more being as, not only they haven’t cost the state anything, they’ve actually saved the state hundreds of thousands of pounds in care costs.

You are an entitled twathead OP. Sod off.

OP.... Think of it this way. Why would you need the money, you're financially better off by tens of thousands by having not brought up kids, why do you want more?
Think lots of people get annoyed at people that sprout out loads of kids with no financial means to support them, but this is a very small minority. Most parents are hard working and responsible.

We get all this chat about how much you have to earn before you pay enough to cover your costs etc. My DCs go to a school built in Victorian times. Surely those Victorians didn’t pay enough either in school fees or taxes to cover their education costs - it was presumed that a more educated workforce led to a more productive economy and therefore the result was a greater income to the state overall.

It only seems to be recently we’ve grabbed on to this notion that our personal taxes should cover all out individual costs and it feels to me like a symptom of declining belief in society.

Hey, I've never had a stay in hospital. Do I get money back for that?

Erm ok. So when you’re in need of a heart bypass or someone to wipe your ass in the old people’s home, who do you suppose will do this? My kids or the imaginary ones you got a bonus for not having

Well of course @Poppycherry because of course that's why people adopt and foster, because of the wads of money you get..... (this was the a staggering opinion of someone I met at a wedding.. OP where were you on 28th of July last year..., )

Wow 😲

I don't get child benefit or use state schools for my child nor are we or would we be eligible for free childcare and we have private medical insurance

I also won't burden the state with my old age as I have a private pension and assets that will cover my old age care...

Do I get a lump sum too?

I’m assuming you have been drinking since fairly early. Maybe we should say those who haven’t had sleepless nights, gone through the stress, sacrifices and financial burden of raising children should not benefit from the doctors, carers, taxpayers etc that those children become

Cough cough fuck off

Of course having children is a lifestyle choice. No one HAS to have children. Don't bleat on about how your children are going to help us all when we get old. If you all keep having children in an already overpopulated world there will be no future for humans.

Yes we have an ageing population but keep increasing the numbers is never going to help is it?

Some of us thought through whether to have children or not and choose not to because of the planet being overpopulated. Far far too many woman don't seem to give even a seconds thought in whether to have children or not but just blindly have them. The amount of "accidents" is ridiculous.

So we use our intelligence and do not benefit in any way while others have child after child and have money thrown at them

We may need some children to be born but not as many as are. Why have more than 1 or 2 children other than for purely selfish reasons?

Says mydogisthebest.

I think we all need to calm down here, realise that as humans we are pretty much hard wired to be inherently selfish and finish off with a nice cup of earl grey.

Wow OP you are being vu, our children will look after you in your old age.
God forbid you become unwell and end up in hospital, it will be our children that will care for you and make you better.
I think that the benefit system needs a complete overhaul, perhaps even getting rid of some benefits altogether.
I think that people should have the amount of children that they can afford and not expect the state to provide for them, these women that have 10+ children and either don't work or work the bare minimum so that they can claim maximum benefits are so wrong but they thankfully are in the minority.
But going back to your post it is our children that will pay their taxes (hopefully) and make sure that your generation will be cared for!

Actually OP don't worty as my children won't be looking after you in your old age.

Im going to instruct them to only wipe the arses of parous old women in the nursing home

Isn't being childless also a lifestyle choice?

Is that you Theresa?

I’m a paid-up, card-carrying member of the ‘child-free by choice’ club, but even I can see that a society which financially incentivises its citizens NOT to procreate is setting itself up for a few problems down the line.....

As long as from that total you subtract the income tax and nic paid by 2 adults on a avareage wage for 40 years as well as an average vat for a lifetime that a person is likely to pay multiplied by 2. As well as the average saving that is achieved by adult children helping to care for their elderly parents. Plus council tax for 2 people for 61 years.

Ok I'm speaking as someone childfree

1. We NEED people to have kids to contribute to the care and pensions of an ageing population.

1. Over population is a myth in the developed world. Just because in India someone has had 10 kids there aren't enough resources for that doesn't affect the UK. Again we NEED people to have kids. Japan is having huge social problems due to an ageing population and not enough people having children. There aren't enough workers to pay the pensions.

I probably won't have kids due to a difficult childhood I had. Again this is my choice and I'm not going to pretend I am sanctimonious for it 😂 but I do think child benefit should be stopped at two kids.

Just googling the average tax paid in a lifetime and a household e.g. 2 adults come in on average as £836k, I think you owe the system op by your own logic e.g. Receive what you didn't cost minus the loss of your potential children's input