To think the pope has a point??

[HiggleDyPigGeldy]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65572153

I was in Italy recently and visited several large towns in the North. More dogs being walked than babies in buggies.

All of this. 👏

People have the right to control their own bodies and fertility. People need to butt out of others choices.

I think ordinary people should be able to leave some inheritance to their children . I’m not talking billionaires’ wealth. What’s the point in being sensible if you can’t pass it on?

What's the point of working & being "sensible" if it doesn't pay off? There needs to be a balance.

What’s the point of working hard if you’re no better off than those who don’t want more for their families.

That's a ridiculous statement, do people still believe this rubbish? My family home which was bought very cheap (that part of East London was rough as) is now worth a ridiculous amount. That's not because my family wanted it more than others 🙄.

Interesting in the current climate that the birth rate is always measured as "per woman". Now that the definition of woman is more inclusive presumably the birth rate per woman will drop further.

Or is this calculation and these exhortations to breed only directed at a specific type of woman? Not very inclusive.

It's as if they know what a woman is.

It also seems to me that after setting aside the costs of raising a child, the lowest birth rates are in the countries with a more patriarchal, sexist society AND where women in those countries have the option to control their fertility. Given the choice, those women are choosing not to reproduce, or to reproduce at much lower levels.

I’m not referring to ‘the elite’ either. The UK already has one of the top inheritance tax rates in the OECD, and this along with things like the tax rates on dividends and the 15 year non dom rule do not make the UK an attractive proposition, not when there are other countries looking to court the wealthy.

The wealthy are leaving the UK. It isn’t an empty threat, it’s actually happening. There’s a net outflow, and this ends up putting the burden on those with less. It’s one thing to think ‘it’s fair for the wealthy to pay more tax, increase the tax burden in them’, but that doesn’t mean such an action doesn’t result in self inflicted injury.

I know a lot of wealthy people with expensive houses all retired now from normal jobs. Many also have BTLs &/or holiday homes. Like I said I doubt they will all be leaving for elsewhere & I do think the gov is doing to come after that money. You can disagree though.

There may be a point in this. What we really need is for people to be happy with their lot and happy enough to have children do the same but we don’t. And obviously I don’t blame them. There will always be enmity between rich and poor but the fewer people want to be in a servile class accepting great inequality- the better to me. Not great for the birth rate but perhaps humanity overall depending on your ideals.

During parts of Covid the Italians were allowed out to walk pets but not to let children exercise outside. That says a lot about the priorities of children vs dogs.

Many Italians live in apartments and have no outside space for dogs to their business.

I mean, the figures are there. There is a net outflow of millionaires, and that does increase the burden on those with less. It isn’t just about taxing those who are here and intend to stay, because those people are not an infinite resource. What is needed is investment and economic growth, and falling back on merely increasing taxes on the wealthy is not going to attract that, it’s just going to further stifle it. It’s about being pragmatic, not ideological.

It says a lot about their comparative toilet habits.

It’s odd how some want this to be the case. Rather than preferring higher earners to carry the burden.

If it really does embed it’s going to be pretty bad.

Indeed. Willful blindness, unyielding adherence to an ideology, and a hope that believing economics to be simple will makes them so.

In world where capital is mobile, lowering taxes can create conditions that result in significantly increased tax revenue, with raising them having the opposite effect.

@whumpthereitis I said miles back income tax bands should be raised especially at the higher rates. I haven't disagreed about higher wages or investment, which lower interest rates have set back whilst inflating assets prices.

My only point was with an ageing population we have huge intergenerational inequality. There is far too much burden on income & therefore younger people & not enough targeting the wealth of older cohorts who invariably need the NHS more. As I said you can disagree 🤷🏻‍♀️

I’m guessing the call for greater equality can be answered in one of two ways and driving out the higher earners might look like that has happened, but there’s a possibility of an endemic downside

Lower contribution to tax burden that lower incomes have to try to pick up.

I dread it happening but it seems march of events are leading that way.

Honestly it’s just looking more and more like a death spiral at this point, and if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck…well, yeah.

And as I said you can disagree with it but I think the gov are going to come for that money of it will happen by stealth. You need that operation; "the waiting list is 18 months" etc.

There is a very simple solution to this, but it would require men to step up, therefore they need to 'fix' the man problem and they need to fix working conditions so men can share the burden of raising children.
I don't know any women, in my circle of friends, who haven't lost out financially by having children. Women are far more likely to be left holding the baby, and unless you earn a decent wage or have family to help with childcare, its very difficult to have two full time earners (doable, but difficult).
I would actively discourage dd from having children, unless her partner/ spouse was willing to go 50/50 with every aspect of child rearing (including 50/50 taking leave to cover holiday and time off to look after an unwell child.)

That’s because otherwise children would be living in a property with dog piss and shit on the floor.

I’ve made no comment on what the government will do, only on the likely results of potential actions.

You are quite right. I've been hearing this ' don't annoy the rentier class or they will take the ball and go home ' shtick for most of my 71 years.

They were all going to live in New Zealand if Roosevelt brought in the New Deal. Except he did and they didn't. And so on through the decades. A lot of these people produce nothing , employ no-one and pay little enough tax. Ditto many corporations.

Yet they use tax payer funded infrastructure , health , education. You can take your money to the Cayman Islands and go and live with it. But you won't make a whole lot more over there. If you want to play in a huge market like the USA then EU or even Britain , the days of taking the piss are ending.

Are you aware that flats in Italy contain toilets and it isn’t usual for children to live in homes where dogs wee and poo on the floor. So, yes, it does say a lot when a country ensured children weren’t living in homes where flooring is a toilet.