Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mitchell Stirling's avatar

The reason that many of my friends and colleagues with children have stopped at two is purely financial. The cost of a month's childcare commitments for parents who work full-time, or close to it, is equivalent to a month's rent or mortgage until the child is three years old. That's two years of paying two lots of that amount for an eldest child.

If you can manage to time a second so that you at least have one in 30 free hours and the other at full rate then you only have to worry about paying a mortgage and a third each month. I'd wager that one of the worst things that could happen to any couple planning for a third child would be their mortgage payments going up by £500 a month just as their nursery payments come down by the same amount.

Anyone that does have three children, spread out so they aren't doubling up on full whack nursery fees would be paying them for nine years.

Of course, for some people older realtives are available to help but that can mean one or two days a week rather than full time and it should be also considered that many of the couples who aren't having a third child are ones who don't live in the same part of the UK (or indeed aren't from the UK) as they were born in as they moved for university, moved for the graduate careers and their partner did they same so parents aren't 15 mins down the road like their grandparents are likely to have been.

Purely speculation but it could be that without the policies in place in Scandinavian countries their birthrates might be even lower!

Expand full comment
Wrightlondon's avatar

As someone with 3 kids I completely agree with your point James about "encouraging existing parents to have more kids." If the government is serious about the issue.

This will be by far the path of least resistance.

We're not having any more due mainly to starting relatively late in life. But I could imagine a scenario where we had another one if we'd started earlier and/or had the kids closer together.

If the government is serious about the issue it would need to do the following 4 things (IMHO).

1. Build more houses. We thankfully live in a house big enough where each kid can have their own bedroom but I realise the vast majority of millennials are not so lucky.

2. Make full-time nursery free or almost free for everyone starting from age 1. At one stage where we had two kids in nursery full-time our fees were more than mortgage payments. We're lucky enough to be high income earners, but it would have been extremely difficult to have paid for all 3 at the same time. Ontario has significantly reduced nursery fees, which has benefited my sister.

3. End the two-child benefit cap. So disappointing that Labour is not going to reverse this.

4. Have escalating benefits the more children a family has. I think to make it politically palatable this would probably have to take the form of tax breaks/credits rather than direct payments. Maybe something like lowering the rate of income tax for a set number of years (until kid is 5 years old) with a lower rate for more kids. This way it would not be seen as a handout. I know Hungary is trying something similar, bit not sure what the result has been so far. Also I realise these sort of baby bonus schemes have a bit of fascist overtone to them, which makes me a little uncomfortable even if I think they might work.

And even then, I think most of these will probably have only a marginal impact on birth rates, so immigration is going to have to remain a part of the solution. And I, like I suspect most readers here, am happy with that.

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts