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

I don't really think that childfree people are relevant tbh

I absolutely do believe you think childfree people are irrelevant

I think 70% of people telling OP she is being unreasonable on a mostly parenting website should bring home how unreasonable she is being.

So you are in favour of policies forcing parents back into work then?

I'm confused? Because you said people aren't only measured by their financial contribution to society. But now you are measuring them by their financial contribution to society through their tax.

Either everyone is measured by their financial contribution to society equally or childfree people should not be told off for their lack of future financial contribution to society by not producing a future tax payer

I wonder what the relative merits are of a childfree person who is a higher rate tax payer the majority of their career, who funds their own private pension and their own care vs a sahp who produces a serial killer who spends their life in prison and has no kids.

Personally I think neither is the whole story of the individuals contribution, but on a financial basis neither has produced a young working person paying tax.

But tax breaks are finite. If you give to parents you take from another group. This is overly simplistic. I don't personally favour a tax break but rather additional subsidies (particularly of childcare - which I no longer need myself) but you are speaking as though the overall amount of money is permanently fixed, whereas the way money is distributed can affect behaviour and result in growth or contraction.

TBF the plan would have had more merit if she hadn't explained that she wanted the tax back so it wouldn't go to fund other people's childcare. It kind of fell apart at that point.

True! But I think the vote was yabu even before that clanger.

Well yes but it did give a good opportunity for certain posters to be able to tell childfree people that they need people to have children as if the childfree are sneaking around slapping condoms on people in the middle of sex

🤣

Any country which decided that I was deserving of less of a state pension (or indeed NO state pension) simply because my body won’t produce taxpayers would see me emigrate right out of it

Now there's an interesting idea....I didn't want children anyway, but after a heavy dose of chemo when I was younger I couldn't have them anyway.

Yet, I'm now a comsultant oncologist and I absolutely would leave any country that made me pay more tax for being infertile. As would many other high tax paying, full time working people who have spent years supporting parents j the workplace....often tk the detriment of their own lives.

If we all go, who will do that Christmas morning shift?

And yet that is exactly what will happen with your innocent little proposals.

I do think theOP is getting a hard time here. There are lots of variations in tax systems out there.

Obviously you have to work with the tax system you are in (or move) but OP is unfortunate that her set up is pretty much the worst one she could have (financially speaking) with our tax system.

The OECD reckons in the UK the difference in net transfers between the taxpayer and the government is over 30% higher for a single earner household earning 133% of average wage than in comparison to a dual income family with both partners earning equally.

compare it with France (taxed as a family) or Germany ( optional to be taxed as a couple) where there is very little difference in the tax burden for a single income/ dual
income family.

If it helps OP you could compare it with Greece which is a whopping 71.5% difference in net transfer so at least you’re better off than somebody!

Not just this. Single mums should get the same (double) tax allowance 2 parent families get.

Which country would you go to? The UK is very rare in making no allowance for the number of people you're supporting on your income within the tax system.

There's a bit of a difference between making an allowance for the number of people you are supporting on your income and the chain of posts you are replying to around the suggestion that people without children would not be entitled to a state pension though

And single dads presumably? The trouble with this is it has a knock on effect. It means higher rates kick in further up the scale, ie 40% at £62.5k.

The state pension thing is bonkers and offensive I agree. But the specific post I was replying to was just about the tax bill.

Given that well over half of all households are net takers from the tax system, let alone for earners only on 1.3x average pay and having children, I'm not sure what this OECD figure is telling us?

Perhaps it's that the dual income household is a bit less of a burden than the single 133% earning household but still a burden all the same.

Multiple things can be true. An individuals value to society is not dependent upon tax, and we all rely upon tax payers.

1. Isn't it lucky that child-free people aren't telling other people not to have kids and have no power to stop you from doing so?
2. There's enough people on earth as it is, the global birth rate needs to fall.
3. It's not the fault of the child-free that current workers pay the pensions of current retirees. I think you can blame Attlee for that Ponzi scheme.
4. Why does no one ever suggest land value tax as a vast improvement over income tax that would make the landed aristocracy pay more taxes?

YABU
Having kids is a choice, so you are responsible for funding that choice. Just to make sure kid is fed etc.. there is child benefit.

So, let me get this straight:

1. I get to work all the earlies, lates, weekends, Christmas day callouts, etc whilst the parents use a claimed lack of childcare to opt-out of these working hours.
2. I get to fund schools, paediatric wards, social services, CAMHS, park play equipment, childcare, child benefit etc that I will never have children to make use of.
3. I get less State pension at the end of all that?

Bluntly, fuck no. Unlike all the parents who are tied to their kids' schools, I can emigrate with my STEM skillset. And I would if this country decided that I was worth less pension because I'd not had kids. I don't mind my taxes paying for your kids but I draw the line at being treated as a second-class citizen when I retire.

YABU because you are talking about tweaking our current broken income tax system when we should scrap that and adopt a system of land value tax. Land is something that you don't earn through labour but instead possess it, and in doing so deprive others of its use. Land value tax is the fairest form of tax.

Exactly.

In Canada tax is calculated per household with allowances for dependent adults and children, further allowances for things like disabilities and then a load of deductible expenses for education, relocating for work, mortgage relief, medial expenses and so on. Some are taken off at source but most form a rebate at the end of the tax year.

However the initial allowances per person are much lower then in the UK, as is welfare (in and out of work) and even things like subsidies for prescriptions and dental.

Well said, @VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia

If anything parents should get a lower pension due to the burdens they have placed on the rest of us.

Especially if their offspring turn out to be duds. Unemployable, addicts, abusers, deadbeat parents, teen parents, etc. anyone producing any of the above should have their pension docked to repay fellow taxpayers.