To think women with 3+ kids should pay less taxes

The world’s biggest problem is too many humans causing climate change, water shortages, drought, flooding. We will have to accept more immigrants because other parts of the world will become uninhabitable - probably in our lifetimes. So, no encouraging people to have more kids isn't a good idea in the long term.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Cool idea. I’d be up for that as long as you agree to forego any form of state pension or health care in your old age. Neither of these things are funded; they are paid for directly by the current working generation.

Can't do that because you haven’t got enough money to retire comfortably and pay for your increasing aged related healthcare needs without the state? Well why didn’t you plan for it? You had your whole working life!

Sounds mad? Hardly. It’s the same argument used against parents raising the issue of unaffordable costs.

Not at all! More people a family has, the more resources they use. Most bigger families I know have at least 1 ND kid that uses a lot more resources than a few NT kids. Many of those ND kids won’t be able to contribute to society in any meaningful way, quite the opposite (non verbal; won’t ever be able to be independent etc). So no, those families shouldn’t be paying less tax. And I do understand I’ll be eaten alive here and called names.
also the more kids there are the less likely at least one parent to be working (and paying taxes ) is. So they contribute much less as it is on average.

Surely you mean pay increased taxes. Using public resource such as education and healthcare so pay for it.

There are a lot of different views here as to whether children are a public good or a public burden (as well as being (hopefully) a private joy, obviously).

If governments really want to encourage women to have children, I think they should start by figuring out a way to make it so that childbearing does not entail a potentially career-killing blow to mothers. Childcare doesn’t have to be free, but right now there are a lot of people who genuinely cannot afford to go back to work after having a child because doing so would mean having to pay to go to work at a rate that is more than a family can spare. Most sane people do not want to have babies they cannot afford, and even for those who can technically afford
the massive financial hit, women are also (rightly) concerned that they will disproportionately suffer career-wise because of the childcare burden. There are structural inequalities at play that make this a very difficult problem to solve—certainly more nuanced than anything that could be fixed with a bit of tax relief.

@WhatTodoALL you have a bloody cheek!! you seem to be expecting others to help pay for your children yet you admit your friends all have only two kids, citing economics! do you not understand the meaning of economics? its just common sense, but obviously you do not possess any of that!

Amazed but also not that surprised you cant find support for this idea on a FORUM FOR MOTHERS in a country with a birth crisis.

Your idea isnt stupid its so good some countries are doing it!
Hungary has introduced a similar scheme and you actually pay NO income tax if you have 4 children and almost none of you have 3.

They introduced it in 2015
Their birthrate IS increasing

www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/HUN/hungary/fertility-rate%23:~:text%3DThe%2520current%2520fertility%2520rate%2520for,a%25200.66%2525%2520increase%2520from%25202021.&ved=2ahUKEwiqs8WbzuyGAxWxVEEAHW5TD4sQFnoECBEQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2WnVd8Sp3ORECDQTvHnIUG

This doesn't address my point about significant variations in consumption on a global scale
Humans have always been and will always be war hungry isn't an argument for more of us
'Just' colonise another planet...okey dokey.

Putting this is as kindly as possible, you really haven't thought this through OP.

Perhaps you are right. I just had a look at Estonia who have one of the best maternity leave terms and their rates were increasing by as much as 4% between 1999 and 2008.
In contrast, countries like the UK and Australia only had 1,5% increase in the years between 2004 and 2008.
There is global decline since 2008 which reflects economic situation many found themselves in since the financial crash. But I highly doubt tax relief is nearly enough to patch family budget holes left by COL crisis.

Well, same thing goes for roads, police, school places and all NHS care. That’s how public services work.

I didn’t drive for 10 years, it doesn’t mean I thought roads shouldn’t be funded.

Humans always fight in any given era, over different things, we can expand just need to colonise other planets

I would like to see nursery fees treated as a tax deduction. That’s what stops many people having another.

Not sure on the tax breaks, that’s kind of what child benefit is for.

