What's the Future of Child Benefit?

Mistermeaner

Doubt 20quid a week is going to fix that

Also kids were much more important when required in larger higher earning numbers to fund the retirement of those lucky enough to be alive in their 60s and 70s - that bubble has long burst, we have to save for our own retirement now and can't rely on the yooof paying for us.

remorseless

Blue22 wrote: »

Yes it would be bad unless you were considering bumping off a few million pensioners.

hmmm I thought that point would be mostly applicable if pensioners would be fully supported by the current workforce.

But in 2050 those pensioners (us) are more likely going to have our private pension (hopefully most of us) and still pay taxes!

How many of us will be relying solely on State Pension (and be able to sleep at night now :rotfl:)

With that model of 'we need more children to support pensioners', the amount of children will need to keep increasing to keep up with the longevity and advances in healthcare!!!

missyrichards

remorseless wrote: »

With that model of 'we need more children to support pensioners', the amount of children will need to keep increasing to keep up with the longevity and advances in healthcare!!!

Yes, wouldn't we just keep having the same problem if we keep trying to create kids to compensate for old people living longer?

Also what type of person has kids just because they are worried about older people needing care when they are older, not many I would imagine.:D

I have read that the global population will eventually stabilise as women become more educated and birth control will become more widespread.

Blue22

remorseless wrote: »

hmmm I thought that point would be mostly applicable if pensioners would be fully supported by the current workforce.

But in 2050 those pensioners (us) are more likely going to have our private pension (hopefully most of us) and still pay taxes!

Do you really think those future pensioners will be able to support themselves? How much is someone on an average income currently contributing to their pension fund even with auto enrolement. I reckon someone on about £25K is probably contributing about £500-£1000 a year including employer contributions. Is that really going to grow enough to give someone retiring at 67/68 an income for the next 20 years?

How many of us will be relying solely on State Pension (and be able to sleep at night now :rotfl:)

remorseless wrote: »

With that model of 'we need more children to support pensioners', the amount of children will need to keep increasing to keep up with the longevity and advances in healthcare!!!

And even assuming that those future pensioners could financially support themselves, where is the workforce that will be caring for them, delivering their Tesco shop, emptying their bins, servicing their mobility scooters etc

Blue22

missyrichards wrote: »

Also what type of person has kids just because they are worried about older people needing care when they are older, not many I would imagine.:D

I think that throughout human history that probably has been the primary motivation in less developed societies. Now we see the state as being the supporter of the elderly but the state is only as strong as the sum total of its productive workers.

wotsthat

remorseless wrote: »

hmmm I thought that point would be mostly applicable if pensioners would be fully supported by the current workforce.

If a pensioner is non-productive then they are being fully supported by the current workforce.

They may have deferred some consumption as part of their retirement plans but if the stuff they want to consume isn't being produced by the workforce they're shafted.

remorseless

wotsthat wrote: »

If a pensioner is non-productive then they are being fully supported by the current workforce.

They may have deferred some consumption as part of their retirement plans but if the stuff they want to consume isn't being produced by the workforce they're shafted.

The same argument applies to non-productive people in working age popping kids for handouts, they are being fully supported by the current workforce and the pensioners too!

Maybe it depends on your definition of non-productive.
Not all pensioner are (or plan to be) cactus-like just hoping to be watered once a month. Pension age is also going up for the same reason. Many will/have a pension above the personal allowance, pay tax, spend money, and even drive a car (OMG, people have a life past 65!)

missyrichards

Blue22 wrote: »

I think that throughout human history that probably has been the primary motivation in less developed societies. Now we see the state as being the supporter of the elderly but the state is only as strong as the sum total of its productive workers.

I can't see the appeal of having children if a woman is well educated and has a good job. Taking time off to have a baby messes up your career as well as costing a lot of money. I can understand if you are at the very bottom of society and a single mother with no father around and you rely on the state completely or the opposite end of the spectrum the women at the very top who can afford nannies but why would the women in the middle group want to have children? There isn't a financial upside to having them if you are in that group and I think the trend of the declining birthrate will continue here. The more career minded women I know in the UK do not want kids at all.

wotsthat

remorseless wrote: »

Maybe it depends on your definition of non-productive.
Not all pensioner are (or plan to be) cactus-like just hoping to be watered once a month. Pension age is also going up for the same reason. Many will/have a pension above the personal allowance, pay tax, spend money, and even drive a car (OMG, people have a life past 65!)

I'm talking in economic terms rather than suggesting retired people are useless ornaments.

Working people are in various different ratios of production to consumption but in retirement we become predominantly consumers. Your over 65 only drives a car, fills up with petrol and buys stuff at the shops because workers spent time producing cars, petrol and groceries.

Retired people aren't generally productive but rely on others to be productive on their behalf usually in exchange for money.

If the ratio of workers to retired people falls then each worker has to produce more to cover their own requirements and the consumption needs of the additional aged. Maybe they can't so old people compete for the available production which will reduce the value of their money. Perhaps they're required to consume less. Perhaps we import more productive people to share the load. Probably a bit of all of the above.

onlyroz

missyrichards wrote: »

I can't see the appeal of having children if a woman is well educated and has a good job. Taking time off to have a baby messes up your career as well as costing a lot of money. I can understand if you are at the very bottom of society and a single mother with no father around and you rely on the state completely or the opposite end of the spectrum the women at the very top who can afford nannies but why would the women in the middle group want to have children? There isn't a financial upside to having them if you are in that group and I think the trend of the declining birthrate will continue here. The more career minded women I know in the UK do not want kids at all.

Which is exactly why we, as a society, should be doing everything we can to help those "middle-class professional women" with childcare costs and family-friendly work policies (such as flexible hours).