Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Philip Ashton's avatar

Love this idea! What’s being done to lobby for it?

Are the Quebecois and Spanish examples similar front loading of benefits, or an additional lump sum?

I guess one thing that might make it unpalatable is that the government who introduce it will bear the cost of the lump sum without getting most of the benefit of the decreased regular payments.

Expand full comment
Trisha Jha's avatar

There are probably a number of ways to slice the cost of children. One is material costs of attending to their needs, in which Jon Neale above is correct to observe older children cost more. One is costs of providing care, which is much higher for younger children. Another is the life course income effect - parents will earn more as their children age, enabling them to meet the needs of older children more effectively, but forgoing income when children are very young.

Then there's the upfront cost in terms of pram, cot, baby car seat etc for the first child with lower costs for the second child. But then costs probably pick up again for third and subsequent children as third children would require a larger car (depending on age gaps and car seat laws of course) and an additional bedroom.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying there's no clear 'right' way to think about it, but front loading should at least be a consideration.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts