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

No, but I'd like to see more fairness with families that have one low earner or stay at home parent.The HICBC should be fairer. There should be the ability to transfer more unused allowances to the other spouse too. Not just 10%.

But the whole point is to reflect that a family with one stay at home parent can increase their income by both working. The family with two working parents are already both working. Why do they deserve it less than the family where one parent isn't even working?

The point is to a) incentivise working but also b) incentivise women to keep their careers - a family will be better off if both parents go part time vs if just the mother quits work.

@AnonAnonandAriston it wouldn't be 12.5k tho for a basic rate tax payer getting an additional it more like 2.5k (4k if you make it national insurance except) or 5k (5.25k NI excerpt) for higher rate tax payers.

OP I think it's a good idea and could be a vote winner for many parents. The current government needs some vote winners like this

That's where the op wasn't clear, in the op it says were given an extra tax allowance equivalent to the adult personal allowance for each child. The personal tax allowance is the amount you can earn without paying tax, so it reads like she wants a person with 2 kids to be able to earn £37.5k that is tax free, not that they would only get tax relief on 20% of that value (or I guess 40% if a higher rate tax payer)

Yes absolutely mean just being the same tax allowance as adults, not asking to be given any extra cash at all or any more allowance that people over 18 get. Just for children to be considered ‘people’ in the tax system like anyone else. Quite happy for anyone else to be allowed to claim a tax allowance for those dependant on them too whether they have children or not. Not asking for any incentives/rewards to have children, anyone else’s money etc

Perhaps to put another angle on this, the children we have grow up ( finger crossed) to be tax payers, who pay for our state pensions.
Im not suggesting that people that decide they dont want to have children dont receive a state pension ( interesting idea ) but a graduated allowance on your successfully raised tax paying offspring could be your reward.

Or a stepped state pension allowance based on your actual out of pocket tax contributions. 😊

However yes effectively a person with 2 children would be able to earn 37.5k tax free to take account of the fact they are supporting 2 dependants (or alternatively claim UC if eligible) as would be 12.5k + 12.5k + 12.5k, however both parents wouldn’t be able to do this as just one tax allowance per child

Yes, not least because we are in danger of a rapidly falling population in future and need to encourage people to have more babies.

But the ability for married couples to file joint tax returns (thus sharing their allowance) is more urgent, and is allowed in all but a very small handful of countries.

(Admittedly this would now benefit me, but I felt just as strongly about it when I thought I was single forever.)

And the parents that raise the criminals and pisstakers? Some sort of tax/pension penalty?

Yes you are asking for anyone else's money and to be rewarded for having children!

Who would make up the shortfall if this was applied across the board for all children/dependents

The tax-free personal allowance is set against income - which is worked for.

Im not suggesting that people that decide they dont want to have children dont receive a state pension ( interesting idea ) but a graduated allowance on your successfully raised tax paying offspring could be your reward.

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.

Yes yes I know you said “decide they don’t want” but unless you’re proposing that the Government subject women and men to fertility tests, you can’t tell the difference between “don’t want” and “can’t have”.

Not to mention the fact that your charming idea would mean that anyone giving birth to a severely disabled child wouldn’t get this “allowance” if said child proved unable to work. Yet they’d still have born all of the costs of raising them.

I swear some people in here want to live in The Handmaid’s Tale.

Euthanised for failure to parent properly 😆

So it isn't 2.5k per kid it's 12.5k, and you would remove a big chunk of the current taxpayers. I can't even begin to think how stupid people would have to be to think this is a good idea

I thought one of the reasons birth rates have dropped is because the generation who would currently be having children are having to contend with soaring house prices, insane energy bills and increasing rents. This means its taking them longer to reach a point of stability where they can have a child and for some they are not reaching that point at all.

Whilst I do think something needs to be improved around childcare costs, I never agreed with child benefit being capped, and I would love to see the return to sure starts etc and the underfunding of the schools is horrendous I'm not sure personal allowance increases for individuals is the answer.

The personal allowance is 12.5k. If you double that when you have a child it's 25k, 2 children and you are up to 37.5k.

