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?

Actually maybe we should look to the wealthier using more private schools and healthcare eyc, which would then free up provisions for those worse off. That's what everyone wants isn't it if we all want people to support each other for the better of the country?

They said exactly the same thing in the 50's

It is, you're deciding grunt work means that which is undeserving of respect. Not what I wrote at all. But the reality is carers is physically and emotionally hard work, often not particularly glamorous when you're dealing with bed sores and changing adult pads etc, and it's shit pay. You think if you cull the population by 90% that the kids of people earning 6 figures are going to be desperate to take it on? That parents will be encouraging their child into jobs where they can't earn enough for the child license?

Segregating society like that works really well, doesn't it?

Wtf is this thread?! You think only rich people should be allowed have children?

I mean you could just as well argue that getting old without adequately sacrificing and saving to be able to afford any care you may need later in life is irresponsible and not something younger/healthier tax payers with no care needs should have to pay for. I mean you could, if you were a Thatcherite lunatic who doesn't believe in the social contract.

Some people (most people) having children is part of a human society. I mean, by definition, because otherwise the societies would die out. Yes people shouldn't have more than they can afford to support, in general, as a rule. But when we live in an economic catastrophe like the last 15-20 years has been, when the country already has a burgeoning aging population/decreasing birthrate crisis of the kind other nations like Japan are already seeing, and when it is transparently obvious that wages are so low and housing costs so high that the majority of households cannot manage on a single wage but also cannot justify both partners working full time due to the cost of childcare (one of the highest in Europe) - there has to be some pragmatism here.

I mean honestly, what do you think would happen if everyone who can't afford to have children without any help at all from the state (so unsubsidised childcare, private schooling, private health and dental care etc) didn't have them? Who would grow up to be the social carer that society will (and should) eventually pay to wipe your aging backside? Or should we ship those people in from other countries and then ship them out again when they've finished being useful?

Rich people have fewer children. So if only the people who can afford kids have them, and they have less anyway, what will happen to the demographics?

So your solution is culling the indigenous population growth and then directing funding into AI and importing cheap labour from abroad?

And just for clarity. People who earn over £100k get zero help with childcare. Households where one person earns over £50k are means tested for child benefit, up to £60k - after which they get nothing. Child benefit is approx £20 per week

Taking this logic forward, perhaps subsidised health care and education for people and their offsprings who work. Once you cease to be econimcally active, you get no help you can't pay 100% for. OP would have dealt with the population crisis at both ends then by culling the elderly too

It's only £20 a week for the 1st child though.

As countries modernise they will also experience falling birth rates and will be unwilling to ship their young people off to perform 'grunt work' for other countries.

Perhaps a smaller population is what is needed so that there is enough housing, healthcare, jobs, houses, services, food etc so therefore people being more thoughtful about having children would be better?

Overpopulation has caused all sorts of problems...

Our birth rate is already well below replacement levels (2.1 children per woman).

It's got nothing to do with whether ethically, childcare should be free or not. It's very simple. If the govt wants our birth rate to rise then it needs to make that more achievable, either by providing some sort of help with childcare or by creating a tax regime that makes it possible for one half of a couple to stay at home.

I have one child, and I waited until my 40s for him. The sole reason was because I couldn't be sure of giving him a decent home and I wasn't prepared to put him through the kind of poverty I experienced as a child.

So the govt has a choice, make child raising affordable or rely on immigration for our future work force.

If they don't subsidise childcare one of two things happen:

1. one parent (the woman usually) has to stay at home. This reduces the workforce, increases the gender pay gap, limits oppertunities for that parent, more families on low income benefits because only one salary coming in, and the SAHP doesn't get their NI contributions in or builds a pension so the state then has to continue subsidising the non-worker in old age.

2. people don't have kids because they can't afford it. Population declines, we end up with an aging population where we dont have enough working age people to fill jobs and pay into the system to fund the healthcare and state pension provision for the eldery population.

Like it or not children are the future of the country and it's finances. Investing in people having children is for national benefit.

