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?

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?

A lot of those issue arise from lack of staff. At lower rates of pay it simply isn’t affordable for both parents of young children to work. And where do you think those junior level staff are going to come from in 20 years time?

If there's a net improvement to their household bottom line, they are indeed making money.

We can tighten the rules so they don't take their wealth with them. Anyway some rich people are happy to pay their taxes and have even been suggesting that they should be taxed more

I mean from a purely economic perspective if it's the burden of overpopulation you're worried about it's the old people who are the drain, not the children. The children (if adequately cared for and properly educated, say, you know, by a high-quality public childcare and education service for example) have the potential to become contributing members of society. Where is the economic benefit to anyone of people living up to 30% of their lives in retirement?

It's almost like the hallmark of a civilised society not to weigh literally everyone's worth based on their net economic contribution isn't it?

But they already DO pay more, @Sunshine236 . Anyone earning over 150K pays 45% tax - that's a lot more than the 20% basic pay that most people pay, isn't it?

The short answer is that the UK is desperate to get more working age adults into the workforce because that’s how growth happens. If you want women to go back to work after having babies, they have to be able to afford it. A lot of women simply can’t—it costs too much more than they earn to be feasible financially—so I’d say it
it’s a pragmatic solution.

Also, children are pretty necessary if we want our society to carry on. They are the ‘lifestyle choice’ that will be supporting all of us when we are old. People who look down on women having children as purely a selfish thing would do well to remember that our society’s future depends on the children being born today.

Dramatically reducing the population 100 years from now is going to be a moot point at the rate climate change is going, but certainly would be something to strive for. I'm sure the species we are killing off on a daily basis would appreciate it.

No one has to have sex, so the argument about forced contraception and abortion is absurd.

"Personally, I think people should use their teens and at least most of their 20s focusing on education, work experience, savings and financial solvency, establishing a time-tested relationship with a stable partner, etc. -- if they did, instead of producing offspring they aren't prepared to support, and being entangled in crappy relationships with losers, there would not BE so many poor people.

Then they could go on to have their families. But as they say on airplanes, people need to put their own oxygen masks on first. If they can't adequately support themselves, it is absurd to be creating additional human beings."

Who in earth are you talking about?! The average age of first time mothers in the U.K. is over 30. The only people who will benefit from this new subsidy are working people.

This is the biggest pile of classist BS, you should be ashamed frankly.

You realise we need people to be having children to ensure society continues to function, right?

I didn’t get the bit about wraparound care- will it be funded for parents too?

Maybe. But given it will be my childrens responsibility to fund your pension I would be careful what you wish for.

As it happens my earning are too high to get any assistance at all but I don't get to opt out of all the other things my taxes go towards either. You have a strange outlook and a pretty basic view of economics. Can't you see that todays proposals are intended to stimulate the economy?

A lot of that £800 would be for rent, not spare cash (unless it's for a disabled child). It must be in a high-rent area. My rent is about average and I certainly wouldn't receive anywhere near that much in benefits if I were earning £30k (you can check this online).

You can claim that money too unless you don't need it. It's means-tested.

In the 21st century, having children is very much a lifestyle choice. It shocks me how much some (not all) parents expect other taxpayers to fund this choice. Contraception is so good now that nobody is "forced" to have a child, and can easily choose not to.
Yes, we need a functioning workforce so I understand assistance with childcare, but why the hell do we pay child benefits? Just giving away money simply because someone has reproduced seems somewhat bizarre.

We’re talking about the UK here. “There is zero shortage of human beings” - great, so you’d just “import” the necessary number of people from other countries to make sure society here will continue to function, and then what?
Will those immigrants be allowed to have children or only if they’re really well off? Or not even then, because „burning planet“?

Your premise here is wrong (plenty of those 'same people' contribute via tax to the economy and would be happy to pay higher taxes for better public services) but they're also not the point.

I don't have kids and think more people should think about their finances before having kids. I also think large families are a lifestyle choice and support should be tapered accordingly. I have no skin in the game in terms of supporting parents financially and will not directly benefit from this new policy whatsoever -in short, I've got no directly personal reason to give a shit about this.

HOWEVER.

1. We need people to have children.
2. We also need people working to contribute to our economy.

Currently, people with small children (mostly women) are less economically active because of the cost of childcare. That needs fixing, because our economy needs stimulus and our birth rate is declining.

It is that simple: we need to make it possible for people with smaller children to work, or they either a) won't work or b) people will stop having children.

I know plenty of people who aren't having children (or are stopping at one), at least partially because of the cost of doing so. I know a few people who won't go back to work until their child is at least 3 when they'd have preferred to go back after maternity leave/SPL ends. That's at least 2 years where someone could have been contributing to the economy when they didn't due to the cost.

Regardless of whether you personally want to pay tax towards the cost of childcare, it is needed.

"If there's a net improvement to their household bottom line, they are indeed making money."

Well, no, clearly there is a net loss if they are paying 50% of a childcare bill vs the 0% they would be paying if they didn't have children. My point was that people are not giving birth to humans as a way to make a bit of cash, as some of the posters here have seemed to insinuate.

If it's aimed at helping parents who are working then it should only go to those who are in regular work, otherwise it's not needed.

It's incredibly hard to go on living without having a child, for many if us.

How dare you speak like this on a parenting forum where you know many people are suffering desperately trying to conceive?

In the 21st century, having children is very much a lifestyle choice
I just fixed that for you, yes having children is a choice because we have effective contraception, that doesn't mean it comes into the same category as a 'lifestyle choice'.
(Although I suppose that depends on what you mean by lifestyle choice?)

Why do we give people benefits for getting old? Or being being sick? Why do we give anyone benefits whatsoever?

Society should just be a free-for-all of the haves and have-nots

It's just been announced that parents on UC will now receive up to £951 for one child and £1,630 for two children per month which will now be paid upfront. So parents who are both working receive this on top right but as a percentage depending on their earnings?

I agree, @ZeldaWillTellYourFortune , but regardless of the parents' choices, it doesn't make sense for a society not to invest in children. Otherwise, they're almost bound to end up being a drain on society aren't they?

Good healthcare and education gives them a chance to do something with their lives; poor healthcare and under-educating children doesn't benefit society long term.

Don't be absurd. It's a desperately needed lifeline for many parents, including but not exclusively single parents and disabled parents, parents suffering postnatal depression and parents with other difficult but undervalued caring roles to perform.

Er, humans are animals.

Just giving away money simply because someone has reproduced seems somewhat bizarre
So in your view having children is something like a party trick? like being able to juggle ...something you do for your own entertainment and amusement which is of no benefit to anyone else.
Is that how you see having children @Hbh17 ?