To think women with 3+ kids should pay less taxes

Birth 'it's? 🤢

They use less state resources when younger though. No schools, no maternity care etc

And they won't necessarily use more state resources when older than us parents.

Many childfree/childless have nieces and nephews, but also not every adult child can or will care for their elderly parents.

Some don't get on with their parents and others live too far away to help.

Also often the support an elderly parent needs is beyond capability for their family to do. Which is why so many people, including those with children, go into care homes.

I’m classed as an “older millennial” (late 30s) and myself and many of my friends who are the same have parents 70+.

@Greaterorlesser yeah and we are seeing so many people don’t go on to be taxpayers. A childhood friend of mine had her first kid at age 19 and didn’t work until she was 30, was on full benefits before that . now she works 16 hours and still on benefits. And I don’t mean this as a criticism but more as a simple fact, the way she’s raising her teens - to lack ambition and not value education and to be quite lazy tbh - I can imagine they’ll go the same way.

Surely only a very small proportion of millennials have parents needing support in their old age. The vast majority of their parents will be under 70.

I’ve got two siblings one severely disabled who is in a care home that is paid for by the council, one who lives in another part of the UK and didn’t ever visit my ailing parents. Of the three children my parents produced only one of us went on to be a tax payer

Have you ever spent time on the elderly parents board?

The amount of posts on here where people are NC with their parents tells me this isn't true.

I'm paying for your health care, police, fire service etc. Tax goes into one pot, we all pay for each other, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. So I have paid for your child.
Or else have everything, including police, fire service etc private and each pays for their own bit - except that even then the money is pooled. Selfishness means a society will not function very well.

We do not want all children institutionalized in nurseries instead of with their mothers

!!!!!

I agree, especially these upcoming generation who have been screwed over so much. I think if anything they’re needing their parents to support them and many will never be never position to support their parents.

Most people I know from my generation - millienials- do not financially support or provide care for their parents. The exception to that is friends from immigrant backgrounds. Some of them do but even then it’s not the majority.

I don't know anyone that doesn't support their parents, but maybe that is not the norm? Do you not support your parents or would you not?

How many people do you think actually do 'help and support' their elderly parents? Very many either can't or won't.

Absolutely not. They'd end up increasing taxes to pay. I hd one child because that's what I could comfortably afford. Why should I pay for your kids.
No.

People without children will use alot more state resources when they are old, as they don't have their children to help and support them.

I am yet to meet a child that was ever “institutionalised by nursery”. Dramatic, much?

It's women-friendly in that it acknowledges women's reproductive role. I did not spell it out, but such an environment would encompass leave for painful menstruation/ability to work from home, accommodate the menopause as well as accommodating pregnancy, childbirth, lactation and child rearing. Women's biology is different from men's and we cannot function well in a society and career structure that assumes our hormonal balance never changes, that our bodies do not leak fluids regularly and this needs to be accommodated, and that this should be the case for a reasonably civilised society. So, not just those who become mothers, all women in all their phases to be properly accommodated since we are 51% of the population and whether we breed or not, society depends upon our existence and our work and will cease to exist without some of that work.

Thus, women who do not have children are not excluded. The rhythms of their sexed bodies are accommodated just as they are of the women who become mothers. We are different. What suits men does not suit us and to force women to act as if they are men is both sexist and misogynistic and also damaging. 51% of the population should not have to 'fit in' to the model of 49%.

@Grammarnut It’s mum-friendly, not women-friendly - a whole-society policy design revolving around a woman’s reproductive life excludes women who cannot reproduce and therefore do not have a reproductive life. I’m not saying it’s bad or that I disagree but I think we need to be accurate with terminology. Nothing about what you’ve suggested would improve my working life one iota nor could it increase my chances of having a baby, and yet I’m a woman. .

But is more women-friendly. Family economics and logistics also play a part, since children take up time and space as well as money. Besides, it might take time because the current and two previous generations of women have been steeped in the idea that staying at home with children turns you into a cabbage and is a waste of your education, so are reluctant to do it. If that mind-set can also change then people will have more children, 3 rather than 2, perhaps.

@Grammarnut yes agreed, fyi incentives for childbirth also encompass the monetary cost/value, so for example Singaporean incentives for childbirth include the cost of things like doubling paid paternity and maternity leave, childcare funding, tax rebates for working mothers, support for SAHM mothers, and the list goes on... It's a massive budget per capita but impact is debatable though

It would be a good idea to train our own people, certainly, and also encourage families of at least 2 children to boot. It is not 'family' friendly policies we need, however, but women-friendly. So training and career progression must be fitted around women's reproductive life so that women who have children (and no-one else can) are not disadvantaged by that fact. Society is relying on women having children so society needs to gear itself out of its man-centred ways and fit itself around the fact that for society to work women must bear and rear children, so we had better make it easy to do so, arranging matters so that women can qualify, have children and go back when they wish to their outside work, whilst providing policies that encourage mothers who want to stay at home to have a wide social network for their children etc, and making it easy to have part-time work. We do not want all children institutionalized in nurseries instead of with their mothers, but some women with children will want to go out to work and so we will need some nurseries - nurseries with the priority of good educational outcomes for children, however, not just there to turn their mothers into productive economic units. Similar facilities for women who stay at home - no reason why a mother cannot use a nursery and spend her time on growing her interests, doing voluntary work etc. These things being available, we might get somewhere.

You've totally missed the point. The incentives, subsidies etc are meant exactly for people like you. The money would help you have 2 kids (or more) if you wanted to, but couldn't afford it or only barely.

(Btw, it's not for your sake tbh. A country with an ageing population running on transient immigration labour – especially for age-related healthcare, but also for public services and private corporations – isn't sustainable.

British people are talking about environmental concerns which are valid – though a much more impactful solution would be certain industry/STEM related policies which many elements of the govts are trying to get past other silos of the govt – but when the UK gets to the sorry state of countries like Japan, full hospitals and empty schools and absolutely no manpower to sort that out, they'll sit up.)

Nobody forces you to have more than 2 kids. 2 kids is all I could afford and only just. You shouldn’t get luxuries because you choose to have more than 2

The UK will always be in demand because the vast majority of the world have English as a second language and because American, British and to a lesser extent, Australian and Canadian culture and content is so mainstream that everyone feels like they understand the Anglosphere. Finland is probably a much better place to live, but how many people worldwide speak Finnish, or know anything about Finnish culture?

Huh? No, because it's obviously not that simplistic and black and white? While not a final arbiter, passport index has consistently been linked to other key measures (see well-known research eg henly passport index linking citizens' global mobility to economic and other influence factors). Sorry to sound condescending but I wasn't about to start trotting out GDP per capita (absolute GDP is increasingly falling out of favour on power indexes), net liabilities, net assets, SPI, veto power etc to someone who doesn't know what structural unemployment is.

The various European countries (especially as a bloc), and even Anglosphere countries like NZ which you listed, have much more hidden leverage than you assume fyi. Ask anyone in govt.

Re: your last paragraph, that's exactly what I was trying to explain to PP, and literally what I said in my first post. Not sure what you're attempting to disagree with really

I’m struggling to understand your point of view. Either we take the passport list seriously or we don’t. You don’t dumb something down in order to prove a point that doesn’t exist?

Sweden, Finland, Luxembourg, Austria etc are irrelevant as political powers. They do however have good visa free access so have “powerful” passports. This is only because a) citizens aren’t likely to be overstayers and b) their governments don’t really offend anyone.

Energy supplies, access to minerals, land mass, geography, military capacity and to a certain extent absolute GDP are what matters. The UK is rapidly fading on all of these fronts, as is Europe as a whole.