@Sunshine236 the irony of your username……

Nursery care is better for child development than grandparent care. In a lot of cases grandparent care is less available because more older women work as pension age rises and being a housewife less normal. Until recently landlords have had significant tax breaks which has led to more private renting and higher rents. Rishi sunak gave home buyers a tax break over covid which had led to higher house prices and mortgage payments. These subsidies have had a bad effect. Subsidies for good quality child care has a positive effect on society

Overpopulation is a problem because people are living longer, not because more people are being born.

Well it's not my responsibility to pay for people on benefits and not working. It's not my responsibility to pay for healthcare for others who use nhs far more than I do. It's not my responsibility to pay for care for elderly while I'm still working.

It's not my responsibility but I'm still going to do it because I'm paying my taxes and doing my bit for society

You need more parents to get back into the workforce. If they are not many of them are being subsidised by you anyway by claiming benefits. You need more children brought into the world so the economy can continue when you get older and no longer work.
To say people should be saving thousands upon thousands to afford children before having them is ridiculous. With the way the economy is it's barely viable for people to manage to save to buy a house.

I currently pay almost £1000 a month in taxes from my wage. Then another £700 comes out of that to cover childcare costs for three days a week to allow me to work. I'd have possibly managed not going back full time before the cost of living crisis but now I need to be full time - circumstances have changed for us.
Then put my wage let's take the cost of food each week, the cost of energy and fuel plus all my other regular bills

I can't believe people want less children in the world when those exact children will grow up to contribute to society in taxes, workforce and health and social care.

I’m in two minds about this. I do think that childcare should be free or heavily subsidised but I don’t think parents should get so much extra money just because they have a child.

Thats definitely because I have bee in my bonnet about it though! I have several chronic illnesses that mean I can only work part time, but am entitled to no UC or anything because my husband works full time in a MW job. Someone I saw on here recently was making around 30k but getting ~£800 in UC on top because they had one child. That’s considerably more than we earn jointly even before the UC! We can barely afford to live (my husband is retraining) but there’s no help at all, so in this case, yes parents are better off because of a “choice” they made compared to us, I didn’t choose chronic illness (and no they’re not ones that are caused by lifestyle choices!)

👏👏👏
Yes, thank you, finally people are taking this on board ☝🏻🌞

I imagine the result would be that higher earners would say that they're no longer willing to pay 40 or 45% tax into a system that doesn't benefit them in any way. Remember, these people aren't all multi-millionaires, the 40% rate kicks in at just over $50K.

So they'll take their skills and money elsewhere, leaving lower earners to contribute to the economy...leading to even fewer services.

There's already a huge shortage of experienced doctors, nurses, experienced teachers, etc. Imagine what would happen if they couldn't use state schools or the NHS? Do you think they'd stick around?

We're already below replacement rate in the UK. How exactly do you plan on cutting the population more? Or should we young ones just prepare for a life of servitude?
Alternatively there is euthanasia....

I think fundamentaly people feel it's your 'human right' to have children. For a significant majority it's pretty much a raison d'etre. By putting obsticals (financial) in the way it deprives people of that choice.

Of course there's other things most of us would consider a human right, eg healthcare and education.
I do sense a change though, and that's a general shift away from 'nanny state/society' towards 'individualism/responsibility'. Atm there's a huge push towards supporting yourself financially. If you have children that's hard. Yes it's your choice I guess but most view it as a given. If you add the cost of this nursery subsidy to child benefit, that's a massive subsidy to have a child, however it's felt that (in the words of Whitney) 'the children are our future'.
Now being 'childless' by choice is not considered 'odd' just a little less usual. 1, 2 or no children is the new norm. I'm pretty sure that child benefit and childcare payments will be eased out by essentially being frozen. I do see a move towards cheap 'state creches' where their primary function is to keep your kid alive till you finish work. Parents will need to both work to live, including single parents.. Those that are financially able will elect for private paid for care. The gap will widen. More of those in 'the middle' will choose to remain childfree as the CB becomes devalued and the state childcare is akin to victorian orphanages. OK perhaps I'm exaggerating but I do believe these 'family subsidies' will be essentially phased out and result in a lower birth rate.

Oh goody.
Another benefit-bashing thread.

Purely from an economic standpoint, because:

a. Providing subsidised childcare allows parents to return to work, earn money that goes back into the economy, and pay more in taxes.

b. Making it financially viable to have children ensures that we don't have an aging population and a potential labour shortage down the line.