ÑóẊîöʼn
6th September 2012, 13:02
The Cost of Raising Children (Report by Child Poverty Action Group) (http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/new-cpag-report-cost-child)
Came across this report today, so I thought I'd share. It's worth reading in the light of the insane and backwards policy of cuts being pursued by the UK's Con-Dem coalition government.
Some highlights from the report:
There is broad consensus that children’s needs today comprise not
just an adequate diet and the physical necessities of life, but also
the ability to participate in society – for example, by going to
birthday parties, taking part in after-school activities and having a
modest annual holiday with their families.
Not being able to afford these things can have serious
consequences for children. Research evidence shows how material
hardship and social exclusion can be associated with damage to
children’s physical health, to their self-esteem and to their longterm development.
a decline in public transport
options has contributed to a consensus that it is untenable for
households with children to manage without a car. This introduces
a substantial additional expense to the costs of a child.
On average, the first child in a couple costs
£89 a week and the second child £81 a week, not including housing
and childcare costs. The basic cost of bringing up each child from birth
to age 18 is estimated at between £73,000 and £94,000, but for working
families who require childcare, the total cost is between £110,000 and
£160,000.
benefits overall provide only about 50 to 60 per cent of what a
whole family with children requires.
For those renting in the private sector, on the other hand, an
additional room even in modestly priced accommodation can add
approximately £25,000 to the lifetime cost of a child.
some parents in the Centre for Research in Social Policy’s study on
credit and debt admitted to favouring ‘junk’ food when under financial
pressure, even though they knew it was not healthy – one parent said
she had recently bought 40 sausages for 89p.
The risk for families with limited resources is that either children’s needs
are inadequately met or they are met only at serious cost to the
wellbeing of their parents.
having access to both the
physical and social norms of life in one’s own society are of equal
importance.
Not being able to afford to take
part in activities with one’s peers (for example, paying an entry charge
or buying refreshments) profoundly affects children’s ability to make
and sustain friendships, makes them feel different and results in
bullying and stigma.
It can also result in boredom and involvement
in crime/anti-social behaviour. Not being able to afford to participate
in various in- and after-school activities affects children’s relationships
with teachers and can damage their experience of formal schooling.
One significant cost is the school uniform. Many parents and social
commentators point out that a uniform can be a ‘social leveller’ by
disguising social difference through what children wear, and avoiding
undue pressures on low-income families to pay for expensive items
that are in fashion. However, Citizens Advice has noted that some
schools’ practices, such as restricting the supplier, can make it difficult
for parents to afford.
In some respects, the additional cost of each extra child in a family
should diminish. Economies of scale mean that it is not always necessary
to buy so much additionally for each successive child, particularly in
the case of items that only need to be bought once. For example, if a
family cannot cope adequately without a car once the first child
arrives (as the 2012 MIS research found), this will impose an additional
car purchase cost that will not recur when the second child arrives.
However, in some cases, having a large family creates new categories
of needs. For example, families consider that a tumble dryer becomes
essential once a family reaches a certain size. For this reason, the
additional cost of each successive child does not fall as systematically
as might otherwise be the case.
Having children leaves adults on benefits worse off. Additional state support for families with children is lower than a child’s minimum needs, so families face a growing shortfall with each child. Parents react by spending less money on themselves; in some cases parents will even skip meals so that their children don’t go without. If a single parent of three children used his/her adult benefit income to top up the child-related benefits so the minimum needs of the children are met, they would have just £12 a week to meet their own basic needs.
That last one in particular is a massive fucking slap in the face to those fuckheads who go on about people on benefits having more kids to get more money. It's quite clearly not fucking true, and constitutes a vile smear on every parent who is forced to get by on the pittances grudgingly offered by a benefits system that sees all recipients as potential criminals.
Came across this report today, so I thought I'd share. It's worth reading in the light of the insane and backwards policy of cuts being pursued by the UK's Con-Dem coalition government.
Some highlights from the report:
There is broad consensus that children’s needs today comprise not
just an adequate diet and the physical necessities of life, but also
the ability to participate in society – for example, by going to
birthday parties, taking part in after-school activities and having a
modest annual holiday with their families.
Not being able to afford these things can have serious
consequences for children. Research evidence shows how material
hardship and social exclusion can be associated with damage to
children’s physical health, to their self-esteem and to their longterm development.
a decline in public transport
options has contributed to a consensus that it is untenable for
households with children to manage without a car. This introduces
a substantial additional expense to the costs of a child.
On average, the first child in a couple costs
£89 a week and the second child £81 a week, not including housing
and childcare costs. The basic cost of bringing up each child from birth
to age 18 is estimated at between £73,000 and £94,000, but for working
families who require childcare, the total cost is between £110,000 and
£160,000.
benefits overall provide only about 50 to 60 per cent of what a
whole family with children requires.
For those renting in the private sector, on the other hand, an
additional room even in modestly priced accommodation can add
approximately £25,000 to the lifetime cost of a child.
some parents in the Centre for Research in Social Policy’s study on
credit and debt admitted to favouring ‘junk’ food when under financial
pressure, even though they knew it was not healthy – one parent said
she had recently bought 40 sausages for 89p.
The risk for families with limited resources is that either children’s needs
are inadequately met or they are met only at serious cost to the
wellbeing of their parents.
having access to both the
physical and social norms of life in one’s own society are of equal
importance.
Not being able to afford to take
part in activities with one’s peers (for example, paying an entry charge
or buying refreshments) profoundly affects children’s ability to make
and sustain friendships, makes them feel different and results in
bullying and stigma.
It can also result in boredom and involvement
in crime/anti-social behaviour. Not being able to afford to participate
in various in- and after-school activities affects children’s relationships
with teachers and can damage their experience of formal schooling.
One significant cost is the school uniform. Many parents and social
commentators point out that a uniform can be a ‘social leveller’ by
disguising social difference through what children wear, and avoiding
undue pressures on low-income families to pay for expensive items
that are in fashion. However, Citizens Advice has noted that some
schools’ practices, such as restricting the supplier, can make it difficult
for parents to afford.
In some respects, the additional cost of each extra child in a family
should diminish. Economies of scale mean that it is not always necessary
to buy so much additionally for each successive child, particularly in
the case of items that only need to be bought once. For example, if a
family cannot cope adequately without a car once the first child
arrives (as the 2012 MIS research found), this will impose an additional
car purchase cost that will not recur when the second child arrives.
However, in some cases, having a large family creates new categories
of needs. For example, families consider that a tumble dryer becomes
essential once a family reaches a certain size. For this reason, the
additional cost of each successive child does not fall as systematically
as might otherwise be the case.
Having children leaves adults on benefits worse off. Additional state support for families with children is lower than a child’s minimum needs, so families face a growing shortfall with each child. Parents react by spending less money on themselves; in some cases parents will even skip meals so that their children don’t go without. If a single parent of three children used his/her adult benefit income to top up the child-related benefits so the minimum needs of the children are met, they would have just £12 a week to meet their own basic needs.
That last one in particular is a massive fucking slap in the face to those fuckheads who go on about people on benefits having more kids to get more money. It's quite clearly not fucking true, and constitutes a vile smear on every parent who is forced to get by on the pittances grudgingly offered by a benefits system that sees all recipients as potential criminals.