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?

very unpopular though

FourTeaFallOut · Today 16:28

Viviennemary
^I think a lot more needs to be done to discourage people from having large families. No child benefit for a third or subsequent children would be a start. Paid maternity allowance for only up to two children. Thd world population is growing at an alarming rate. Less people equals less pollution and more food to go round.

CovidAgainandAgain
You only get benefits for 2 children, that has been the case since 2016/17

The exact point at which abortions started rocketing.

That chart you posted proves your point. It is so obvious really, but I had not realised abortions began to rocket as a result of the two child rule. It is rather a shock to see. Presumably many of those would have been accidents, and the parents might well have otherwise wanted very much to keep those children.

It just shows that when people, particularly in the US are anti- abortion, instead of picketing outside clinics, they might do better fighting for society’s care of the born child.
(If they don’t already. Perhaps some people do both.)

Someone has probably already answered this, but how do we square the circle that we do not have enough young people to carry out work that needs doing, while at the same time the world is over populated?

It would be interesting to see of the people who earn over 130k are likely to be parents or not

Don't be daft, this is MN where most husbands earn this and if they don't their wives do

So squaring the circle assumes that we decide as a species that our comfort is more important than the impact it has on the world.

It also assumes that climate change doesn't just kill us all of anyway or make things so very very uncomfortable that all the extra children in the world wont fix the issue.

However, some people have made the point on the thread that AI and robotics is going to fix some of the issue.

For example if the issue is a lack of carers to look after people in their old age then, every checkout till getting automated, every factory gets automated etc etc frees up a proportion of the population to be carers.

However what this idiot (in the article) and some other people are worried about actually is money. If there aren't enough young people coming up behind them paying tax and NI then they might not get as high a pension payout etc.

And I guess the solution for that is the same as the solution to people potentially being out of work due to AI etc. Tax the companies using AI and robotics and use the money to fund a universal basic income for everyone including pensioners.

It's a form of control, like these "quiverful" religions where the woman's role is to reproduce throughout her "useful" years.

You don't encourage people to have families but enforcing draconian rules like banning health care or taxing childless / child free families. You look at why people aren't having families. For example;

Take women's reproductive health seriously instead of treating menstrual conditions and miscarriage as "just one of those things".

Improve maternity care and support so that young families can afford to raise a family without living in debt.

Treat childcare services with the importance they deserve. So that children can have quality affordable care outside the home.

Take away the stigma of not having children and stop guilting women for not "raising tomorrow's workforce"

Just a couple of ideas

Someone has probably already answered this, but how do we square the circle that we do not have enough young people to carry out work that needs doing, while at the same time the world is over populated?

population hasn't peaked yet globally but it's not far off & then it will start declining. I think the UK is supposed to be there in the next 2-3 yrs. The issue is the ones left in much of the west are going to be older. I don't think the immigration needed to "support" that here will be tolerated. I see more inequality, so people who can will go private for healthcare etc,more won't ever retire. Healthy life expectancy hasn't improved & I think for baby girls born in deprived areas HLE is 18 yrs lower than more affluent areas & men the difference is similar. The gap will likely grow.

I like your ideas @TheWeeDonkey

Funding child services especially. So many kids are failed by a system that doesn't support them through to independent adulthood. You only have to look at a few posts on the adoption board to see that even children lucky enough to be adopted (and their adoptive parents) are left to it as soon as possible.

I think it’s a good idea. We all depend on there being a younger generation. We are all fked if there is no younger generation and that’s the direction we’re heading in.

How would you define childless people for the purposes of this tax?

Infertile?
Step parents with no biological children?
People who are circumstantially childless?
People who have lost their only child?

And how are you going to get those who are childfree by choice to admit it if by doing so they’ll have to pay an extra tax?

Fascinating how many people is this poll expect single or child free folk to subsidise their life choices.

indeed!

I absolutely understand that each generation supports and is supported by the generation above and below. (it’s what we call “society”)

But I am fucking sick and tired of being told I’m:
selfish
a drain on resources
a non-contributor to society
not fully human or fully a woman
lacking in deep emotions
taking up housing which “should” be for families
somehow suspicious and untrustworthy*

simply because I haven’t reproduced.

* This was a gem in an election hustings I attended once. The Conservative contender’s parting shot at his Labour rival was “How can you trust a man who doesn’t drive a car or have children.” The delicious irony was that said Conservative later dumped his first wife and mother of their 3 children, for his young childless research assistant. Whose style was, according to this sexist man, more fitting for “my new position “ as MP.

Sorry - formatting fail - the statement about being untrustworthy was made by the Conservative politician

Remember the fuss about Theresa May not being suitable to be the PM because she hasn’t got children? (Which means Boris should be the best PM ever. Oh wait.)

That was Andrea Loathesome, wasn't it? It didn't get much traction thankfully.

I'm amazed at how many women on here want to be paid for having sex. Because that's what it boils down to.

Be fair now, they only want to be paid for unprotected sex, that does usually come at a slightly higher rate after all

This is all just different shades of the same misogynistic shit, more fool you if you pick it up and sling it at other women.

You know after years of being treated like a second class citizen, being told I should work every Christmas, I'm not worth of having time off in the summer, I must be a paedophile, I must be grooming children, I am a worthless member of society, I don't deserve to live in a house with more than 1-2 bedrooms, I shouldn't buy a house with a garden because gardens are for children, I should be taxed more, I should pay more council tax, I am a burden on society etc....

Every once in a while you are damn right I am going to pick up that shit and sling it back.

And we'll all be so busy at slinging shit at each, being armed by false narratives, that we don't see the left dismantling women on the one hand and the right pummelling them on the other.

I can't have kids due to being severely mentally disabled, and they'd get removed from my care (as much as I'd love to be able to have one), so where would that leave me? Ridiculous idea..

See heres the thing, I am quite capable of seeing all of that and occasionally throwing out a sarcastic comment at the people who are incapable of seeing me as a valid human being.

Intriguingly, I've only ever heard the "it's not feminist!" line when childless women are complaining about their treatment at the hands of women who've become mothers. The deification of motherhood is deeply ingrained in sexist thinking, and challenging the way that manifests itself is just as important as any other type of feminist action.

And who benefits? Put the shit down and walk away.

I benefit.

I get to speak out, to not always #bekind, to not take the shit doled out at my by some women lying down.

You want someone to protest banning abortions, stick up for women with useless husbands, fight for better maternity and paternity pay, a better CMS system, less discrimination in the workplace etc etc etc I am right there every damn time.

But if you think I am going to roll over and shut up when women hurl abuse at me whilst I do that then think again.

And if you think me doing so would make me a better feminist then you would be wrong.

This, every time this!!

I do think it would make you a better feminist.

Women either have children or we don't have children. We all have a dog in this fight, right? But we are pitted against one another. It's distraction. It achieves nothing except the denigration and erosion of both sides. It serves none of us.