Countries that provide huge tax breaks and/or generous childcare provisions do have noticeably higher birth rates than countries that operate a more "you chose to have kids" approach. But still not as high as replacement level.

As the human race can't keep growing exponentially at some point we have to face a shrinking population. The main issue is how much some populations consume compared to others. Children born in the uk are massive consumers and so global comparisons of the impact on the planet are complicated. But I struggle to look at our world on fire with diminishing polluted and polluting resources and ww3 as a realistic potential on the horizon and think the answer is more people to fight over shrinking resources

I did read what you said, hence why my message began acknowledging that even if it happens in third world countries with population growth rather than decline etc.
These countries are in need of building up their economies to compete with other countries. They need extra support, not less - so draining their workforce is not going to help. You can’t create long term change simply by making them leave and send money back. Actually helping these countries in their own right is a better long term solution, not just draining the top economically active members from their workforce. Third world countries often lose out on their medical staff like doctors and nurses for that reason, leaving their own country with a reduced active medical force. Getting them to send back money to their family isn’t a long term solution - it’s a sticking plaster. The worker doesn’t pay taxes to the counties and the country has had to invest resources to train those workers. I absolutely support wealthy nations helping other nations, but by solely relying on immigration into the UK doesn’t provide a long term for the countries that they’re leaving.

No. There's an argument for them paying more tax, as they'll be using more services, but general taxation (income tax, council tax) doesn't work like that. If everyone was taxed on the basis of their individual circumstances, the cost of administrating it would outweigh the amount collected.

The problem with 'just allowing higher immigration' is that the population decline is being seen across the entirety of the West - so we'll effectively be competing with every country to attract people in. Which will mean £££.

And if I was an in-demand immigrant you'd better think I'd be heading for the Med rather than a rainy care home in Hull!

The focus really has to be on enabling people who would like to have more children the ability to do that- and the cost of childcare is the obvious place to begin that conversation.

I think we need to accept that there will be a top-heavy population for the foreseeable future and plan for it.

It's probably too late now to avoid the scenerio of large numbers of elderly people/pensioners with increased care needs, and insufficient workers/tax receipts to meet those need.

So we need an honest and open conversation about what people can realistically expect from the state in terms of care/healthcare/pension benefits given the demographic challenges we will be facing. The truth is that the state may not be able to guarantee a comfortable and dignified end to life for everyone and all options need to be considered, including uncomfortable ones like assisted dying.

We're probably in this situation already, when you look at the inadequate social care provided for many people, but haven't admitted it to ourselves yet.

The problem is - yes, there are some women who want 3/4/5 children but there are a much larger number who only want 1/2. And a growing number who want none at all. And this is unlikely to change so the population will probably keep on shrinking.

In the end, I suspect decent care will become astronomically expensive (if it isn't already) and available only to a privileged few. Most people will become dependent on family. For those who don't have children or whose families are unwilling to help, the future will be very bleak indeed unless they've amassed considerable financial security.

Yabu plenty of people are having plenty of kids and we need to discourage it if anything. At my son's primary school there are families with 6, 4 and 9 children!

So we can raising the next generation of children more a societal role. Subsidise childcare, for real, not funded hours below the cost of actually caring for them. Invest in schools. Put more money into the NHS. Bring back Sure Start Centres. Improve maternity and paternity leave. Make parents feel like they CAN have another baby IF they want one, and that baby is going to have a good chance at life from the start.

Directly incentivising parents to have more babies than they want is not the answer.

I would have loved to have received potentially unlimited discounted or free ivf cycles like some countries provide, free postnatal care, discounted childcare

I'm assuming that when you say free, you mean free to you. Of course you'd love to receive them, someone else is paying for them.

If people have fewer children, there will be a few decades of not enough younger people to support older ones, but at some stage there will be fewer older people to support so I think we should actively encourage people to have fewer children not more! Maybe we should tax people on each child they have after 2??