The median salary is around 31k so we are talking about over 50% of people not paying any tax for 18 years (or would it just be allocated to one parent in which case 25% of the population not paying any tax for 18 years)

Even at 25% of the population not paying tax for 18 years there would be a drop in funds available for things like education or people without school ages children would have to be taxed higher

So unless there is some wierd "pre-children" tax break then people struggling currently to afford to get to a position where they can have children would struggle more. Thereby potentially dropping the birth rate further. Or more children would be born into unstable situations so people could get tax breaks to afford to live

Surely sorting out the soaring house prices, insane energy bills and increasing rents, bringing back child benefit for all children (which is likely to reduce the abortion rate) and better subsidised and invested in childcare and education would be better?

So according to this post, no one is have children because they want them.
They are having them to pay future tax and to look after old people.
So because of this, they deserve a tax break.
Do the children you have known they were born out of civic duty and not because they are actually wanted??
This thread is bat shit!
Only have what you can afford in life.
That statement applies to children as well!

But everyone gets that. The child free have to pay for everyone’s extras.

You do realise that you need the next generations children, even if you don't have children yourself. It's part of living in a society.

That would be another country that you wouldnt have ANY right to a state pension in as a new immigrant I assume?

If someone is wanting a baby, and has "issues" they visit the doctor and would be tested anyway.

You need to go and have a muffin or a nice mug of hot chocolate, calm down and not get so upset by light hearted, flippant posts on the internet :o)

Im not suggesting that people that decide they dont want to have children dont receive a state pension ( interesting idea )

You mean a system whereby infertile people, some disabled people and gay people are penalised. How wonderful you are not suggesting that ableist homophobic idea.

I tend to think the tens of thousands I spent trying to have a baby as my childless tax anyway.

graduated allowance on your successfully raised tax paying offspring could be your reward.

So my baby was stillborn. So what you are suggesting is that I am financially penalised for not "successfully raising tax paying offspring" because my baby died. I was in fact unsuccessful. How remiss of me. So any families whose child dies are reminded of that financially. Charming.

Yeah, definitely less taxes for people with young children.

Disgusting, isn’t it?

And the child free should be happy to pay for this person’s children.

You know what, I’d take being unable to get a state pension as an immigrant over being unable to get a state pension from my home country because I don’t have working reproductive organs.

It means escaping the delights of the state being allowed to conduct fertility tests on me to check my eligibility, too.

But sorry, silly me, not seeing the lightheartedness in your fun little suggestions. Smiley face!

Quote the posts where they say they think people are having dcs because it’s good for society. Re read them - posters are saying that having children is good for society. That is unlikely to be part of a couple’s decision making process, but as a society we do need people to have children at a rate that is a bit higher than we currently do have.

people having children is good for society, having children should be encouraged. It is normal to use the tax and benefits systems to encourage behaviour that is good for society.

It costs more than 2.5k a year to feed, house and clothe a child so how would this ‘reward’ parents?
This is our earned money, so how is it taking other people’s money?
Part of the money would be recouped through people needing to claim less benefits then they already do, for example UC is calculated on take home pay so people would have more take home pay and less UC would need to be paid out. Almost everyone I know on UC would rather just be able to keep more of their take home pay. (Although would need to ensure people coming off UC not worse off when comes to things like COL payments)
Productivity would increase, parents currently on 50-60k face such a high marginal tax rate than many avoid promotions and extra hours to avoid basically losing everything they would gain from that, these are often people in the sort of skilled jobs which the country desperately needs workers for.
It is about fairness too, what good reason is there for children not to be taken account of in the tax system like they are in most other countries?

Infertile? Youd have had a fertility test so be easily "counted out" of that requirement, Same as someone whos disability made it an imposibility.
Gay folks... Yeah, good point. I have to be honest here im from the sheltered north and dont know many gay people but the ones I do, the majority have children beleive it or not, but obviously not all.
Again, a good reason for examption im sure you agree.

Onto still born babies, goodness, your really getting into this one..
Maybe I should be a impudant as your being distasteful as say it could be prorata!

@LimeCheesecake at no point was the tax system a factor in the decision for me to have children.
Could i afford them. Would I be a good parent. These things factored in the decision. Not them paying tax or me getting money for them.
And a society does need children but the planet doesn't need loads of them so it's all about balance really

Can I make clear, I’m not suggesting this in any way because I think parents should be ‘rewarded’ or because I think the country needs more children or because I think other people should pay to raise my children (with the exception of things like schooling and healthcare which they themselves received).
I’m absolutely not wanting non parents or parents whose children are no longer dependant on them to be worse off than people earning the same salary. Just simply for the fact that the tax system takes account of our children as ‘people’ not pets