Should childcare be paid for and other benefits given just for having a child/children?

[Sunshine236]

Does everyone think childcare should be paid for?

It's controversial but why do some people feel entitled to be monetarily supplemented because they’ve had a child?

It’s surely a lifestyle choice and people should ensure they can afford to have children?

For sure there should absolutely be a safety net for those who have had children and circumstances change seeing them need urgent support, but I’ve read people earning £100k are receiving some kind of support each month and now we're looking to provide further free childcare.

There are so many other issues such as social care, NHS funding etc that need funding which money could go towards, rather than supplementing people who are already receiving a decent salary just because they’ve had a child/children?

Those “lifestyle choices” are the workforce of the future.

It's not a lifestyle choice OP. A healthy birth rate is very important for the economy.

The government aren't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They want more people in the workforce to improve the economy.

One way of doing this is incentivising parents to put their kids in childcare from 9 months and get back to work.

Also 🙄 on "lifestyle choice". Always such a naive and loaded comment (usually made by bitter people who don't have kids).

You're assuming there's no benefit to society in having children and also that there's no benefit in encouraging parents (largely mothers) back to work. Both I'd argue are wrong assumptions.

Children grow up and become taxpayers who fund services for everyone. There are many parents who do take into account the cost of having children. I'd argue that the higher age of women having children for the first time is because they can't afford them when they're younger. If the government gives out free childcare and the parent who is working part-time or not at all decides to use it and start working more then it's not the parents who are at fault. They're making decisions to best help their families and in this case it will bring more people into the workforce which will help with the economy.

I’m a high earner so you’re not funding shit all for me. Why is it my job to pay for your healthcare? Your health is your problem. Why is it my job to pay for your pension? Your heating? Your new insulation? Why should I pay to maintain roads you drive on when I don’t drive and I commute by train? Why should I have to pay for legal aid when I’m above the means threshold so can’t access it? Why should I have to pay for subsidising research into conditions I will never get?

It’s called being part of a society and having the intelligence to recognise that if I contribute to those things then it improves our society to a greater extent than what I paid. If I spend £1000 a year on extra tax then I get a healthier, safer, more productive society as a result and that saves me more than £1000 a year in the long run.

Not sure I understand your comment, @Ovidnaso Should societies invest in their young or not?

Do animals "educate" their young to survive? What about animals born into herds and packs- do the other adults look out for them, or just their biological parents?

They can get national insurance contributions though?

As a high earner, realistically, my opinion on this is that if we did expand the funding to cover every child then taxes would go up to cover that. The people whose taxes would increase the most to cover that are the ones who would benefit from it - so you’d just be paying it yourself either way. At least this way, you’re more in control of how you do it. I do think the threshold should be increased though, it’s been stagnant for too long given how much wages and costs have risen recently. I do also think it should be a sliding scale and should consider household incomes because people are in a position at the moment where they increase salary and are worse off overall because the lose 100% of their childcare support.

I hope you're not using the NHS, @WigglyWigglyWiggly , you're supposed to be funding it for everyone else and paying for your own private healthcare, y'know. Same for your children, if you have them. And when they're adults, they'll only contribute to your wellbeing, no one else's.

But it's not a benefit. A benefit is something that is given to you for free, with nothing requested in return.

Free childcare allows women (and some men, but realistically, staying home with babies is dumped on us) to return to work when they wish to and continue their careers, narrowing the income gap and allowing women to pay considerably more income tax over the course of their working lives, and to pay considerably more into their pensions, than they would if they had to take those key years (when they are young and probably at their most ambitious and upwardly mobile stages) out of their careers.

It also makes couples more confident about taking on crippling mortages, because they will be able to stay on two incomes for more years now.

Hunt hasn't said "Oh, I think families deserve a treat for free, because I love women and families and want the best for everyone, and I really want to penalise those selfish childless people". Hunt has said "I have done the maths, and this fully works out financially."

The alternative might be to clamp down on mortgages, to push house prices down, so that couples don't need two incomes to pay for housing, but older voters would kick off massively at their houses going down in value, so he can't do that.

Take a good look around at what we've done to the planet and to other, less harmful species. Do you really think it's a good idea that our society continue to "function" as it does now?

