To think women with 3+ kids should pay less taxes

Life needs to be more affordable for the average person. That's all that needs to be fixed, humans tend fo be quite good at reproducing without extra incentives.

Increasing the retirement age will simply mean:

• more people on long term sick
• more people stopping work and cashing in their pensions to live on

The above is already happening. I am considering doing it as well. Because for all the talk of retirement ages, some of us have family histories and health issues which means that we will probably die younger.

People in poorer areas die ten years younger than those in better off areas. And they spend more time in ill health. Many people can not make it to 60. I am in my early sixties and know lots of people who have already had strokes, cancer, or heart issues. The vast majority of these people are not able to work full time.

That’s so bizarre, on a parenting forum of all places, yet somehow not entirely surprising…

I think you have a point, but employers would need to be incentivised to actually employ older people.
Right now, even 50 seems to be a critical threshold for many, which is ridiculous.

Yup. I've always said men should be taxed 1% to 2% more than women, to pay for:

• male violence requiring huge public resources (police, prisons)
• fathers who don't pay for their children

I'm single & childless and pay a lot of tax - I've been a nett contributor for most of my working life, and I'll work well beyond retirement age (as long as my health allows).

But I would like to see free childcare, publicly funded, for working parents (not for SAHPs). I'd also like to see maternity leave properly funded at 80% of the woman's salary, and for up to a year, so she can recover from the physical & mental stresses of pregnancy childbirth and the first 12 months of a new baby.

So that the 'child tax' isn't imposed on women who have children.

And as for women who decide that having babies is easier than working - I'd like to see childcare tied to them undertaking training and re-entering the workforce. I think it's really sad that a proportion of young women (often not more than girls) have so little sense of themselves that they see having babies in unstable family set ups (absent fathers quite often) and living on benefits to be a reasonable way of life. It's not.

I'd like to see an extra tax on those fathers who are irresponsible about supporting their children, and that this would also be linked to benefit payments to fathers who do not work to support their children

But if parents choose not to work, then no free childcare, or anything else, frankly.

Obvious physical inability to work excused all this of course.

Agree.

But seriously we do need to start forcing dead beats to pay maintenance it would save the tax payer so much money usually spent on child tax credit for singe mother's if the fathers were actually forced to pay for their kids.
But of course that will never happen because they would moan too much 🙄

@inamarina lots of care for elderly people will be provided through technology. It is already happening to a certain extent. The real issue is people with dementia.

It’s actually even lower than that in the UK, around 1.49 in 2022.
Agree with the rest of your post though.

Lol no in sociology you use observation.

You can argue that people can retire much earlier because of the autoroll in on workplace pensions. In theory if everyone pays into a private pension to a reasonable amount then they wouldn't need to be working until the state retirement age anyway.

However if you work from 16-67 (51 years) and then live until you are 80 which is the 'average' life expectancy you are taking 13 years of state pension which is almost a third of the years you've put in. Why should a working person fund a population that is subsidising the elderly for potentially 25 years after retirement if they live into their 90's? Another poster made the point of retirement age being much closer to life expectancy within history.

As some people get older there is often 'equity' within their lives generally in property or savings. They can generally lower their hours, take less taxing work etc. I can't get by the assumption that 60 year olds can't work. Many do continue working and still have fulfilling lives.

As I say this is a generalisation. Of course there will always be people in their 60's who can't afford to retire on state pension and have to continue working.

God no, we don't need any more humans!

Use more public services pay less towards it...

...yes that seems logical and very, very fair

In order to prove causation, there needs to be a controlled environment with all confounding variables accounted for. Without that, I'm afraid it is mere correlation, hun.

How about men get taxed more than women, full stop. This money goes in a pot that pays for the free childcare to make up for all the fellas that fail to cough up for their kids.

Wow... don't get it our's was more pointless than a set of broken pencils - you were very lucky - no wonder those lucky enough to have actually benefited from it want it back.

God no. Horrific idea. Will encourage all the wrong people to have loads more kids and push loads of families over the edge.

also, I actually think you should pay tax based on what you use as a family, I don’t like the way single people and childless people are discriminated against essentially funding other people’s kids.

plenty of people on the planet, we don’t actually need more ( if we sorted out our ridiculous immigration situation)

Agree 100%

So you think it’s selfish to have three or more kids and that we need fewer people (in the UK, because that’s where we’re talking about now), but you also want decent care for older people? And also work and social opportunities? Provided by who exactly?

I think people come on the MN with their anti-natalist crap just to get a rise out of mothers.

I wonder if cycling forums are plagued by bike haters, parading around their space complaining about how bikes are shit, cycle lanes are a pain in the arse and complaining they don't pay ved?

Or is it just mums who are expected to absorb this shit with good grace?

Seriously, I'm asking other mothers of daughters now. Do you really want your daughters to feel pressured to have kids even if they don't want them? Or made to feel worthless if they do want them but can't?

I don't want that for my daughter. I secretly hope she will have kids when she's older, as I selfishly want to be a grandparent, but I'll never let her know. I want her to feel loved and valued regardless of whether she chooses or is able to give me grandchildren.

As for the retirement age. There's already fewer jobs than jobseekers. And life expectancy is no longer increasing anyway.

I’d also add, technology is moving so fast that so many jobs will be taken by technology. It is happening now at a slow rate (I work in finance, work which used to take 3 people can now be done by 1 and that change has been in the last 15 years). There just won’t be the jobs for full employment. This is something that governments now have to deal with and the fact is we just don’t need as big a population as we did. We have probably reached peak population. How the economy will be driven and people will be making money in 100 years is going to be massive issue for future generations. Now is the time to be looking into that and encouraging small families but giving extra support to those that need it to ensure everyone is as economically active as they can be.

@Chocolateorange22 Why is the retirement age so low at 67?? It will soon be 68 by the way. Most jobs are fast paced and demanding. Only exceptionally healthy people can carry on working full time after that age. It is why everywhere I have worked, unless they are entitled to be a big redundancy, its always much older people who are made redundant.

reducing birth rate is a good thing. no-one needs more than 2 kids. I really hope the OP has done this as a joke post.