To think women with 3+ kids should pay less taxes

We don’t need to encourage people to have more children. We need to have fewer but allow people from parts of the world that will soon become uninhabitable to move here, to bring them to safety and to care for the elderly.

We also need to do our damnedest to sort out the environmental catastrophe.

I am almost certain that countries who managed to increase their birth rates did it through improving maternity/paternity terms and providing heavily subsidised childcare, not through tax relief or other benefits
@Catza
My understanding is that NO countries have managed to increase their birth rate, despite generous incentives.

Your last sentence is chilling. Those that contribute the least are those that most need the MOST support. I don’t think I want to know what you would propose for the most severely disabled.

Anyone would think that children are like pet dogs; a hobby that benefits no unexcept the owner!
Children are a public good, the next generation of workers and taxpayers. The birth rate is dropping worldwide there will not be enough young immigrants to go around!

Did you not read what I said? Several countries have birth rates far above population replacement level. If anything, having children abroad and able to send money home is a boon to their economy, not a drawback. If each family is having ~7 children, 4-5 can leave the country and still leave the same number of tax payers and workers.

This is true- but obviously if people are migrating due to climate making it impossible to live in their home countries, this should include entire families- not just the economically active ones who move to solve falling birth rates in other countries.

This is such a flawed argument. Why women specifically? It typically takes two to make a baby. Does it mean male gay male couples will be penalised on gender grounds?
More children equals more state investment. Yes, it may or may not pay off in the future.
You are sending a signal that the woman's only value is motherhood. Think about the impact on young women/society.
You propose to penalise women who either can't have children or don't have time/emotional capacity/desire to have more than x number of kids.
What happens if, god forbid, one of the children dies. The tax bracket will be reviewed so mothers can also take economic hit alongside managing grief?
I am almost certain that countries who managed to increase their birth rates did it through improving maternity/paternity terms and providing heavily subsidised childcare, not through tax relief or other benefits.

I'm 69 and don't have children, OP. Just what would be the point of taxing me more?

YABVU. Having a larger family is a lifestyle choice. As a parent, it's your responsibility to work out if you have the means to support the family. If not, have less children.

These countries still need tax payers and workers though, even those who have population growth rather than decline. Especially in a third world country - the UK and wealthy countries should absolutely play a part in supporting these countries’ economies to thrive in order to ensure better work opportunities, but not by draining the countries of their workforce to build up their countries. The UK shouldn’t get first dibs on their workers just to solve our problems.

No - most people only have 2 children because they cannot afford any more. We struggled to conceive (5 miscarriages) before finally having the 2 we’d hoped for - but we had always calculated that we would only have 2, as that was all we could afford.

This policy, in the first 10 years at least, could favour those who are, essentially, wealthy.

I agree with other PPs - childcare should simply be free for all, but private options available for those that chose to pay.

No of course we cannot financially incentivise people to procreate, the population is exploding as it is. And the more kids you have the more resources you use.

The last thing the World needs is large families!

@bluemoonmilk there is going to have to be more climate related immigration, we aren't designed to live in 50+C heat, Qatar and India are reaching those temperatures readily, other extreme weather events are going to cause people to have to move North and South if they can. And those droughts and heat waves will likely kill off the elderly, obese and other vulnerability populations faster than anything else.

We are heading for a global population decline over the next 30 years and all nations are going to have to start thinking globally rather than domestically to prop up economys.

Many 3rd world countries are still having babies at well above population replacement level, so they are not going to run out of people. The world population needs to drop and once it's at a more sustainable level I believe it will stabilise of its own accord.

And what about the countries they’re coming from - what about their issues too with an increasingly elderly population and no younger people to replace them and pay taxes. Or should we just adopt the attitude of sod the other countries as long as the UK is ok?

I don’t agree with the OP’s suggestion but equally draining other countries of their workers is a very UK-centric point of view.

Those of us who either have no children or are high earners (over£65k) are already paying for your DC. Why should your personal choices be valued over our financial contributions?

I agree really. Our bloated wealthy generation will expect the NHS and the state to look after us through all our self-induced ailments and grumble about how “we’ve paid enough in” and vote to defend the state pension triple lock and the fact we have to sell our huge, half-empty mortgage-free homes to fund our elder care, whilst simultaneously complaining piously that the younger generations are self-entitled and shouldn’t complain about how expensive it is to get on the housing ladder.

I’m ashamed of us really - we have squandered the opportunity that peace and wealth have brought us.

Can you prove that all 3 of your children will be future net contributors across their whole life? If not then YABU.

Surely If anything you should pay more?

Re immigration, fertility rate is falling everywhere and it is falling faster than expected, only few countries are predicted to have tfr above 3 by 2050 such as Somalia and Afganistan.
I'm an immigrant myself so not against immigration but if you need to import 50% of your workforce, the existing social contract is under risk, I.e it is not given that the immigrants will be happy to pay high taxes to support pensioners in the UK while sending money abroad to support their own parents.

You are also assuming that there will be an elderly population to support, we are just getting to the stage where people brought up on prepackaged and processed foods are reaching older age, the generation after them will be the sedentary office workers / WFH, general car owners it's highly likely the post war lifestyle towards gluttony, sloth and general consumerism, plastic in everything, poor air quality will get more people before they reach their advanced elderly years. Almost quite biblical really.

Funding childcare properly is the best way to do it rather than less tax which favours higher earners. It’s shocking that nursery can cost £2k+ which is more than many mortgages ! I suspect that it’s the biggest reason why people stop when they do. I understand why people would decide to use that £2k pm x 4 years (1 year of maternity) on other things.

No. From a climate perspective, we shouldn't be incentivising people to have more children.