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?

This Oxford University demographer is a right cunt, isn't he?

Interesting that this opinion piece is published just after the US repeals its abortion laws. It's almost like they want to force women, sorry, BIRTHERS, to have kids by whatever means necessary.

We have two children, so two sets of state education, nhs medical care etc. We both work part time.

If we were child free we would both work fulltime and pay more taxes, we would probably climb the career ladder more, we would also be spending more money. We wouldn’t be using tax payer money for state education or nhs care for children. So technically we would be taxed more anyway as state education is really a rebate for parents who don’t send their children to public school.

There are more gay couples than children available for adoption, so if you wish to adopt and are approved but there aren’t enough children for matching, does that gain you a tax get out of jail free card?

Overall I’m with the pp who pointed out the madness of continually getting bigger growth for younger population as some kind of Ponzi scheme

Who has suggested continually growing? We are way below replacement level. At least 20 countries are expected to see their population halve in the next 70 years. These countries will all be fighting for immigrants.

The state is set up as a Ponzi scheme, my NI & tax funds other things. It doesn't go into a pot for me. How do you propose to fund everything when we are already at crisis levels in the NHS & social care when there are millions more older people but far fewer younger people?

Totally stupid! The childless tax payers could argue that they should pay less tax as they take less from the system.

Interesting that this opinion piece is published just after the US repeals its abortion laws. It's almost like they want to force women, sorry, BIRTHERS, to have kids by whatever means necessary.

This is what frightens me.

In time areas of the globe will become inhabitable we may well welcome lower population growth to accommodate more people

I’m glad the general view is it’s madness though

Yes, but then suggesting those of us that don't have children pay additional tax is specifically suggestion we subsidise those that already have children

There is a big difference between my tax being used to pay for schools and maternity care despite me not having children, and putting the burden of childcare costs on me specifically because I don't have children.

One is about benefitting society as a whole to ensure that choices that may be outside someone's control do not unfairly disadvantage them (and I will agree our society currently does not do enough of this) and the other is penalising me specifically for choices that are outside of my control.

Madness! Childless adults already pay far more tax considering they are paying for all sorts of benefits for families with children that they don't get. The benefits system actively rewards having children and childless people get hardly anything. If anything people should be taxed for having children, most are net takers and heavily contribute to climate change, carbon footprints and plummeting resources.

Completely agree. A bigger incentive to have children would be to make wages liveable whilst paying childcare fees, better parental leave and so on... Not taxing childless people! Wtf.

I always hate the arguments on these sorts of threads too that everyone who has children is doing everyone else a massive favour and it's totally selfless.

Yes obviously future generations are important but I cringe at the implication anyone is having children for anything other than selfish reasons. No one has children to provide future tax payers, they have children because they can and want to. It's for them, not anyone else.

Oh come on, engage some critical thinking.

This is completely irrelevant, seeing as there are no current plans to move the world's population to Texas. The UK does NOT have enough natural resources to feed its current population, let alone a growing one. We rely on importing food (and much else) from other countries, many of which won't be able to export as much in future because a) their own populations are growing and b) climate change will render a lot of current fertile land unusable.

Yes, we need to keep breeding in ever expanding numbers to prop up the pensions pyramid scheme. No, this is not a sustainable solution. It'll be nasty when the pyramid collapses, but it's inevitable.

One of the arguments I saw to repeal roe vs wade was that there were too many infertile people in the USA who couldn't adopt american babies, and by outlawing abortion there would be more american babies for infertile people to adopt.

Inhumane arseholes

Ah, the latest, greatest idea from the people formerly telling everyone:

• you shouldn't have children unless you can afford them


• you can't build houses here, the country's full


• we don't want foreigners there are too many people here already

The obvious answer is immigration, but of course it’s not necessarily an ‘easy solution’ that is without its own issues.

I don’t know the solution, I’m neither an economist nor a social scientist. Not knowing a solution does not, however, legitimize a bad one. And this is a bad one.

Women aren't choosing to have fewer babies just because the current UK government are a shower of shit.

All over the world, wherever infant mortality is low and women have the right to education and self-determination, fertility levels are dropping below replacement levels. Loads of countries which are on paper more family friendly than the UK have lower birth rates.The only European country with higher that replacement fertility levels is the Faroe Islands. If we wanted to increase fertility rates here we'd need to a) subsidise child care like the Danes and Swedes b) give massive tax breaks like the French (though probably not describe them as extra tax on the childless).

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

Imagine being devastated at being unable to have children and then the government fucking taxes you for it. Cunts.

@ArmWrestlingWithChasNDave She’s referencing work by Hans Rosling. It’s worth dipping your toe into.

No one has children to provide future tax payers, they have children because they can and want to. It's for them, not anyone else

I suppose so, but the resulting human being is usually pretty invested too.

I understand the presentation of this particular argument is galling and insensitive but I don’t like the framing that child free people are doing the parents a favour. They’re not, it’s the resulting child, that will grow into a adult and peer, that should benefit from tax spending.

Children are only children for a relatively short time, if you want a generation that you will interact with to be educated and relatively stable then taxes are required for the good of society.

Sounds like a way to "encourage" women to have children. Theres a lot of this type of thinking around. Many men think that women who won't date them are depriving them of the right to have children.

Might be better forcussing on men who won't settle down or be faithful or good fathers, since creating a society of predominately single mothers might bring its own issues.

Go to America and get raped. Find yourself unable to access healthcare because abortion is illegal there, and no one wants to help you, lest they inadvertently commit a crime.

Return to the UK. Have an abortion later than you would like, because you had to fly back to the UK to have it done.

Cherry on the top of that awful experience?

Then get taxed for getting rid of a very much unwanted baby.

It feels like the men in the Western world are desperate to reduce women to child-carrying vehicles. Handmaid's Tale, here we come...

It's not a new idea. Childlessness tax was in place in USSR before USSR collapsed and fertility rates were significantly higher. Importantly, maternity leave was also up to 6 years (unpaid after one but with the place secured).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_on_childlessness

Utter madness.

we need to stop our reliance on endless supply of cheap labour, start using the resources we have properly instead of keeping millions underemployed and relying on state handouts.

also, population increase puts intolerable pressure on the environment and the quality of life of everyone.

have fewer children and employ reasonably is the answer.

I think taxes need to be invested into remediation of contaminated land, that would greatly help the housing crisis.

What a load of old twaddle.

People without children are already over-taxed by paying for education and health services that they will never use (as in they won't have children who use them). I'm not for a moment suggesting that people without children should pay less income tax before I'm misconstrued, but they definitely shouldn't pay any more!

I agree. As someone said above, trying to increase the birthrate in advanced Western nations is like holding back the tide. Even in those Nordic countries with excellent state funded maternity leave and childcare facilities, birth rates are pretty low. Even in more conservative regions like the Middle East, where quite recently women often had nearly 7 children on average, birthrates are declining as women get access to education and careers.

Give women the choice, and they will choose to have fewer children. If any. That is true pretty much everywhere in the world. An extra tax isn't going to change that.

I’d have had children by now if it wasn’t for lack of interest from my partner. Go sort the men out. They are way less keen than the average woman in my experience.