I'm not an economist, but I suspect in the question of Child Trust Funds, you will find some evidence that as per usual with this Government, some other aspect of the child and family budget has been raided to produce the ?250 cash benefit to each child, hence the net 'payment' by taxpayers remains the same. I also suspect that somehow even this small payment will have a positive effect in the future, when the money invested will enable the then adult to put a deposit down on a home, perhaps reducing a need for housing benefit or enabling them to stay off the Council's housing waiting list. If it even enables someone to pay for a training course in the future and boost their earnings ( and therefore taxable pay) it may be a beneficial thing. My own sceptical view is that at some time in the future, someone will decide that with so much money to look forward to at 18, other aspects of child maintenance can be 'safely' reduced, with the parents liable for instance for increased proportion of university fees. Overall, a potential saving for taxpayers. No doubt there is an economic argument and rationale for this somewhere- I suggest that anyone interested does some research on government or social science websites.

In respect of other points made, the whole point about Equal Pay legislation in the UK and in Europe is that women should not be disadvantaged financially in comparison with men by the mere fact that they are women and in the main responsible for bringing up children. The hard fact is that women continue to be so and despite OL's view that women have such a good time of it, most continue to do the treble shift of paid work, and the unpaid work of child care, and domestic responsibilities, and suffer detriment to both health and finances as a result. You will probably also find that most women with children who work may work part time in theory, but longer hours in practice, as they take work home with them and answer and make business calls on days off when they are unpaid. This is the reality for working women in the UK today, not the Nirvana portrayed by Ooperlooper. Just as well we are suited to multi tasking.

Have a look at the Equal Opportunities Commission website for further detailed information on policy and case studies and more sophisticated arguments and analyses than you will find on this thread. You will find that it is far from easy or straightforward to challenge inequality and win. From personal experience, having had fairly senior roles in the male dominated profession of construction, I have had to fight all the way to counter the commonly held view that not only do men deserve more money for equal or even poorer performance, they also need it to support their families. This archaic concept is still widespread as justification for paying men more. I have also had to fight for equal pay for doing the same job as a younger, less experienced and less effective male colleagues. Women are not valued as much as men, which probably permeates into their own behaviour which perpetuates the cycle. Their skill and success is taken for granted.

It is still clear to me that the root of this thread and motivation of many of the posters is plain old misogyny and dislike of children. The latter seems almost to be a national UK trait.

The UK has a long way to go in respect of adequate financial support for children and families, so worry not, you are still paying less for other peoples children than a lot of Europeans.