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.
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)
Here's the letter draft, in case anyone else is interested:
As a constituent in BLANK I’m writing to ask you to look into an idea that could help young families without increasing overall public spending: front-loading Child Benefit.
A recent article in Works in Progress (4 June 2025) explains the proposal clearly and cites evidence that concentrating payments in the first few years of a child’s life would ease the costs parents face at the very point those costs peak. The Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that raising a one-year-old costs nearly four times as much per week as raising a teenager; front-loading would deliver support precisely when it is most needed.
Importantly, Parliament already has a vehicle for this reform—the Front-Loaded Child Benefit Bill [HL] introduced by Lord Farmer in 2022. Giving government time or cross-party backing to examine (or revive) that Bill could move the discussion from theory to practice quickly.
Hi Philip, I think this is great! I will be using it for mine. I will also attach the pdf that does a brief costings also taking into account the cost of borrowing the money forward and that suggests how the money could be spaced out for those already receiving housing benefit and council tax exemptions. Perhaps something along the lines of:
As a constituent in BLANK I’m writing to ask you to look into an idea that could help young families without increasing overall public spending: front-loading Child Benefit.
A recent article in Works in Progress (4 June 2025) explains the proposal clearly and cites evidence that concentrating payments in the first few years of a child’s life would ease the costs parents face at the very point those costs peak. The Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that raising a one-year-old costs nearly four times as much per week as raising a teenager; front-loading would deliver support precisely when it is most needed.
Importantly, Parliament already has a vehicle for this reform—the Front-Loaded Child Benefit Bill [HL] introduced by Lord Farmer in 2022. Giving government time or cross-party backing to examine (or revive) that Bill could move the discussion from theory to practice quickly.
A briefing by the Centre for Family and Education has a proposal that includes the cost of borrowing and phases child benefit depending on the support needed by different households.
As a parent who would properly benefit I would love to like this, but I'm afraid this has terrible incentives and would make government costs massively balloon.
Lump sum payments have a tendency to be taken advantage of by high time preference individuals, who just spend everything on whatever they want in a short amount of time. Since we do not want to let children starve (for good reason!), the government will then have to jump in and pay for the child care anyway. Not to mention that the kind of person who thinks it's a good idea to have kids just to quickly get a lot of money should not be expected to be a good parent.
Generous welfare programs being abused is already are one of the largest problems in contemporary western states and several european states' struggles are directly caused by it. This reads like a proposal from the 90s or early 2000s era, missing out on everything we have learned since then.
I think it's a great concern, but I think there are reasons to think this is for the best:
- _essential costs_ of having children are at their highest earliest in life, so front-loading is targeted at reducing child poverty, as opposed to exacerbating it
- parents' incomes tend to be lowest when the children are young, so it targets support to when it is needed in the parents' life cycle
- most front-loading proposals are targeted at spreading it out over the first 4 or 5 years, and therefore don't carry the risks of a block upfront payment that you spell out
I would personally support having more upfront payments as tax rebates, such that it avoids perverse incentives, and there is evidence that even tax-specific relief can raise fertility. My organisation is sitting on a result that a tax holiday in Iceland caused a statistically significant increase in fertility
It's expensive, I agree. But it is at least quite easy, relatively at least, to organise round-the-year, full-time childcare for small children. But we have found it extremely difficult to organise wraparound care that allows both parents feasibly to commute and work once they get to primary school. Bear mind you then need to find a holiday club that will accommodate full-time working hours too, which is quite difficult.
Things only become more complicated with time, as older primary school age children may have their own views on what they do and don't want to do during the holidays. I haven't even broached the topic of inset days here. Also, wraparound care becomes more problematic when those same children start wanting to do sports clubs or music lessons after school, which often take place during the difficult period between 4 and 6. (The other complication, by the way, is that grandparents are often more available during early years than in later years, when they might start needing care themselves, but that's a different matter).
As a result, we actually both worked when the children were small. But as they got older we found it harder to do this and in fact one of us gave up work. So over our parenthood experience, the lost income was higher as our children got older; bear in mind too the lost opportunities for career advancement and higher wages.
