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.
The second pdf I've linked runs the numbers discounting by government yields, so there wouldn't be net cost (but yes would still show up on short run deficit figures)
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.
Rather baffled by the idea that older children are less expensive. They eat far more than babies or toddlers, they don’t travel free on public transport and their clothes are far more expensive. And sure, 14+ they can look after themselves more but there is a very difficult period during the 7-12 yr group where childcare is hard to organise but school still finishes half way through the afternoon.
A huge portion of CPAG's estimates include childcare costs, but I think it is reasonable to include these, since even if parents choose to work less, there is an opportunity cost in terms of lost earnings and time for other things.
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.
Thanks Philip! The Quebecan policy is pretty much a baby bonus, the Spanish case was given as a maternity benefit — both reasonably lump sum.
In terms of lobbying, I'm not privy to any active discussions, but am putting out some briefings advancing the idea, it would be wonderful for anyone to pick them up: https://www.centrefe.org/s/CFE-Zero-Cost-Family-Support-Measures.pdf, https://www.centrefe.org/s/Briefing_-The-Details-of-Front-loading-Child-Benefit.pdf
The second pdf I've linked runs the numbers discounting by government yields, so there wouldn't be net cost (but yes would still show up on short run deficit figures)
Cool, I have zero idea about how to do any lobbying, but will write to my MP about it.
That's great Philip, hopefully we'll get some awareness of the proposal!
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.
Rather baffled by the idea that older children are less expensive. They eat far more than babies or toddlers, they don’t travel free on public transport and their clothes are far more expensive. And sure, 14+ they can look after themselves more but there is a very difficult period during the 7-12 yr group where childcare is hard to organise but school still finishes half way through the afternoon.
A huge portion of CPAG's estimates include childcare costs, but I think it is reasonable to include these, since even if parents choose to work less, there is an opportunity cost in terms of lost earnings and time for other things.
My unassisted monthly childcare bill for 1 year old and 3 year old is £3000! Fortunately work and government support bring that down to “only” £1000.
Poor sentence structure. Who is writing this?
Do you have specific complaints?
Probably a bot engagement farming.