Why doesn’t the country support having children?

[NameChangeAsICouldBeOverReacting]

Just seen an article on The Guardian about the 15 free hours for childcare for under 2’s and how the whole system is a mess.

I’m just starting to lose hope that this country doesn’t support working families anymore?

AIBU and need to think more positively, or have we screwed up massively by not supporting families?

The Guardian article which I read.

@traytablestowed Child benefit (family allowance) was not paid for the first child until 1977. We ‘boomers’ really had it all! No paid maternity leave, most women had no choice but to give up work.

I’m just starting to lose hope that this country doesn’t support working families anymore?

Let’s see . . . 15 hours free childcare, family allowance, family tax credits.
are you asking that the government (ie, us taxpayers) actually pay you to get pregnant and raise your child for you?

Most of that doesn't exist anymore. You should have a read up and see that things are a lot less generous than you think.

I didn't say anything about boomers? I replied to a poster who had children in the 80s (assumed based on the mortgage rate they quoted) but claimed they hadn't received any benefits for having children, when in fact they had. Many parents do not receive these same benefits today (not for the first child or any subsequent children either).

I'm just going to drop this here for all of you "things are so much easier for families now vs my day" types:

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-7383409/amp/Those-born-1980s-disposable-income.html

I'm a parent. I'm also a tax payer. I pay more tax than some childfree tax payers, as does my DH. And we don't qualify for most of that.

A LOT of what you're talking about is given to non-working parents, or those on very low incomes who pay less tax.

You really haven't got the point of what the majority of us are talking about when we say we are not supported to be working parents. If I jacked in my job (and therefore stopped paying tax) and DH went a few rungs back down the career ladder (therefore paying less tax), we'd get more support towards paying for our family AND we'd get more free childcare. Do you think that's right?

Or are you maybe blind to the system being totally broken?

Apologies, I didn’t see any dates other than when means testing started. My children were born in the 70s. We were renting at the time, although we later bought a house, then almost lost it due to the interest rates. Just hung in there.

My children don’t get CB for my grandchildren, due to their incomes. And the mothers didn’t have to give up work, they took the maximum paid maternity leave and returned to well paying careers. Swings and roundabouts.

I’m actually pleased that things have improved for many women when they decide to have a child.

@IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos I made the same point upthread, including the fact accessing things like private healthcare means some tax paying parents are paying for broken state services they don’t use whilst keeping the economy going.

The system is completely illogical.

This is not a criticism of parents claiming benefits this is making the point that there should be no need for working parents to have to claim benefits.

i don’t have immediate answers as it’s complex.

@Alicesmagicmushroom totally agree. I don't know what the answer is (other than overthrow the government and rip everything out and start again???), but the system is broken.

People who need help should be able to get help. Parents who work and pay tax shouldn't have to spend a high proportion of their wage on childcare, when they already pay a high % of tax which is supposedly used for the childcare system.

I knew the costs, I chose to have my daughter and I budget accordingly. But it's hard to ignore that we might be better off if we worked/earned less and claimed money from the pot gained from taxpayers like ourselves instead. Especially when I have people in my circle who do indeed do that, and somehow have loads of disposable cash and time to themselves while their children are in free childcare AND they don't work...

@IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos agree with everything, including overthrowing our illustrious leaders! 😉

I did t know there was free childcare if you don’t/can’t work but I guess that for the children’s benefit ? but again makes no sense to me at all.

Main point though, is there is such disparity between necessary services and salaries but I am no economist so hopefully someone here can explain to us what we need to do to factor in supporting basic humans needs in our broken system.

@ThinkingForward

It's National Insurance, you can't claim on insurance unless you pay for it first....

It's not insurance at all. It's just tax under a different name.

There is NO link between what you pay in (if anything at all) and what you get out.

Huge numbers of people pay little or no NIC yet remain entitled to a full range of benefits including state pension, such as those on some benefits who get NIC "credits", non working mothers with young children claiming child benefit get NIC "credits", part timers working under the threshold for paying NIC but over the lower threshold get NIC "credits" without paying any NIC.

It's about time we called it what is really is, - a TAX!

Yes, I had my first child in 1976 and did get maternity allowance, but less than £10 a week. There wasn't proper paid maternity leave as we know it now, related to what you were earning, it was really just a token payment. There was no help at all with childcare payments if you returned to work. You didn't get Child Benefit for the first child, and payments were very low for subsequent children.

I’m actually pleased that things have improved for many women when they decide to have a child.

@Seymour5 it is just your opinion that things have improved for women who decide to have children now vs in the past. In the past most women had no choice but to give up work even if they didn't want to; today most women have no choice but to go back to work (and pay the highest prices for childcare in the world for the privilege), even if they don't want to. On a personal level I am happy that I was able to go back to work, but at a population level I don't see it necessarily as an improvement. Either way women's choices are still being limited by circumstances outside their control (currently the fact that it is virtually impossible for most families to survive on one person's salary).

I strongly suspect that your children, like many families, benefited from private company maternity packages, rather than this being taxpayer-funded support.

@traytablestowed hence my saying ‘many’ women. I’m very aware that in every generation there are different experiences, as I’ve lived through the changes.

I have a daughter and a daughter in law. One private sector, one public. They have always worked and both had good maternity packages.

@user1497207191

Yes, I'm well thanks aware it's a tax. I was trying to reinforce the point that it used to be a contribution based system. Getting back to that principle would likely address some deep routes challenges.

Let’s see . . . 15 hours free childcare, family allowance, family tax credits.
are you asking that the government (ie, us taxpayers) actually pay you to get pregnant and raise your child for you?

@Duchydutch you are aware lots of working families do not qualify for family allowance & tax credits?

@traytablestowed you are wasting your breath unfortunately

OK, so what do you think will happen if the population keeps growing exponentially at this rate?

Maternity pay isn’t related to earnings really. My take home pay is about £2,600 per month. I got 13 weeks on 90% pay and then dropped down to about £650/month. It took YEARS of saving (while also saving for a mortgage AND for IVF) to have enough to cover my maternity leave, since it was circa £2000/month drop in earnings (and I’m the main earner in my home)

The tax I pay each month now that I’m back from my 8 month long maternity pay is almost equal to what I was paid in maternity pay.

Shouldn’t we be making it easier for higher earners - who contribute more in tax than low earners - to take time off? We simply couldn’t afford to take any longer off.

I don't think it can keep growing at the rate it is. But we do still need new humans. Else the species dies out. So like I said, let's not all have loads of kids, but we do need them.

What do you think will happen if people stop having children? What do you envisage life being like with this generation being the last? Seeing as that's your solution to the world's problems?

OK, so what do you think will happen if the population keeps growing exponentially at this rate?

@Drosera the worlds population is growing at an exponentially rate though?

Who gets long paid maternity? Teachers get a a couple of weeks

We are going to end up with a generations of children born to either super high earners or low benefit claimers, the intelligence pool will decrease

Being on benefits doesn't mean you are thick.

Your choice to have children, tax payers problem to pick up the slack!? Move to Germany OP