Hi Jon, I think this is a big problem, but I think it's also worth distinguishing between essential costs and additional expenditure. When I was an older primary school and secondary kid, I would walk myself back from school and then entertain myself for a few hours most days. I'm 24 so this wasn't a super long time ago. I think it's most important to focus state support on the essential costs and then parents can choose what tradeoffs they are happy to take for the extra perks.
Having said that, I appreciate that doesn't make everything clear cut, it just answers the after school question. Inset days and long holidays are a whole other thing and I admit difficult to manage. I think past a certain point it becomes easy just to have the kids entertain themselves during holidays, but I admit this is difficult when kids are say 10 and if one's living in an area where them going free range with other kids would not be advisable. I think it raises difficult but not insurmountable questions, given my own experience largely self-entertaining (albeit made easier in having 2 siblings).
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.
t's expensive, I agree. But it is at least quite easy, relatively at least, to organise round-the-year, full-time childcare for small children. But we have found it extremely difficult to organise wraparound care that allows both parents feasibly to commute and work once they get to primary school. Bear mind you then need to find a holiday club that will accommodate full-time working hours too, which is quite difficult.
Things only become more complicated with time, as older primary school age children may have their own views on what they do and don't want to do during the holidays. I haven't even broached the topic of inset days here. Also, wraparound care becomes more problematic when those same children start wanting to do sports clubs or music lessons after school, which often take place during the difficult period between 4 and 6. (The other complication, by the way, is that grandparents are often more available during early years than in later years, when they might start needing care themselves, but that's a different matter).
As a result, we actually both worked when the children were small. But as they got older we found it harder to do this and in fact one of us gave up work. So over our parenthood experience, the lost income was higher as our children got older; bear in mind too the lost opportunities for career advancement and higher wages.
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.
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!
Here's the letter draft, in case anyone else is interested:
As a constituent in BLANK I’m writing to ask you to look into an idea that could help young families without increasing overall public spending: front-loading Child Benefit.
A recent article in Works in Progress (4 June 2025) explains the proposal clearly and cites evidence that concentrating payments in the first few years of a child’s life would ease the costs parents face at the very point those costs peak. The Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that raising a one-year-old costs nearly four times as much per week as raising a teenager; front-loading would deliver support precisely when it is most needed.
https://www.worksinprogress.news/p/why-child-benefits-should-be-front/
Importantly, Parliament already has a vehicle for this reform—the Front-Loaded Child Benefit Bill [HL] introduced by Lord Farmer in 2022. Giving government time or cross-party backing to examine (or revive) that Bill could move the discussion from theory to practice quickly.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LLN-2022-0017/LLN-2022-0017.pdf
I’d be grateful if you could:
Ask the Treasury or DWP to assess the fiscal neutrality of the proposal;
Seek a briefing on Lord Farmer’s Bill and its current status; and
Let me know your own view on whether this idea merits further parliamentary time.
Thank you for considering this. I look forward to your response.
Kind regards,
Hi Philip, I think this is great! I will be using it for mine. I will also attach the pdf that does a brief costings also taking into account the cost of borrowing the money forward and that suggests how the money could be spaced out for those already receiving housing benefit and council tax exemptions. Perhaps something along the lines of:
As a constituent in BLANK I’m writing to ask you to look into an idea that could help young families without increasing overall public spending: front-loading Child Benefit.
A recent article in Works in Progress (4 June 2025) explains the proposal clearly and cites evidence that concentrating payments in the first few years of a child’s life would ease the costs parents face at the very point those costs peak. The Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that raising a one-year-old costs nearly four times as much per week as raising a teenager; front-loading would deliver support precisely when it is most needed.
https://www.worksinprogress.news/p/why-child-benefits-should-be-front/
Importantly, Parliament already has a vehicle for this reform—the Front-Loaded Child Benefit Bill [HL] introduced by Lord Farmer in 2022. Giving government time or cross-party backing to examine (or revive) that Bill could move the discussion from theory to practice quickly.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LLN-2022-0017/LLN-2022-0017.pdf
A briefing by the Centre for Family and Education has a proposal that includes the cost of borrowing and phases child benefit depending on the support needed by different households.
https://www.centrefe.org/s/Briefing_-The-Details-of-Front-loading-Child-Benefit.pdf
I’d be grateful if you could:
Ask the Treasury or DWP to assess the fiscal neutrality of the proposal;
Seek a briefing on Lord Farmer’s Bill and its current status; and
Let me know your own view on whether this idea merits further parliamentary time.