As to using the NHS, the NHS is available to all. It's not targeted to only certain lifestyle choices.

So you want everyone to subsidise social care because you will use it in your old age. But don't think everyone should subsidise childcare because it's of no direct benefit to you? Even though these children will be the ones to provide social care for you in your old age? Do you not see how quickly society falls apart if we all stopped having children and just let the population die off?

And by that extension do those of us whose parents never lived to grow old, or who have terminal illnesses ourselves, get a pass on funding social care because it's of no direct benefit to us?

I think even if more people were in favour of immigration, there’s still the question how that would work long term.
Bring people over so they can fill vacancies and then send them away again/ replace them when they reach retirement age?

People who earn 100k do not receive any benefits. Child benefit is means tested as is the 30hrs free childcare. If you earn over 100k you get a tax bill and that's it. Not complaining, just saying.... no one gives you nothing once you reach that golden number.. Of course if you and your husband live together and both earn 95k a year then you qualify but if you are a single parent on 100k a year you don't... Doesn't seem entirely fair does it!!

I agree that having children is a selfish lifestyle choice (given the rising human population and impending environmental collapse) that does NOT deserve to be paid.

BUT children didn't make that choice, and I fully support the state providing for them as much as possible, even though I don't have any. I've worked in mental health and criminal justice for ling enough to learn that kids who aren't given appropriate care and support often grow up to become VERY expensive when they turn into problematic adults who don't feel part of society.

Not having children is a lifestyle choice, if it is by choice.

Having children is the default and something all animals do. If they do not, their species dies out.

Personally, I am very excited about this budget proposal. Yes, for myself as I am currently pregnant and would love to stay working in my job, which I love. But mainly for women in general, who are often forced from the workforce as they can't afford childcare costs.

Just a note, if this goes through, we won't be receiving "taxpayers money". The childcare providers will receive government funding and we will be paying towards it. I won't be making money from this.

You might not like paying for childcare for other people's children, but those children will pay taxes that will pay for your pension and care in old age.

People will always have children because it’s a normal and natural thing for human beings to do. People still need to work, most often both parents nowadays to sustain a household. We need a workforce so happy for taxes to be paid for childcare, same as I’m happy for them to cover education and NHS. Plenty of people use the NHS a lot because they abuse their bodies, I don’t balk at this even though that’s a lifestyle choice too.

Not necessarily. You can stop having babies and plug the taxpayer gap with immigration. You need bums on seats, yes, but they don't need to be home grown.

The challenge here (that a lot of other countries don't need to worry about) is that 20% (and rising rapidly) of the population is over 65 and a lot of them need to be supported by the state. We need young taxpayers to support them, but again, they don't actually need to be British. There are plenty of people in their 20's and 30's who would love to come here and work.

But voters, esp Conservative ones, are pretty clear about not supporting large scale immigration, so people need to be encouraged to have babies instead.

No, I think the damage done to the planet by corporations and governments is terrible. My solution for that is research and development to ensure we can support ourselves in a sustainable way. It's not to ban those we deem unworthy of having kids.

Being overweight is a lifestyle choice. Smoking is a lifestyle choice. Living in a massive house is a lifestyle choice. I still have to pay for everyone to use the NHS and winter fuel payments for all pensioners.
That's how taxes work, we all pay for everything for the good of everyone.

In order to continue the population women need to give birth to 2.4 children per women
Now bare in mind many women are making the decision NOT to have children and society has also made it to expensive to have many as well

They don't always, though - look at the birthrate in South Korea. They've dropped down to 0.84 per woman. A lot of countries in Europe are looking at South Korea and Japan and thinking about what we can do to avoid that.

This. All those people insisting „there are too many of us!“ somehow always ignore the fact that it’s due to the increased life expectancy. Okay, so we’ll stop having children - and then what? Who‘ll be looking after the aging population?

I think there needs to be more support! But I don’t think people are getting as much as you think they’re getting. People should be supported to stay home with their child and take them to activities ect. rather than just giving them to a nursery all day who are probably not that bothered about them (I have worked in nurseries and some of the ‘care’ is very poor