To think women with 3+ kids should pay less taxes

Unfortunately it won't work , many countries tried to introduce financial incentives but it makes very little difference compared to the real cost of raising a child (20 hours a week = 50% of your salary + direct costs like food, clothes, clubs, extra room etc) . A woman with no kids and a good job will be 0.5-1 mln better off in long term than a woman with 3 kids and the same job and probably will get a better pension, less health problems etc. I think no government will ever pay anything close to this number, especially as we already have an aging society with huge expenses.

Most mothers are still having 2.5 kids, the big issue is unplanned childlessness, with many more people not having kids at all - around 80% of childless people would have wanted kids.
This is just wrong. Having more than 2 is very much a minority choice. Also, I don't think your figure of 80% childless people wanting kids is accurate at all. The vast majority of childless people did not want children.

I think it’s broadly been proven that these kinds of incentives don’t work.

Having lots of children doesn’t seem to appeal to most women nowadays, probably because they don’t want the enormous domestic responsibility vs also have a life themselves.

No....People who have several kids are using more resources. Its like that woman from 22 kids and counting and people saying 'but she's not on benefits'.....those 22 kids still have to go to school and be educated, still get dental services and health care.
We're presuming these kids will grow up and pay tax. They might be lazy or provide nothing to society and just be influencers. We don't know. But the stress on the system will be worse when they are old and the next generation is having to take care of these old people.

What about water and food and housing? Yu can't create more water than the world has and one day there won't be enough. There's only so much land to grow crops, not all places with land have the right soil or climate.

People shouldn't be allowed more than 2 in my eyes. It's selfish.

Quite the opposite, the more children you have the more services you use that are tax payer funded, the more tax you should contribute. I think you meant low birth rates, not fertility.

Perhaps when they are very young, but most mothers of three children where at least 2 are school age will be working part time at least. (I am full time with three under four, but I'm unusual.)
I suppose the logic is that women with three or more kids will find it more difficult to work and/or hold down longer hours and better paid jobs, but are benefitting the economy in other ways, and so this is a way of "topping up" their wages. I think there are way better ways of doing it though.

Social engineering often has unintended consequences.

There will be some bad years with a dominant elderly high needs population but at some point there will be a natural adjustment. Encouraging people to breed more is irresponsible.

I agree but i dont think a small tax break would make much difference. Unplanned childlessness is the biggest issue with falling populations.

Most mothers are still having 2.5 kids, the big issue is unplanned childlessness, with many more people not having kids at all - around 80% of childless people would have wanted kids.

Low birth rates are a huge long term issue as a smaller and smaller workforce paying for an aging population.

Migration doesn't really work long term because other countries have declining birth rates. Plus we're contributing to the brain drain in those countries which is a big issue there - they train up doctors and nurses and then they leave.

I'd like to see the stats but would hazard a guess that a large proportion of women with 3 or more children are either SAHMs or working part time and therefore likely paying very little income tax as it is. So which tax would you see it as viable to reduce for this group?

Yes, this.

Climate migration will offset any reduced birthrates there are. Using financial incentives to add more people to an already overpopulated planet is a terrible idea. Money should be spent on integrating and educating the migrant population that is already here and those arriving. I think it's more beneficial to look at things from a one planet type of perspective than looking at it from a one country perspective. We will all have to share the forever shrinking habitable areas there are.

I'm in favour of child benefit for all children, and the rate of that being increased. Although fewer taxes is sort of the other side of the coin, it doesn't feel fair or right imo. However irrational, emotionally people are more comfortable with extra benefits for each child, rather than the mother/parent/whatever etc paying less tax. People who can't have children are often okay with the latter, but get offended at the former, especially if they can't have children.

Low birth rate is a good thing, it isn’t a bad thing that needs to be fixed. We need global population to stabilise and if we leave well enough alone, we will be at zero growth by 2100 per the UN population projections.

We don’t need governments to dictate the number of children or incentivise/disincentivise childbearing. The only governments doing that are very conservative, right wing governments in global minority countries worried their ethnicity will be slowly made extinct due to really outlandish conspiracy theories.

Oh good, now my taxes will also be judged on my fertility (or lack thereof).

Great idea 👍

Any tax changes for the dads? Or is it just us wimmin that have failed to produce a suitable number of offspring to please the masses?

There is some merit to the idea that boosting the birthrate is better done by encouraging existing parents to have 1 extra child rather than trying to encourage child free people to have kids. Lots of people are child free by choice and wouldn't want kids no matter what, but plenty of people with 1 or 2 children would like another, but don't because of cost.

Not sure tax breaks is the correct mechanism tho.

Singapore is one of the most expensive places to raise a child on the planet. Far more expensive than London. That’s why the ‘baby bonus’ exists - because cost was the single reason for Singaporean parents to stop at 1 baby. So they decided to incentivise more births. At some points the average age of first childbirth was 35 for women.

Bear in mind that illegitimate children and those of immigrants don’t count even though, as a population, both is increasing in Singapore.

This is not and will never be the case for the UK as there isn’t a political will to incentivise childbirth to benefit those populations who currently produce the most children (ie BAME).

But I do agree with you. I’m infertile. I would have loved to have received potentially unlimited discounted or free ivf cycles like some countries provide, free postnatal care, discounted childcare. But until we move away from the model of the welfare state (which means all benefits are prioritised to people who contribute least to the economy) it will never happen.

Your choice to have three kids, why should you get incentives, I think it's a bloody cheek.
You are no better with these views than someone who is on benefits who has 5 or 6 kids. If they were to say they wanted more people would be raging.
Why do you think you are special?

Just allow more immigration. The world is hugely overpopulated. Why do we need British babies are they superior in anyway?

Wouldn't heavily subsidised, year round childcare be more useful? If you're paying tax, it means you've returned to work. Childcare, especially in school holidays, must be difficult. A tax break would just be spent on childcare, wouldnt it, and would only really benefit those earning lots of money already. Affordable year round childcare works for all income families and looks after everyone. It's pretty selfish to only think of yourself.

This. Encouraging women to have more babies via tax savings means that those with highest earnings benefit most. Benefits are also not the answer - we don't want to incentivise young women to have no goals beyond being a baby making machine. But if there is excellent free state childcare and excellent state schooling available to all, there are a lot fewer barriers when a woman is deciding whether or not to have another baby.

The world is overpopulated what you are I proposing won't have the impact you envisage.

Those who are successful can rarely take three maternities without impacting their career.

Why would society treat those with children differently to those without.

What if they emigrate and therefore their taxes don’t directly benefit the UK economy? Should the parents have to refund what they didn’t pay in tax?

In fact, most don't want to have even one child citing economical reasons.

Well paying a bit less tax isn't going to make any difference then, is it?

I have 3. We use way more resources than families w no or just one child. No way should we pay lower tax.

BUT, there should be low low cost childcare available to all, inc wrap around.

mmm, Inthibknwe have a while to go before we start bringing in policies that facists favoured… or maybe we should start handing out medals at 4+ medals like the Nazi party did to women procreating for the fatherland??