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?

But you have to work to get the free childcare!!! Honestly your ignorance is outstanding.

I congratulate you on you and parents foresight.

However you cannot deny that there are millions of people in this country who don't have "substantial" savings or the wiggle room to make "sacrifices" to enable them to take time off or even build up their savings.
There are literally people living hand to mouth, sometimes worse.
They are here, they're living and breathing. We can prevent unwanted pregnancies but what do you do once they're here and need care?
Tell them all "sorry old boy. You should've saved more and worked harder while you had the chance."
Big Tory Energy right there.

Uhh they don’t. They can claim towards their childcare, which they don’t get the 30 hours if they don’t work.

Troll or just incredibly dim?

I think it should be a percentage of pay. That means there is an incentive to work.
Unless people have children, there will be no one to fund all the elements of our welfare state from cradle to grave. Much less anyone to work in it.

@Sunshine236 the issue is UC includes rent to these figures always sound really high. Some people's rent alone is £800/900 a month that is just an average too.

They don't though, that's above the maximum unless they themselves or their children have disabilities and actually not much for a household. Perhaps it might he worth stop reading the daily mail?

Logical but how do you actually KNOW you can afford them?!

Or what if - you realised you could afford a baby, planned out the childcare costs and knew it was doable and then you - had twins? Got made redundant? Diagnosed with something that stopped you working?

And then mortgage rates went up, and fuel costs and childcare costs and every other imaginable cost goes up wayyyyy more than you could ever have expected?

And yet, when you reach pensionable age, you'll expect these people's children to support you with a pension, social care and any time you use the NHS? Is growing old a lifestyle choice?

Maybe you should check the facts? Two earners on 50k each will get child benefit between them.

Child benefit is something like 20 odd quid a week, it's not making anyone to decide to have babies for the financial gain ffs.

Of course not. On an individual level it's for personal 'benefit'. But in a societal level, we do need people to keep having children.

@EssexMan55 Maybe you should check the facts? Two earners on 50k each will get child benefit between them.

In what way is a tax break of about £20 a week remotely similar to OP suggesting people get handed a free £1600 purely for having children?

OK, so only those who can afford full time childcare with zero help Inc child benefit, or can afford a full time parent to be at home with zero help Inc UC all until kids are 4 should have kids, and anyone else should either be encouraged to have an abortion or have their child removed cos they can't afford it.

Do you think that will cause a different burden on the state of looked after children and population decline within the UK? &

But other benefits are given out en masse and not means tested, which involves a degree of comfortably off people receiving them.
Take the pensioners' heating allowance, free prescriptions, attendance allowance, bus pass etc.
MIL in her 80's like many women of her generation gave up work in her early twenties to raise children and never returned. That was a lifestyle choice. She quite happily takes the above benefits she could manage without.
Isn't it time younger people were given a break?

To me it would then seem that NOT having children is the lifestyle choice. Having children is the evolutionary default.

But you're OP isn't complaining about people affording (or not) to have children, it's about subsidising childcare. Some people, in key worker positions, decide to have children and then can't afford to work. A PP who was a nurse has posted above. Can't you see it's in everyone's interests to make it economically viable for qualified nurses (amongst other professions) to go back to work?

How on earth do you think social care is staffed in the future if people don’t have children because they can’t afford to? We have a declining population.

Ideally everybody would be paid enough to pay for their own childcare but most people aren’t paid enough and so childcare should absolutely be subsidised, as should social care. But if parents aren’t working and paying tax because they can’t afford childcare and babies aren’t born social care staff will continue to be understaffed and underfunded/none existent by the time most of us need it.

What is the difference between funding childcare for under 5s and funding schools? I don't really see why so many people have a problem with one and not the other.

Yes, in an aging population your social policy should reflect that you need your population to replace itself. One way to do that is through positive reinforcement- ie. to incentivise breeding through removing financial and logistical barriers.

Other ways to do it are to remove access to birth control and termination of pregnancy.

For me it's not to do with morality, it's practicality. The government want more people working, and lack of childcare is a major reason for non working adults. Then there is the fact that a working person will be paying into a pension, not to mention parents (largely women) won't lose the opportunity to progress at work.

I don't have DC btw.

Because there are plenty of things people want in life but can't afford or have to save for before they can have them or have to make sacrifices for such as moving area, closer to family etc It just seems if you want children you're congratulated and automatically should receive help even if you're earning a very decent salary to many e.g. £50k a year

Of course childcare should be subsidized.

Those children eventually become contributing adults in society... Doctors, nurses, teachers, waiters etc etc.

Let's not rush to the bottom any more eh.

@Sunshine236

Are you saving to fund your nursing home?

I imagine it is better for tax revenue to get women back to work sooner. It means they are more likely to earn more. It is a better investment than some other areas of gov spending.

I'm not sure OP is really reading any of these replies 🤷‍♀️