Thank you for considering this. I look forward to your response.
Kind regards,
As a parent who would properly benefit I would love to like this, but I'm afraid this has terrible incentives and would make government costs massively balloon.
Lump sum payments have a tendency to be taken advantage of by high time preference individuals, who just spend everything on whatever they want in a short amount of time. Since we do not want to let children starve (for good reason!), the government will then have to jump in and pay for the child care anyway. Not to mention that the kind of person who thinks it's a good idea to have kids just to quickly get a lot of money should not be expected to be a good parent.
Generous welfare programs being abused is already are one of the largest problems in contemporary western states and several european states' struggles are directly caused by it. This reads like a proposal from the 90s or early 2000s era, missing out on everything we have learned since then.
I think it's a great concern, but I think there are reasons to think this is for the best:
- _essential costs_ of having children are at their highest earliest in life, so front-loading is targeted at reducing child poverty, as opposed to exacerbating it
- parents' incomes tend to be lowest when the children are young, so it targets support to when it is needed in the parents' life cycle
- most front-loading proposals are targeted at spreading it out over the first 4 or 5 years, and therefore don't carry the risks of a block upfront payment that you spell out
I would personally support having more upfront payments as tax rebates, such that it avoids perverse incentives, and there is evidence that even tax-specific relief can raise fertility. My organisation is sitting on a result that a tax holiday in Iceland caused a statistically significant increase in fertility
It's expensive, I agree. But it is at least quite easy, relatively at least, to organise round-the-year, full-time childcare for small children. But we have found it extremely difficult to organise wraparound care that allows both parents feasibly to commute and work once they get to primary school. Bear mind you then need to find a holiday club that will accommodate full-time working hours too, which is quite difficult.
Things only become more complicated with time, as older primary school age children may have their own views on what they do and don't want to do during the holidays. I haven't even broached the topic of inset days here. Also, wraparound care becomes more problematic when those same children start wanting to do sports clubs or music lessons after school, which often take place during the difficult period between 4 and 6. (The other complication, by the way, is that grandparents are often more available during early years than in later years, when they might start needing care themselves, but that's a different matter).
As a result, we actually both worked when the children were small. But as they got older we found it harder to do this and in fact one of us gave up work. So over our parenthood experience, the lost income was higher as our children got older; bear in mind too the lost opportunities for career advancement and higher wages.
Hi Jon, I think this is a big problem, but I think it's also worth distinguishing between essential costs and additional expenditure. When I was an older primary school and secondary kid, I would walk myself back from school and then entertain myself for a few hours most days. I'm 24 so this wasn't a super long time ago. I think it's most important to focus state support on the essential costs and then parents can choose what tradeoffs they are happy to take for the extra perks.
Having said that, I appreciate that doesn't make everything clear cut, it just answers the after school question. Inset days and long holidays are a whole other thing and I admit difficult to manage. I think past a certain point it becomes easy just to have the kids entertain themselves during holidays, but I admit this is difficult when kids are say 10 and if one's living in an area where them going free range with other kids would not be advisable. I think it raises difficult but not insurmountable questions, given my own experience largely self-entertaining (albeit made easier in having 2 siblings).
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.
t's expensive, I agree. But it is at least quite easy, relatively at least, to organise round-the-year, full-time childcare for small children. But we have found it extremely difficult to organise wraparound care that allows both parents feasibly to commute and work once they get to primary school. Bear mind you then need to find a holiday club that will accommodate full-time working hours too, which is quite difficult.
Things only become more complicated with time, as older primary school age children may have their own views on what they do and don't want to do during the holidays. I haven't even broached the topic of inset days here. Also, wraparound care becomes more problematic when those same children start wanting to do sports clubs or music lessons after school, which often take place during the difficult period between 4 and 6. (The other complication, by the way, is that grandparents are often more available during early years than in later years, when they might start needing care themselves, but that's a different matter).
As a result, we actually both worked when the children were small. But as they got older we found it harder to do this and in fact one of us gave up work. So over our parenthood experience, the lost income was higher as our children got older; bear in mind too the lost opportunities for career advancement and higher wages.
Yes that’s a good point!
Poor sentence structure. Who is writing this?
Do you have specific complaints?
Probably a bot engagement farming.