To think women with 3+ kids should pay less taxes

I've paid and am paying taxes for healthcare, defense, policing, education amongst other things. Have done for 40 years. Not asking your children for anything. Immigration of skilled people is good for the country and the economy.

If we depopulate in the way you suggest we will have major economic problems. There will be no pensions either state or attached to jobs, there will be no health care, free at the point of use or otherwise, because we will not be able to produce enough to keep our society working, nor grow enough food. I can imagine a combine harvester without a driver (we probably have them) but the means to growing crops, birthing lambs, mating cows etc is not going to be done by AI - try automating assisting a ewe to give birth, for example. I also have yet to see a piece of AI that can plumb in a toilet (one of the basics of our civilization). This, the jobs in the future will be different, is always being said (they said it in the 14th century) but it is never true. Jobs change, but mostly they do not disappear. Cane polishing may no longer be a job for an individual, but someone somewhere is certainly running a machine that polishes canes. AI might be able to do a simple conveyance on a house, but can it build the house? Can it make limewash to paint the seventeenth century cottage (well, maybe make it) and apply it? Can it make a roof waterproof? It is office jobs that will change, not the hands-on type of job.

pensions will the absolute least of a government’s 50 years from now. There won’t be as many jobs. AI is already automating many things, this will only get worse. The unprecedented speed of technology developments means that employment is going to look a whole lot different for our children, grandchildren etc. the economy won’t be able to sustain large populations as there just won’t be the jobs. I have been in finance for the best part of 25 years- in that time a team which employed about 10 people, now only needs 3-4, it probably will only require 1 soon. If everyone had 2 or less children there would be a slow gradual decline to manage this. I dread to think what the world will be like in 50 years if this doesn’t happen.

Fine. If you don't want to pay taxes for the education of my children then I am quite happy to let you get on with it. But do not expect my children to pay taxes, and work, and pay more taxes to pay for your health care, your pensions, your defence, your policing. D'you not realise that a major problem for first world countries is a drop in population meaning that their advanced welfare states are going to end up having no-one to pay for them? Hence the drive for immigration (which makes the problem worse in the long run, since immigrants will also need the services paid for by our children's taxes).
People who have more children should pay fewer taxes, since they are working to guarantee the next generation of taxpayers is going to be around to pay for all the stuff everyone wants/needs. (Basic economics!)

Currently, we are not replacing our population i.e. most women have fewer than two children (2 children is replacement value) so I'd thank Heaven fasting, if I were you, that someone has 3 children and stays at home to bring them up properly. Those children will be paying your pension (doesn't matter if you have a work pension, still same dibs, I'm afraid) and for your hospital care, the police, defence etc. Without them we up up a creek without a paddle.
And immigration will not solve this problem, because immigrants also grow old and need pensions.

👆

Why should those of us with no kids subsidise you and your offspring ? Don't be ridiculous I already pay more for using fewer services than you consume

Would we need to pay higher taxes for that? Is pricy!

Turn your question around. Why not have fewer kids?

I think free childcare and 2 years fully paid maternity leave for both parents like they have in Sweden should be the norm, both parents would experience what it’s like to stay at home with their baby, both would be able to bond with their child. I think so many couples separate because of the pressure being put on women when they have children to stay at home and be the primary care giver with no outside financial support. The lack of maternity leave and the high nursery costs means many opt to skip going back in the workforce. Less tax would hardly touch that.

I think if anyone wants children they should pay for them earn enough to care for them instead of using benefits.
And reling on others if you cant afford them dont have them.
Parents should pay not taxs payers.

It is actually quite rare for three generations of a family to not work. It isn't common as people think.

No, definitely not. The world is already overpopulated. We need to encourage people to have less children not more. The more children you have the higher taxes you should pay.
It's not fair on single and childless couples for them to pay taxes for your children.

What happened to creches? I remember my Mum took my brother to one at her workplace and often thought when I returned from MAT leave how ideal it would be. Idk how they used to work, but in an organisation of our size it would really be a drop in the ocean of overall expenditure to have a few qualified nursery nurses and small indoor and outdoor spaces in the main hubs where children could be looked after and parents could visit them regularly, breastfeed as necessary and have lunch with their children. And it would massively boost the number of women who stayed after having children, willingness to come into the office and morale.

What a ridiculous, ignorant and entitled comment! This is a kick in the teeth for childless and child free people, who are already paying tax through the nose and you think you should contribute less?! OP you need to give your head a wobble!

We need to encourage working age adults back onto the work place. This would best be done by providing free child care to those who are working.

Happened in Hungary if you’re interested in the experiment. Families were offered subsidized mortgage and car loans, preferential tax rates, some women were even offered zero income tax rates and early retirement. While it lifted the birth rate from 1.3 per woman to 1.7, the cost of the program was enormous, and improvements have now stalled and birth rates are again declining. It gave an unneeded financial boost to higher earners while it punished childless and low income families and simply brought forward children who would have been born anyway. Meanwhile, children born to less fortunate parents are living in poverty, so a much better solution is to give child benefit to people who need it and lift the 2-kid cap.

No, more than 2 kids is a choice and should not be paid by the state. Of course there will be circumstances where families need more help but people should not have children or pets they can’t afford.

Why should the government pay . Your children you pay for them

Exactly. But if you cast your mind back to the ‘golden Blair years’ so often talked about on here…. there were incentives to have more children in the form of unlimited child benefit and other tax credits - and many of those kids were born into low economic situations with mothers who were hoping to increase their income and who already couldn’t afford the kids they had… and I don’t think those children went on to become contributors to the tax system - they were the second generation in a family who hadn’t had a job and they’ve gone on to create the third, tying up social housing in the process. It is those people who gave a bad name to anyone who truly needed benefits and fucked the system up for everyone else in the process because it became impossible to discern actual need. It is those same people who were caught out when the child benefit system changed and discovered to their horror that like everyone else they’d have to get a job.

As a bit of an aside, Poland’s 500+ programme introduced by the previous conservative PiS government (which meant about 100 pounds for each second and additional child in a family, or also for the first child in those with lower incomes), was successful in increasing births and in significantly reducing child poverty. However, it also resulted in rather large numbers of (particularly less educated) younger women leaving the workforce. The latter effect quite probably suited the conservative politics dominating the country in 2015-2023, and may have been part of the motivation. The OP’s suggestion of tax breaks would favour the rich (depending on how it was implemented), but even when there is “free money” as in the 500+ program it’s clear that there can be very significant other socioeconomic (and gender-biased) impacts. This short report gives a brief overview if anyone is interested: https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=19760&langId=en

'At least she is working'! If she has three kids she is working anyway - no need to go out and do it somewhere else and then do some more at home.

Why?
No one forces you to have 3+ children. Don't have more children than you can afford.

The planet may not need new humans (debatable) but the UK does to keep its welfare system, NHS, defence, police, fire services and everything else we need to stay afloat. lf it costs more to have a woman place her children in a nursery and work part-time rather than support her at home, then we should start pointing out how necessary mothers are and how much they contribute to GDP - and that contribution ought to be counted as part of GDP (as other countries do). Mothers who stay at home are the backbone of our society and it is time we admitted it.

I wasn't making that assumption, but, as I said to a pp, when assisted dying is brought up on a thread that deals with scarce resources, imo it's natural to wonder whether there's some kind of subtext about 'encouraging' people to end things sooner rather than later.

I find your second paragraph a bit mealy-mouthed though as you still don't say what you yourself are advocating. (And, btw, you can't necessarily extrapolate that someone who is ill is miserable - many will be, granted, but not all.)