A Tax on procreation?

[HigaDequasLuoff]

1. procreation beyond population-replacement levels I'd bad for the environment and should be discouraged among rich and poor alike.

2. recent legislation changes to limit Child Benefit / Tax Credit to the first 2 children is resulting in children suffering, more kids growing up in poverty.
   (This isn't a TAAT but there's this thread about that.

3. Children shouldn't suffer because of poor decision making by their parents, but poor decisions shouldn't be consequence-free.

4. a common argument in discussions about 2&3 is that you need to account for the families that were affluent when child 3/4/5 was conceived but then disaster of some kind struck (long term sickness etc)

So here's my proposal.

a) Restore full child benefit & tax credit for all children under the age of 12 no matter how large the family gets.

b) do have a taper on that for kids (except those with SN) over 12 as logistics of having a job much easier then and those over 14 can contribute to family income too.

c) with a LONG notice period on its introduction obviously - start having a significant tax, including pension reduction, for everyone whether rich or poor which is applied on a sliding scale according to wealth but is applied PER child OVER the age of 18, AFTER the first two. With exemption while you have a child under the age of 12 if they are living with you full time (but need to prevent this from being an exploitable loophole)

So this disincentivises all families whether affluent or not from having families beyond 2 kids. Effectively those who are wealthy with large families would be funding those who are poor with large families and those who stick to 2 are unaffected.

Kids don't suffer in poverty while they are kids but there are still consequences for irresponsible procreation, just postponed to later in life.

It gets individually applied so men who have large numbers of kids but maybe no more than 2 per woman by different women get a punitive tax (there might need to be some additional rules to make sure there isn't a loophole to avoid ever having to pay by constantly getting a new gf pregnant)

Needs some work as a policy idea but could it be made to work?

No, not that there is likely to be any sort of government pension in a few decades anyway to reduce.

true. But it would apply to private and occupational pensions and non-pension benefits as well as things like income from rental property. So that one way or another you will definitely be poorer than you could have been with fewer offspring.

Unless I've missed something this is only a disincentive for people in work?

There would have to be a get out for the people who got pregnant with twins the second time. I would actually make it an individual thing too, one kid per person, so that a remarriage where there were no children would not penalise the new partner if they chose to have a child together. I think it needs to be more carrot than stick though--a state pension top up for those who stop at two, maybe? With even a bit more again if you stop at 1?

And again, people in the middle are the ones that wouldnt benefit.

The ones that earn slightly too much for tax credits. Rich and poor can have as many kids as they want. But those that are neither, cant?

And again, only impacts those actually in work.

You still have the question about what happens if a baby is born from rape?

And situations where the men dont go in the birth certificate?

If you are penalizing men who have many kids with different women. Why not women who have kids with different men?

That causes social issues in itself?

A pension top is a good idea. But many people will die before then and not benefit from it.

Lots of people dont think about their pensions until they are older. Theres every chance people wont worry about it when deciding how many kids to have.

for the millionth time - OP Child benefit is NOT restricted to the first 2 children - it is paid per child up to any number. The changes only apply to child tax credits

Eh? Speaking very generally, people without children tend to be better off in old age anyway because they haven't had the costs associated with raising kids and they've been able to progress further in their careers.

You're suggesting that that wealth gap should be further expanded and that would be beneficial to society?

Despite paying exactly the same into my workplace pension, you think I should get less out than my colleagues? Despite working just as hard as them, you think I should be taxed more?

those who are wealthy with large families would be funding those who are poor with large families. No. As per pp again this only shits on the squashed middle! Never ever worked? Keep having as many kids as you want and we'll take money from everyone else, working bloody hard in low wage job? Tough shit- you stick at 2!

Children over the age of 14 can contribute to the household income?! How do you figure that one? Surely they’re in full time education.

Oh l missed that gem user well l suppose
legally they can work 2 hrs a day, but not before 7am or after 7pm so essentially a paper round? How much does that pay these days?

But pension has been capped by half..

those over 14 can contribute to family income too

I missed that too.

So you dont want kids growing up having the consquences of their parents decisions, but think they should be in full time education and work, then give their small wage to the household....
Because of their parents decisions?

What?

Have you looked at UK population and family size stats OP? I'm not sure this is such a problem the UK has to fix.

Plus your proposal is complex and costly to implement. And bonkers.

and those over 14 can contribute to family income too.

Since when? Your policy idea is massively flawed all over but this isn’t even true. And makes no sense when your above point lamented children being disadvantaged by their parents poor decision making.

Children are in ft education until 18 these days and anyway no one will employ a child until they have a national insurance number
I’d like to know what job the op thinks a 16/17 year old could do around their school work that brings in enough to pay their way

So in summary what your suggesting is that we become like China and have a 2 child policy that includes making 14 year olds work what kind of job do you think they can get that won’t pay peanuts their choices are Saturday job or paper round and prey tell how you plan on enforcing your 2 child rule are women going to be made to get sterilised after they’ve had their 2nd baby. There’s chatting shit and then there’s this. I would love to know who died and put you in charge of people’s reproductive organs you can’t tell people how many children they are allowed that isn’t up to you.

I actually think the whole system needs changing. We need increased social care and education funding. Children living in poverty would be better of if we started refunding Sure Start, children’s centres and early years provision at a sensible level, if we ensured all schools had decent free meals, if employers were required to pay a living wage and we gave out baby boxes akin to Swedish ones. Add in free public transport for under 18s, after school homework clubs in secondary much like prep in independent sector, free paracetamol syrup, nit lotion, and a first aid service at pharmacies then lots of children would be much better provided for. Free MAP at pharmacies and TOP drugs available from GPs would reduce number of unwanted children.

And let’s remember there are many for whom procreation is never irresponsible; their firmly held belief is that family limitation is irresponsible at best. We don’t want a dictatorship where religious and cultural freedoms are removed, surely?

@CherryPavlova completely agree with both of your points there we do need to make things a lot better instead of trying to tell people how many kids they can have that won’t solve anything and I doubt the OP has even taken religion and cultural freedoms in to consideration