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?

I think you are missing the point that some posters are saying you should be happy to work in a low paid job and not have the joy that children bring as it is selfish and a drain on childless taxpayers. In other words only people who are rich are deemed as worthy of being parents. I wonder if that means no free education too. Or are we still expecting low paid childless people to subsidise that🤔

Definitely need support for women to work if they need to/choose to. I choose to SAH as my DC grow up. They are all in school now. Youngest is 5yo.

I have four DC altogether and hopefully they all will either go into the trades or a profession that's desperately needing extra bodies. Productive members of society is what the aim is after all.

People who can have kids are really lucky. I don't begrudge the childcare etc, it's important - and a popular policy with a huge group, but does any prospective parent really, when planning a kid, sit down and say "WE MUST DO THIS FOR THE FUTURE OF SOCIETY". Also Zelda is a troll. Why are people indulging her?

It’s 84£ a month for working people that earn less than 50k
the free childcare is only if both parents work 40 hours a week btw and most private nurseries will still charge because the government only pays them 4£ per hour per child that doesn’t cover the costs of space and staff etc and on top of that nurseries pay business rates so that kicks back tax to the government.
so the childcare will only keeps more people at work which results in productivity and more taxes paid.
this lack of common sense is just the thing that is pushing Britain towards becoming a second world country..

The thing is , surely childcare costs would exceed the averages persons tax payments?

I mean , let’s say it cost the government £6000 per year to pay for my child to go to nursery. Let’s base that on 30 hours a week at £5.30 per hour. Over 38 weeks.

Let’s say me and DW are both on 25 k per year each. We’re paying say, 2 or 3 k per year income tax. So it’s costing the government more money to pay for them to send my child to nursery, than me and my DW pay back in tax.

So surely the point that this encourages more people back into work may be true, but it’s costing the government more money by paying for children to go to full time nursery , than theyll get back in tax from average earners?

So what does the government get out of it? More people could do extra hours and pay tax but the government would spend that on paying for childcare ..

If that makes sense?!!

I dunno how it would work paying childcare for people who don't have children but you do you, OP.

No matter which way you spin it, it won't work long term. If you can't afford children don't have any? Ok... only wealthy pockets of society can procreate... which means only a small pocket of the gene pool is in motion = end of humanity more genetic mutations. Also no working class, I don't see the wealthy turning to nursing each other or care work or even fixing roads and sorting bins. Also the population sudden down turn = end of society.

Not to mention you've single handedly banned any war torn country from reproducing as they can't afford it so that's a whole race of people killed off.

I hear people stating money all the time as the pass to be in existence. I think we forget the point of a species and some how believe we are above every animal and instinct on the planet.

But I think we should subsidise childcare. If not we cant expect to subsidise healthcare, social care or elderly or anyone else. It always sounds like people are actually desperate for anarchy and the end of society. But I think people forget realistically if you don't have to pay for anyone else, they won't have to pay for you. So you better get learning to build your own shelter, patch up your broken leg and fend for yourself.

added to the actual tax you are paying is the higher productivity thanks to more people working and the companies they are working for paying more tax.
the nurseries are paying taxes.
the women not interrupting their careers and advancing to higher positions end up earning more over time and paying more in higher tax brackets.
look at the higher wage/ higher tax Scandinavian countries where childcare is fully sorted. It is paying off there.

I bet OP is against immigration as well.

Who is going to provide all your health care needs in old age OP? The kids that were born because the country provided enough support to people to raise children? Or immigrants? Has to be one or another.

Either that or we raise wages for everyone well beyond what is currently offered but I'm guessing you're against that as well.

Of course we need funded child care. Gone are the days when dad would go to work and mum would stay at home.
Not many working class families can afford to live on one wage. You can’t buy a house for £60 k anymore. Most families need two wages to pay their bills.

Obviously every family is different. But as someone else said, wealthy people don’t become carers, become dustmen, work in shops. Provide vital services. If everyone was a rich, no one would do working class jobs.

We are facing a massive problem at the moment where there are not enough people paying into the pot.
Surely this will only get worse?

There is no shortage of people on this planet, let alone an emergency. Think globally.

the global birth rate is this year dropping below replacement level. By 2050 humanity will go into global terminal population decline. If this isn't an emergency what is?

People like me will have paid into the state pension system for 50 years by the time we retire,

No you haven't. You paid for your parents pension.

with no breaks.

Think yourself lucky for never being ill/made redundant/living through an era of zero hours contracts/not having to study for years for basic jobs/ not being able to afford childcare to go to work.

Can parents say that?

Parents do 2 jobs so yes they do work harder.

People like me haven't burdened the educational system,

You were fully privately educated were you?

the health care system,
Most a&e admissions are the over 80s.
With no DCs to provide free care for you you are more likely to rely on elderly care services paid for by us.

the benefits system

Luck that you've never been unemployed or disabled.

with our non-existent offspring. And so on.

The offspring of today of course will provide the cash flow for our state pensions, hopefully with a bit of gratitude for the bounty they and their parents received courtesy of us net taxpayers.

