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?

Taking that attitude to its logical conclusion we shouldn’t fund anything for anyone else. Why should my taxes support healthcare/education/social security etc. for others? I didn’t chose for those people to be born so why should I pay for them?

Obviously we don’t think that and people accept a need to support other people to some extent - why should that not apply to children too?

Also, no, you don’t get support if you earn over £100k.

So you're saving for your care on your old age. Who do you think will be caring for you and at what cost? You think people who are earning the 6 or 7 figures they need to be able to pay for their child's entire costs are going to be encouraging their kids to work for a pittance as your carer meaning they can't have kids of their own? Get real.

You basically want to massively cut population figures AND expect there to be someone to do the grunt work for you in your old age.

I agree with you.

There is zero shortage of human beings on a burning planet teeming with 8 billion people, and never will be. It's absurd to insist that we should subsidize further destruction of the planet because 'you'll need a carer in your old age.'

If the village is expected to pay and pay and pay to those who are having children, the village should get a say in who procreates, when and how often. Everyone should be required to work and pay taxes for, say, 10 years, before being able to claim benefits. Birth control exists.

A lot of those issues are linked to poverty, public health and education. Obviously these issues will never be irradicated, but something to reduce poverty like helping people work should make those negative outcomes all a bit less likely.

By the ops logic, you should have to pay for your child's time in jail anyway as why should my benefits go to imprisoning the child you chose to have!

some childless people are very short sighted
Yes!
How many times do we hear 'I don't have children so why should my taxes be used to pay for schools' etc
As if the only people who benefit from the education of children are the parents of those children!
This is a nonsense, we need people to be educated so that they can fulfil the various roles needed for the wheels to keep turning.

And if the village is paying for your healthcare?

Does it get a say in what you eat? Can you be forced to exercise? Avoid dangerous sports/activities? Because this might put a burden on the village.

Yes, there is an inherent tension between personal liberty and the welfare state but I think most people would agree that a totalitarian regime that is highly restrictive of people's personal choices (be those reproductive/lifestyle) is not the answer.

Children are the future of a country. If allowances were cut and only the most financially able could have children, who is going to serve your coffee? Collect your bins? Deliver your post? We are not just individuals who happen to be living in a certain country. We are a society. Societies require roads, hospitals, shops, social services, schools. We are part of society and pay taxes for the good of all. Frankly the best societies, ie the countries that year on year are voted the best to live in because of excellent services, health, roads etc are those with the very highest taxes. Scandinavia. We should be grateful to pay taxes, to be able to be part of a decent society that cares for all. The sign of a civilised country is that it takes care of the most fragile in society. The UK is fast falling into the category of every man for himself.

But we're now going down the line of forced, compulsory long term contraception / forced abortions and applications for permission to procreate, so are you saying that we don't implement this across the less "developed" countries in order that you can have a work force to support Western countries?
Because if you implement this world-wide (obv thought experiment not your actual proposal for when you run as PM) then that population would be dramatically curtailed within 100 years, esp depending on how you decide who can and can't, what happens to multiples etc

On a brutally obvious level - older people have much less to contribute to the economy, and this is why they are less of a priority in terms of funding. It's not altruistic.

Should people who are unable to be economically active and incapable of being left unsupervised/without another person to care for them, have part of their living costs be funded by the state?

Also, no, you don’t get support if you earn over £100k.

Don't all three year olds get some free hours atm?

Yes, because it's better for society as a whole.

@Sunshine236 if you're really interested in learning more, then read books like 'The Nordic Theory of Everything' by Anu Partanen. It explains demand vs supply views on education and why the latter works best over the long term for society. It also references further reading.

I don't think it should be a case of education (or 'free childcare', as some may choose to refer to early years education) vs healthcare vs elder care etc. The goal should be equity for all and spending tax on building what society is to be in the next 30 years or more. Unfortunately, various UK governments only look to the immediate future and what will get them elected. They never take a truly long-term view and make difficult - but correct - decisions that may go against perceived public opinion.

I really like that carers work is seen as grunt work - nice! Maybe if we gave professions more respect that would be a start!

Also yes poverty can lead to crime etc which is even more of an argument to at least consider whether you can provide for a child before having one!

It's very true there's no shortage of human beings, problem is too many old ones and not enough new young ones, birth rates are falling in lots of countries, women are choosing not to have children, governments are worried

when you are elderly do you want there to be doctors who can look after you, farmers growing your food, companies making products you want, people providing transport for you to get around, people making television to keep you entertained etc? If so, then we need there to be younger generations of people to work. It is not an option for no one to have children and therefore we need to work together to create sustainable future generations that can meet the needs of society.

you don’t want people earning good salaries to have childcare paid for but these people pay large amounts of there salaries towards taxes, is it not appropriate for some of these taxes to go towards enabling them to continue working for a few years (short proportion of their total working life)?

Parents aren’t being given funding because they had a child. A child, an entirely separate human being, is being given funding provision for something that they need.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, @WigglyWigglyWiggly and it makes sense to me. Children are individuals and members of society in their own rights, not extensions of their parents.

Re. Parents on high incomes. The flip side, I suppose, is that these people are contributing a lot tax-wise so why shouldn't their children have the same support as everyone else's? It's like saying that well-off people have no right to send their children to state schools or use the NHS, because they earn too much Instead, they must all send their children to private schools and pay for private healthcare to free up resources for less affluent families. Why on earth should they when they're paying 40 or 45% tax?

Why are these threads always started by someone who changes name? Why hide?

A parent doesn't get this financial boost, the child does. The money/support is intended for the child. If you don't have a child - I.e. the child doesn't exist - they don't get it. Why would a child that didn't exist need financial support?

@Saltywalruss - that’s preschool education. It’s not compulsory but is available to all. Like state education is available to all, but it’s not compulsory to use it.

the funded hours for preschools can be used if a childcare setting also offers the early year’s curriculum, but otherwise are term time only and for 3 hours and you have to arrange wrap around care.

I think in that world, you'd restrict access to "free" Hc not people's activities. No cancer treatment for anyone who's don't anything which increases risk, and if there's a genetic risk known about before your parents had you. No treatment for type 2(?) diabetes that's diet linked. No treatment for MH issues if it can be proven your lifestyle has exacerbated your risk. No treatment for broken bones etc from sports or hobbies. No treatment related to alcohol or drugs. No access for maternity services, post natal services or paediatric services.

I don’t know anyone earning £100,000 a year who gets help/benefits outwith the free nursery provisions that all children over 3 get. We don’t earn anywhere near £100,000 but we don’t even qualify for child health benefit. We did get the tax free childcare for a few months when my middle daughter started nursery- we paid for her to go for a few months before she turned 3 as there weren’t any playgroups or anything due to covid and we felt she was missing out a bit socially so we paid for her to start nursery a bit earlier.

I hate to say it but robots will be doing a lot of work in the future. Even the government has announced more funding for AI....

If the village is expected to pay and pay and pay to those who are having children, the village should get a say in who procreates, when and how often

In a situation where women have lots of children by default your argument might stand up, but this is no longer the case.
Increasingly now that women have access well-paid jobs they realise that having children is not an attractive option.... Not when compared to having autonomy earning your own money fulfilling your own ambitions, in the past women had little option but to be beholden to a man who had the financial power over her.
Increasingly this is no longer the case and women are choosing not to be parents ....despite the best efforts of governments to incentivise them they still prefer to invest in their careers.

And who is going to build and develop these robots, teach them what to, monitor and repair them?