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?

Using your logic, OP, only the well off would have children: those couples who can live on one salary while the one partner stays at home for 5 years; or those couples who are very high earners and can pay £1000+ per month per child for child care.
I find people who have what they think is a simple answer are usually cocooned/smug/unaware/lacking in emotional intelligence - take your pick.
I don’t dislike these people but I have no time for them and can’t communicate with them. We don’t speak the same language.

Maybe the 'village' should provide quick and effective support services for people not coping or children with additional needs?

If my son ends up unemployable it's down the fact that so far we've been unable, despite spending hours upon on hours on the phone and in meetings, to get help with his anxiety issues - and it's not parenting, it's that he's probably autistic, but we've not had assessment for that either, and because we're waiting for that nobody - so far - will help with his crippling anxiety. Because he's almost certainly autistic and his anxiety is to do with that.

Very true when it comes to children it's the parents who take the hit in terms of lost income lost freedom stress and worry etc but the rest of society benefits from having a new Human who can take a role in the labour market etc.
Parents do the unpaid work and the rest of society benefits.

wuuut?😳🤷🤣

You have literally hit the nail on the head. The running costs of life a household now has to absorb has gone beyond what basic income can facilitate for many & that is due to piss poor country management in government not due to people not having ambition or better paid jobs.
To be honest taxes prop up MP’s ‘in-work’ benefits, their luxuries, their 2nd houses, over priced contracts to ‘friends’ etc etc more than they help families with childcare.
If the government really wanted to make this country thrive again they would find a way to drop business taxes, fuel costs & energy costs so that companies can pay a real wage to their staff.

But do you punish every parent of a child who doesn't contribute to society in a positive way? So the MC or UC child that turns to drugs and classier crime, will their parents get punished for the crime or just the ones from poor homes who you wouldn't have given a procreation licence to in the new world order?

OP, while I agree so far as the fact that I don't think anyone should plan to have a child that they know they can't afford, many families who want children can only afford them by having one parent leave their job to stay at home and care for the children as they can't afford childcare costs, even if this isn't want they actually want to do. These parents are taking the responsibility of planning and caring for their child but at the expense of their income, pensions and contributions to the workforce. They make it work, but at a cost to themselves, their overall household income and to the productivity of the economy.

This is a choice that every parent should have and if they can afford to raise a family on one income while the other parent stays at home, this should not invite judgement.

However, as the government have realised that there are thousands of parents having to stay home and look after their children who may not have made this choice if they'd had affordable childcare, they've identified a group of people that they can support financially in order to allow them to return to work if they wish. This isn't to say that they'll be forced to go back to work because they won't, but now parents who are on lower incomes won't be pushed out of the workforce as the only way of being able to afford to have children.

While I'd like to think the government are doing this to support parents, I imagine it's much more to do with increasing economic growth by reducing job vacancies. To parents on a more personal level, it allows those who were fully willing and able to sacrifice their career and pension contributions to raise their children but would have preferred to keep working if they could, to have another option if they so wish.

Unfortunately so many full-time jobs don't pay enough to allow someone to pay for childcare while still having money left afterwards, so it makes more sense for them to leave their job to raise their children. But now that job has a vacancy that might not be able to be filled. This includes people such as nurses who we desperately need to retain wherever possible, as well as many other valuable jobs which are paid poorly. While these people may have been happy to leave their job if it meant they could afford children, from an economic viewpoint they're no longer contributing by way of income tax, they're not building their pension contributions, these households have less disposable income to spend in their local economy etc. It makes sense to allow as many people as possible the opportunity to work if they want to, by removing the barriers which currently prevent them from doing so.

Op isn't suggesting women shouldn't work, she's suggesting that women shouldn't have kids on low or average salaries. And there's a knock on "bonus" of not needing to cover mat leave, patental leave etc because again you just wouldn't be allowed kids. Which is arguabley more screwed up than keeping subsets of society out of work

There is no reason that people wanting parenthood can't plan and save for it, just at the rest of us plan and save for large expenditures, house deposits, etc.

If a stable, committed, loving couple decides that they want children, they can spend a few years establishing themselves in their careers and stashing money to cover maternity leave, child care and other costs.

Quite frankly, people without the discipline to plan, save and restrain themselves until they are well-prepared aren't going to make good parents anyway. I should think the absolute rock-bottom we as a society should want in terms of those bringing forth additional human beings is proven employability, a healthy committed relationship in which both were eager to become parents, and the ability to plan and save to cover the expenses. If they can't do those three simple things, what business do they have producing offspring?

As a woman who's been sexually active since 1980, I can say that it is more than possible to not "fall pregnant" when one is hellbent on not doing so.

As a childless person "sexually active since 1980" you've no literally no right to an opinion on modern parenting. Do piss off.

Congratulations on being excellent in every regard. Massive thumbs up to you!

Obviously, even the most contentious and finance-savvy prospective parents would struggle to plan for every eventuality of parenthood.

For a working example. A couple who planned for and subsequently conceived a child in 2020 might have budgeted for a full-time childcare cost of £12.5k per year, £25k for 2 years, since that's what it cost at the time. A huge amount! But good for them being so organised - must have taken them years to save all that, but they did because they wanted children. I think even you would agree that they are very responsible citizens, and have surely earned your approval to procreate.

But when their 1 year old started nursery, fees were suddenly £14k per year - yikes! They had a contingency to allow for that extra £1k, being so very responsible, but unfortunately that was swallowed up by inflation. So now they need to find another £1k for this year... ok they will cut back or pick up more hours at work. Not ideal, but doable - just about.

Now it's another year and suddenly the fees are £15k! So another £2k to find this year. They planned so carefully, what happened?! Why are they in this mess?? Because they were not responsible enough?

Or because ... a global pandemic, a war and inflation running at the highest rate for over 30 years?

Who TF could actually have planned for that (apart from you of course Zelda )

I always wonder what brings certain posters, those who are so vehemently anti-child, to mumsnet in the first place?

I agree, motives are questionable. I'm sure they'd find the daily fail comment boards much more accommodating

Many of us are very pro-child; that's why we want them to have mature, stable, solvent, employable, self-disciplined and prepared parents.

Inflation, recession, global conflicts, divorce, disability, death, job loss, etc. are normal occurances that happen in most adult lifetimes; they certainly can be hedged against. And if a couple had 25K in savings toward child care, and funded the rest out of current earnings, it's certainly better and more prudent than having 0 in savings toward child care, right? Expecting people to save significantly toward the most monumental decision (and expense) they'll ever take on is hardly unreasonable.

subsidised but not free.

It is not the responisibility of the tax payer to pay for my decision to have DC.

I think it places nurseries in a difficult position, as the Govt tariff is not enough to cover costs and then you come on mumsnet and see angry posts from people who are angry that the nursery asked for £5 for extras per week, appalled that free does not mean completely free and God forbid they should spend any of their own monies on caring for their child during the day.

If the next generation is not created and primarily funded by their parents, society collapses. The state pension Ponzi scheme definitely disappears for one. The childless should be taxed more for taking advantage of the work and resources of the next generation and contributing nothing towards it.

How long do you think it takes the average couple to save £25k?

Two people, living frugally as possible on one income, while saving most of the other, shouldn't take more than three or four years at the very most. Many solo people support a household on one income, so expecting a pair to do it AND accrue significant savings is not unreasonable.

I think it's not asking too much to put at least as much effort into prepping for children as people are willing to put in to saving a house deposit.

Of course it's not asking too much! The point is that the vast majority of people have done or are doing this already, and are struggling to get by despite that. Those people, and more importantly their children, should have support if they need it - which many clearly do - just like anyone else who is struggling to get by should have support. Pensioners for example.

Your idea of what a young family looks like in 2023 is outdated at best, frankly delusional by most accounts.

Same here!

Are you aware of how much monthly nursery fees are? For the four years my son will attend nursery we will pay 60k. Are you suggesting parents save this, on top of saving for a mortgage and contending with rising bills (while their take home pay is not rising)?

You’re a bit delusional. With what you’re suggesting babies should start saving for the future the moment they pop out the womb.

I don't think it's delusional at all, to suggest that people refrain from incurring massive expenses until they have saved in advance to cover them.

If those who know they want to be parents start saving as soon as they are qualified/of working age, and leverage frugality/having two incomes, they should be able to save a sizeable chunk and then fund the rest out of income by the time they are 30 or so, which leaves plenty of time for having kids.

They might not be able to save for a mortgage, too, but life doesn't owe us every single thing we want. Maybe in future it will be a choice between having children and owning property. The world changes, and we all have to live within our means.

You know, I'm sticking to the topic at hand, and not directing personal insults at other commenters, but some of you are directly insulting me. People who resort to ad hominem attacks generally are flailing because their arguments aren't holding up.

Yes , the nhs should stop funding IVF in all circumstances.

I think where I disagree with people is that having a child is a basic human right. I don't think it is, so I think comparing it to the need for shelter etc is reductive. I speak not in terms of finances, but in broader terms: fertility etc. Sometimes you don't get children, but that's not your human rights being infringed. I would say long-term if people aren't having children solely because they can't afford to... well that's more worrying. I think there are clearly issues with how expensive nurseries are and how women/lower income families, once again, will suffer.

I apologise if my calling you delusional has struck a nerve. Your ideas and assumptions are delusional however. You can’t assume that people know what they want by the time they’re 20, before their brains have even finished developing. It’s also a bit unrealistic to think that people can get themselves into a decently paying job in their early twenties, allowing them to save as you’ve suggested? My sister (24) works full time in addition to attending uni full time to get herself into a job that will pay her well (teaching). Despite working full time, she is single and lives alone and has not a penny to spare at the end of the month. Her rent and council tax are approximately £900, and this is before personal bills such as internet and bus pass and food. It’s just not feasible to expect people to save such a large chunk of money at such an early age, when you consider the current cost of living and the current cost of childcare. It’s just unrealistic and frankly it IS delusional.

It’s easy to say and suggest all of these things of course. Reality is different, and it’s a real shame you and so many others can’t see that.