Never used the NHS/council services have you?

Sounds like quite the life.
Your pp doesn't seem to realise that even without kids, most people's parents aren't able to have provided private education from 4-16/16/21 without any need for taking student grants etc, to have been sufficiently healthy or had good enough life-long private health care to have never needed to use the NHS and to be healthy enough / wealthy enough that even in their old age they can continue to drive / br driven privately and ensure they'll be cared for til they die without any public services, unlike they apparently have

I do not believe and have never believed that anyone should ever bring a child into the world that they cannot afford. I make an exception if a parent dies or develops a medical condition precluding them working.

I think this is such a ridiculous thing to say when it comes to childcare. It's an attempt to silence parents who dare to complain about the cost. I personally can afford my children. However it does not in my mind excuse the fact that it costs almost £1000 a month to put my child in to nursery for just 3 days a week. It costs way more than my mortgage. We of course weighed all of this up before having our children, however the cost of childcare has risen much more than anticipated over the last couple of years. We both work, myself part time and have always worked. People who can afford to stay at home nowadays and look after the children full time whilst managing to afford all of the bills are very few and far between. Times have changed!

Read my message. What I said is don’t bring children into the world if you can’t afford them.

Should we send them back if you lose your job whilst pregnant? Circumstances change.

If the government stopped funding childcare, and people who couldn’t afford to pay for it without government assistance stopped having children as a result, we would be looking at total societal collapse within about 100 years as a consequence.

Anyone who doesn’t recognise that it is an absolute necessity that people keep having children, and therefore that it is essential that the government ensures it’s affordable for them to do so, is deeply ignorant.

Funding childcare is the most basic economics, any adult with mediocre knowledge about the economy should be able to understand that.

OP says they are saving for old age, currently if OP required a care home they would be paying around £1,500 per week. Fees are only this low because care workers, cooks and cleaners are on low wages. If you look at childcare in the UK and the average care home, on an hourly basis childcare is often more expensive. When we lived in the UK our childcare worked out to be £13.20 an hour, if we required that 24/7 like a care home it would cost a lot more than £1,500. If parents are to pay £13.20 an hour, why aren’t adults who will have had around 40-50 years to work paying for their own care?

If OP doesn’t wanr childcare funded, OP has to realise for a healthy economy wages then need to increase, so OP if your old age carers now earn £20 an hour, how long will your savings pay for your home that now costs £2,500 a week, or you home carers that now cost £80 a day?

If OP has a private or state pension they’re relying on tax payers younger than them to earn enough to fund these.

I have a good private pension, it will only remain good if people keep earning enough money to invest in a pension. The OPs private pension will be in the same situation.

If OP needs healthcare they either need affordable childcare, or the wages of health care workers (including in the private setting) need to dramatically increase. The average nurse in the UK, both private and NHS would not be able to afford both housing and chilcare. So those nurses either require childcare funding, or an increased wage.

The lack of basic understanding where economics is concerned means that when childcare isn’t affordable, yet you want good services sucn as social care, wages need to dramatically increase. So you either fund your future care via tax, or you fund it by paying a home, hospital etc directly. There isn’t a magical way to have a good service at current cost.

Where I live fulltime childcare for the first child is around £140 a month. Where I live childcare, education, health care, social care and state funded housing are better quality and easier to access than in the UK. The main reason for this is that childcare is readily available and affordable, meaning we have more people paying tax, as we have more people working.

The OP is advocating for fewer people working, fewer people paying tax, and a further decline in services.

Quite simple really.

if the government encourage women back to work and assist with childcare then those women will climb the ranks, progress in their career and pay back into the system over the course of their career 10 fold as to what they’ve received from the government.

in any event your figures are incorrect. You lose child benefit from £60k and at £100k you don’t get any tax free childcare or free hours

People have largely got the message. They're not having children they can't afford (or just not having any at all) and it's becoming a big problem.

Research shows the benefit of high quality early education to young children.

Families may need financial support to prevent children from living in poverty.

However, I do think that there is a conversation to be had about family size and whether parents can fully support 3+ children: financially, educationally and socially.

If people aren't financially able/supported to have kids then there will still be those who have lots and living in extreme poverty and the more sensible will stop having children. We need to sustain a sensible birth rate.

Supporting children is an investment for all of us for the future. We want children to be happy and well educated so they will take on the burden of work and paying taxes after we all retire/die.

I actually think families should be supported to have a SAHP until a child is 3yo too, if that is their choice. A well rounded child is the biggest asset our future country will have and not all children are suited to long hours in a childcare setting.

I'm a lone parent and with a nursery bill of 1100 a month to cover my working hours, I'd have had to give up if I didn't get universal credit to cover some of it. Thousands and thousands would be the same which would mean thousands and thousands less workers, nearly all women I'd guess. Imagine that.

Maybe you should read my reply. Lots of people can afford to have children, me included. It doesn't however stop the fact that childcare is the biggest outgoing for lots of parents.