Tax childless adults

[Acidburn]

Hi all

Just saw the below article on LBC news:

www.lbc.co.uk/news/childless-tax-birthrate-uk-cost-of-living-paul-morland/

AIBU to think that this insane?

It looked like you were responding the the whole point of the thread, apologies if you weren't

I don’t think labour shortages are because we are less attractive

So Brexit hasn't had an impact?

@Threepeonies it's why I quoted the post I responded to which wasn't the OP & if you read my other previous posts I said the idea in the OP was nonsense.

And I have apologised

Its a 4 page long thread, I don't remember everyones name to everyones post.

So punish those who can’t have or don’t want children or encourage people to have them to avoid extra tax? WTF? I have 2 children and think it is ludicrous.

We are about to have our first child and we are going to struggle so much to live from a single wage and statutory maternity pay. Luckily we have saved enough money to get by but its unlikely we will ever be able to afford a second child. Maybe if the government were a bit more generous with maternity pay then more people would have the option of having children if they wanted to.

too right.

I read this on Sunday with a mounting sense of disbelief. This man may be very educated but he's not living in the real world. I've never had any children by choice but I hear SO much about the stupid amount of money childcare costs, people tying themselves in knots to try and cover school holiday care without spending a fortune, it seems the only people who can afford to have larger families are people like Paul?
And who is he to tell women what they should be doing? If a woman only wants one child, fine, I didn't want any, that's my business, Paul will just have to get over it.
I've always worked and paid taxes and NI, never had maternity leave, free nursery hours, child benefit so why should I pay extra tax because I didn't get those things? Paul, quite frankly, you're a twat

@hatchyu

It would be interesting to see how many of the childless are net contributors, compared with those who have children.

I expect that a higher amount of childless people are already paying more tax than those with children anyway. The childless also get less in both in and out of work benefits and don't consume as many public funded services.

Example - 2 identical houses, 1 occupied by a child free singleton and 1 occupied by a family of 4. The childfree singleton only gets a 25% council tax discount, despite consuming 75% less services.

Like ai said the UK will be in competition with other countries who also desperately need immigrants so immigrants will hold more of the power. why will the immigrants want to leave their counties in the future?

For the same reasons they do now, only more so. To escape poverty, conflict, climate change or persecution.

Many parts of Africa have rapidly growing populations. If they can't provide livelihoods for their people now, prompting huge numbers to leave by whatever means possible, why would they be able to do so in the years to come?

I don't think there will be any shortage of people wanting to immigrate to wealthy European countries any time soon.

I expect that a higher amount of childless people are already paying more tax than those with children anyway.

I googled but couldn't find anything. Did read that fathers earn more than men who aren't fathers & reverse true for mothers.

Certainly in my circle we couldn't afford dc & subsequent childcare if we weren't higher tax payers but this will vary around the country.

The childless also get less in both in and out of work benefits and don't consume as many public funded services.

Surely that's quite difficult to quantify?Obviously it depends on earnings so some parents will earn more than non parents. Also there's a huge amount of unpaid carers (usually women) who support older parents which takes away pressure on the state.

@hatchyu

Maybe compare a single, working, childless 40 yo female with a 40 yo single mother, working part time, topped up by benefits? Over 20 years the singleton will have paid more tax and consumed less in benefits and services.

My sis is 45 and single and childless. I'm a single parent of 1. I'm only entitled to child benefit but I'm definitely consuming more (as a household) than she is. My career is ok but it's on hold while DD is small, so I'm not going to get promoted and pay more tax in the short to medium term. There are many other single parents earning part time min wage, paying very little tax (if any) but consuming a substantial amount in benefits and services. This point won't be popular on mumsnet.

Ridiculous idea and I do have children.
If a woman (and the primary decision lies with women) does not want children then that should be the end of it. I doubt a tiny financial incentive will encourage women to change their mind.
I seriously don’t know how anyone can afford to have children right now.
Its not ideal having a child where both parents are out at work almost all day every day, yet can parents afford to both work part time or be sahp?
Then there is the fact that women will face being a single parent more often then not and again most father’s are not good enough. A great father and husband is a rarity.
I look at my childless by choice friends and they have a fabulous life.

This is a good response & a sensible article on the issue

www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/07/taxing-childless-insult-not-a-solution

Maybe compare a single, working, childless 40 yo female with a 40 yo single mother, working part time, topped up by benefits? Over 20 years the singleton will have paid more tax and consumed less in benefits and services.

But why not compare a working person to a mother on benefits. Not all parents are on benefits & not all single people work & don't receive benefits. I just don't think you can generalise. I don't know any parents who get CB or many who get the 30 hours but that's not representative of all parents.

There isn't, the cliff edge was based on church records in france in 1700s when most women died about 35 hence the sudden drop. New studies show there is no cliff edge. Issues with fertility are largely down to other health factors.

@hatchyu

Did you selectively miss this part of my post because it doesn't suit your narrative?

My sis is 45 and single and childless. I'm a single parent of 1. I'm only entitled to child benefit but I'm definitely consuming more (as a household) than she is. My career is ok but it's on hold while DD is small, so I'm not going to get promoted and pay more tax in the short to medium term.

To make it clearer, my sis is indirectly subsidising me and my DD. So she is already paying more tax, as a childless person, to subsidise me as a parent.

As I said upthread, it's a mad idea.

But it's not going to happen.

It is not a tax. It is more like a fine. Name something else that you pay tax on for not having/doing. There isn't anything.

I made no mention of 35 I know that's base on very old French records and may well not be applicable to modern populations.

However - conception rates do drop with age
But women become less fertile as they get older. One study found that among couples having regular unprotected sex:
aged 19 to 26 – 92% will conceive after 1 year and 98% after 2 years
aged 35 to 39 – 82% will conceive after 1 year and 90% after 2 years
NHS

and miscarriage risks increase:
the risk of miscarriage was lowest in women aged 25-29 (10%), and rose rapidly after age 30, reaching 53% in women aged 45 and over. bmj

Despite that you can get people like DH GM who got pg and had healthy twins at 51 - it's just much rarer.

I've 45 - most women I know who really wanted children were trying at 40 as it does get harder for many to have successful pg - though science is improving the odds.

But fertility does decline with age - though I agree its not a cliff and I never said it was.

Um- isn’t the obvious thing to increase immigration? Then we can spread out the areas where there is overpopulation to places where there is a decreasing population. Better for the environment and people.

It is less clear cut with men - but

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40460246

In this study, scientists found that men aged 40-42 were linked with a 46% lower chance of having a baby by in vitro fertilisation (IVF) than men aged 30-35, when the female partner was under 30.

@FortonServices what part do you think I missed? I don't have a narrative I just don't think you & your sisters example is representative of the population anymore than I think my anecdotal experience is....

The best way to raise the birth rate is not to have Tory Governments.
Tory - instant birth rate drop
Labour - takes a year or two but then birth rates rise.
But is a birth rate rise a good thing?
By the time someone has to wipe my arse for the rest of my life - I'd like the option of an exit button.

Yes end of life considerations do need to be talked about - it seems an uncomfortable conversation that no one wants to enter into (although incentivised birth apparently is fine). I personally would definitely sign up to voluntary suicide if quality of life was severely compromised. This is for my own selfish reasons of wanting a peaceful, dignified death on my own terms but a side effect would hopefully be less cost to the state in care, medical provision and pensions. If this was an avenue available then I believe many people would take it.