I understand the costs, but I do think they're incredibly expensive and it makes it pretty difficult for normal families to have two working parents. The changes are a good thing overall, but simply having children should not mean not being able to work, and part time work is incredibly scarce beyond stacking shelves or making coffee etc. I also think the eligibility criteria is unfair. It's entirely possible to have 1 household to have net adjusted income of £199k and be eligible for funded hours, yet another household who has 1 high earner would not be eligible, or they have to sacrifice income into their pension to fall within the critera.
Yeah, its silly. You want people active in the economy and it simply doesn't stack up. The birth rate in through the floor and the only reason our population is increasing is through immigration, plenty of which is not of benefit to the country beyond the fact society is build upon a pyramid that constantly requires larger and larger generations to keep kicking the can down the road.
Part of the problem is that any child benefits are sneered at by a lot of people without children and there is negative connotations and the view that "you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them". Well if you want to play that game then no one would have kids because about 10% of the population can afford them without benefits and those high earners might not want them because they have prioritised a career or have a very demanding career that makes children tricky.
Society needs to work out how they are going to support parents better going forwards because this decline ain't going to stop. The more immigration we use to plug the native population, the more civil unrest there will be and having children is, up to a point, somewhat cultural. If no one around you is having kids then society will change to reflect that and less and less people that
would have them won't. Its a shame as well because children are wonderful. I don't know too many people that wouldn't have 2-3 kids if they could afford them once they have one. The issue is time and money.
----
On an unrelated note, does anyone elses missus seem to make more work for you when you already have more than enough. She thought it would be a good idea to get them some soft toys as comforters...when they are nearly 2.5. They have never had any issues with going to sleep or shown any inclination to want something like this. Now we have 2 boys who constantly want their pig and horse before bed and everywhere they go. She gets them toys they don't need when they already have millions. We probably have about 40 little toy cars now. Her justification? Other children have far more toys. Brilliant. I'm happy those children have so many toys that 90% of them get played with for 2% of the time vs the toys they actually use the other 98%.
We're trying to move house, have no time and shes adding more and more crap all the time. I don't know if this is just normal or the results of her spending too much time looking at social media and mummy influencers. The funny thing is she knows its all BS and for show but clearly it still makes her feel bad when other kids have things ours don't. Personally I think what kids need is attention and affection, not more toys.