To think women with 3+ kids should pay less taxes

But then those children eventually give back to the public purse and things supposedly come full circle again.

Invest in children - they become more productive as adults - more wealth is created - public services can be funded.

There are clearly key moments in time at which an injection of cash/resources makes a huge difference. So targeting these directly might make a big difference.

If parents are finding it difficult/unaffordable to have one or two u-5s, then they are unlikely to have a second or third one even if they want one (the most common age gaps being 2-4 years). So free u-5 childcare or a big cash payout at this stage might mean an extra child in that family. Whereas more money for parents of primary/secondary age is unlikely to make a difference.

And then for your payout of £20,000, you might have another taxpayer who will contribute many times that.

Likewise, investment in the u-5s makes a huge difference in terms of educational outcomes (which then has knock-on economic benefits).

So there really are huge pragmatic arguments in favour of literally throwing money at u-5s and their parents.

@alltoomuchrightnow

Can anyone tell me what was the point of Sure Start.

When DD (18) was born they insisted on coming to see us. They brought us a couple of balloons and some leaflets and gave us their address in case we ever needed any help. Well I did need help - actually I really needed help but when I turned up it was an office - they gave me a leaflet and told me I could get some information from the library.

Utterly pointless waste of money hopefully they won't be wasting it like that again but I'm sure Labour will find a way to p*ss money away like last time. I have absolutely know idea why people go on about how great Sure Start was - if I'd become PM they'd have been one of the very first things I'd cut

Nah, there's enough people on the planet as there is. Why offer incentives to increase that. If we need more young people, whats wrong with immigration? The climate crisis means we're not going to be short of people wanting to move here any time soon.

Yeah this is a good point.

What really needs to be done is incentives via free childcare, better statutory maternity pay, free school dinners for all children.. stuff like that
Otherwise it's just going to entrench inequality

Yeah this is a brilliant idea. As a child free person you should put me on the highest tax band to help reduce your tax, so you can pay for the children you chose to have to take expensive swimming lessons you chose for them to do.

I would really love to further prop parents up financially, as I'm sure would childless women who wanted but couldn't have kids.
You sound like you're trying to kid yourself that having more than two kids was some benevolent act on your part towards society. No, you had a lot of kids because you wanted a lot of kids. Own your choice and don't expect others to fund that choice further than they already are.

Less taxes ??
Shouldn't it be less tax or fewer taxes?

Some countries have the opposite to the UK with far too many young people than older people and there aren't enough jobs etc. For example Nigeria, Gaza, Niger, Uganda, India and many more.

FFS, you do know that the more children you have, the more you take from the public purse? But you think you should pay even less tax, and let the rest of us subsidise you even more? Sorry - we're not that dim!

@Porridgeislife your argument has so many holes. Of course I have paid higher rate taxes all my working life as has my husband and we were not eligible for child benefit and of course I have independent pensions x3 that means I won’t rely on the paltry state amount. So what. I should subsidise more benefits for someone that wants more children, and before you say they are not on benefits,we live in a socially funded country and I am part of that as a taxpayer, so yes proportionally those people benefit more. More children for someone else. More health. More education. More council budgets. Get a grip.

Cheaper childcare and no child limit on benefits might help increase the birth rate.

Maybe they could do a few practical things like incentivise large hotels to have a family room with a higher occupancy or ask schools in close proximity to co-ordinate school holidays - even if they fall out of the LA remit? (Otherwise, across three schools, we've had Easter holidays span over an entire month, for example)

Absolutely not. There’s too many variables at stake. There’s no guarantee any child will grow up to be a fully functioning tax payer. Childcare needs to be more affordable, equal paternity and maternity leaves and more flexible working options. And why should people who don’t/can’t reproduce be punished for not producing a future tax payer when there’s no guarantee anyway?

@WhatTodoALL Supposing the policy was brought in but for FOUR children - would you agree with it then or have you chosen 3 because that's the number you have

Your third child means your family uses more resources paid for by the state and there is nothing to say that any or all 3 of your children will become net contributors or even pay tax. They could potentially all claim benefits. They could develop a health condition and need long term medication or care. With each child you have you're taking a gamble that they'll not cost the country more than they contribute either in useful employment and / or money

I was one of 3 children but I don't think it ever crossed my DMs mind that she should pay less tax as a reward for procreating.

Yeah I would love unlimited IVF until I had reached the size of family we want. Alas we have to pay for siblings.

On one hand we have the narrative that the population is increasing too fast due to migration, on the other hand we have the narrative that we need to increase our birth rate to support the population.

Which is it?? Or do we just have the 'wrong' type of people.😡

Sorry but families with children get a loy of tax breaks

I just want to live a modest life as a single childless woman but it is very hard on one income even a reasonable one

I agree.
The people at the top who have hoovered up all the money should be the ones paying it back.
(I agree with you because I am a normal/poor person if I was a person at the top I would no doubt be hiding it all away in tax havens just like they are)

A stopped clock can be right more than once. I’m not commenting on the OP’s idea, but you can’t bounce every idea just because one side or the other likes it. Each policy needs to be looked at on its own merits. Critical thinking needs to be applied.

Vegetarians are not like Hitler just because he happened to be one…

You are the one lacking understanding
you are seeing children only as a drain on resources as if they were a hobby or pets- something that the owners have for their own amusement.
Children are the next generation they are the economy we need children to be produced and raised, producing and raising children is vital work. The fact that it is unpaid blinds us to how vital it is.

Paying people to have extra children straight doesn't work. It costs about $1million per genuinely "extra" birth, which is more than that citizen can possibly repay the state in taxes in a lifetime.

This would favour me, and I wouldn't say no if it came my way, but I don't think you would see an improvement in the fertility rate with this move. Financial motivations haven't been very successful to achieve population growth in other counties.

Whatever you pay now to support these children, they will pay you back many times over once you're old to cover your pension, care cost and nhs.Our 3 kids family pays in average 40k taxes a year, let's say 20 of which are used to pay for kids education and nhs (not entitled to child benefit). In 15 years kids will start working and pay probably another 30 k of taxes while not taking anything, so 70 k/year total net contribution for the government for about 10 years , then my husband and I will start to get pension/use nhs more , so 40 k expense for the government out of 60 k contribution by kids, so still 20 k left to support the next generation of kids and your pension. This high level of tax contribution is possible due to the investment in children's education, imagine government would close schools to save 60 k per child , how much taxes will they the get from the illiterate population?

If that's your rationale then it's just too difficult, ethically and practically.

You'd have to find a way of giving the tax break to mothers who are likely to have children who are net contributors to the public finances.

You could give mothers (or households) a waiver from Additional Rate tax I suppose, if they have 3+ children. I can't see it flying though.

Everyone except the very wealthy should pay less tax than currently