Should families get a tax allowance for dependant children

[Clariee45]

Just a thought from another thread about there being no help for the squeezed middle who feel they are hardly better off than those on universal credit. Wouldn’t it just be fairer if those families not entitled to universal credit were given an extra tax allowance equivalent to the adult personal allowance for each child.
Why are adults given a tax allowance that acknowledges the basic costs of needing to eat and have a roof over there head etc and yet parents are expected to provide all this (plus 80% childcare costs) for their children completely out of their taxed income

@Gigi606 No one is forgetting that.
The point is that you don't get to pay less tax just because you produced a tax payer.
That's just absurd

Probably not but enjoy that 25% council tax discount! I’m sure I read that it costs the average singleton nearly 1k a month extra in rent / bills in comparison to a couple per person.

Absolutely. It’s a desirable policy objective and a good idea for the government to support it more.

Of course you are. It's not "free money". The gap has to be plugged; if you're paying less someone has to pay more.

Because if some people pay less others have to pay more

Which directly disadvantages young people who would like to have children but are struggling to get stable housing first

It's kind of pulling up the drawbridge behind you

Thought so
Shortsighted!
We will just pay less tax and still expect money to be spent on schools and the nhs. They can just pluck that money from thin air

We would have benefited massively from having our childcare paid for (still pay childcare now kids at school too) but the point is such a policy effectively penalised SAHP which I don’t think is right. Just let people keep more of their own money then they can make the choice to spend it on childcare or to make up the shortfall if caring for their own children

Yes, well that's why the OP complaining about having her tax payments paying for other people's childcare, while asking other people to pay for more tax to fund her to staying at home is a little... hypocritical

It actually benefits society financially more if both parents work. Personally I believe that parents should have the choice, but the OP specifically is resistant to money going towards helping parents (women) not on UC back into work so I'm not sure benefitting society is high on her agenda.

Child-free people of mumsnet seem to be forgetting we all need children to pay future taxes to fund future major illnesses, infrastructure, retirement and old age

Literally no childfree person is ever allowed to forget this. 😂

Immigration is far more cost-effective.

I'll pick that. Thanks.

It's also amazing how all the people saying this countless times never consider that their children might be childfree/infertile/never find a partner

Instead they are always raising the perfect future tax payers who are going to be our carers (so get more out of the system than they pay in given carers abysmal pay) who are in turn going to raise perfect little tax paying children.

@Insommmmnia

...OP specifically is resistant to money going towards helping parents (women) not on UC back into work so I'm not sure benefitting society is high on her agenda.

Completely agree.

I disagree that it always benefits society for both parents to be working and I equally disagree with people who think mothers shouldn’t work. I’m not asking for anyone’s money to be a SAHP, I’m not even an SAHP 🤷🏻‍♀️I have a career I had to go to university for, take professional qualifications for and worked extremely hard to establish and am still paying back student loans for. I said I don’t think my friend who is an SAHM should have to pay for our childcare

Sort of -- it used to be this way and will go back to it in a couple years. But it wasn't as much as the whole personal allowance per child.

The US also allows married couples to file jointly and fully share their personal allowances, so that a joint income of, say, 100k is taxed exactly the same whether one person or two people earn it. I don't know why the UK doesn't do this, it makes so much more sense IMO.

(Sorry if someone else has already said all this, I haven't read the full thread.)

I'm not sure we can or should measure benefit to society by financial contribution alone.

2 working parents may pay more tax, but they will probably have less children. It's a balancing act isn't it. More tax right now, less taxpayers in the future.
I don't necessarily agree with OPs suggesting tax breaks, but I'm not averse to helping families do what benefits society as a whole. Giving tax paying families a little bit of a boost would be a relatively small expense with potentially long last benefits.

It financially benefits society for both parents to be in work in the same way it financially benefits society for people to raise future tax payers.

I said in the post you are responding to that people should still have the choice.

But moaning about your taxes paying for other people's childcare is hypocritical when you want others to pay more taxes towards your children.

Either we are all in this together or we aren't.

But your all in this together seems to be childfree and those with adult children paying for your children whilst you get to opt out of paying for other people's children despite being in a reasonable financial situation (not eligible for UC)

If you were open to both options, better funded childcare and better tax breaks for parents instead of complaining about childcare funding it would be a better position.

It’s all very well saying you don’t anyone to cough up more, but if you get a tax break, they will have to tax others more. And they won’t tax the rich so it’ll be the childfree.

We absolutely can't measure contribution to society by finacial contribution alone. But I was responding along the lines of all the posters telling childfree people they are not contributing enough financially to society because they are not contributing future tax payers

Either financial contribution is the be all and end all, or it isn't. But it can't be the stick used to beat the child free but irrelevant when it comes to parents.

Personally I feel that there are many contributions to society and an artist who doesnt earn enough to pay tax is as great an addition as a trader in the city on a higher rate of tax (in fact I might even rate the artists contribution higher but that's just me)

It was an happy accident and wouldn't have it any other way. I've always wanted more than one and money issues wouldn't stop it happening otherwise I would regret it

So does that mean (for example)

One person on 100k and a sahp would be taxed like two people on 50k aka under the higher rate tax band

But one person on 100k would be taxed at the higher rate tax band

Because that's the same as what people are complaining about with child benefit where 2 people on say 40k get it but a single person on 60k doesn't

It penalising single parents and incentivises women to stay in domestically abusive situations because they are better off financially

There must be a middle ground where being a single parent doesn't shoot you into the foot every which way

I don't really think that childfree people are relevant tbh. It's not about them. Nobody is being penalised because they don't receive something. Just like able bodied people aren't being penalised by not receiving PIP.
Children are good for society, as more than just future taxpayers. An individual being childfree whether by choice or circumstance doesn't change that.

Because they would not live very long in old age without other peoples children propping up the economy , caring for them in hospital or nursing care.
Wondered how long it would take for this old cnestnut to be spouted out.

Nice try. But tax breaks are finite. If you give to parents you take from another group.

Parents are not on a par with disabled people in terms of need. Benefits are to help the vulnerable in our society, not to give parents with well paying jobs more disposable income.

It is true though. I don't understand why people so resistant to this fact. Without young working people paying tax there's no pensions, no NHS, no social care. It shouldn't be controversial to acknowledge it.

Can you quote where anyone has said society doesn’t needs kids?

Your point has been debated upthread.