To think women with 3+ kids should pay less taxes

[WhatTodoALL]

All parties will have to deal with the increasing number of old people and low fertility rate. They use this fact to justify big numbers of net migration. I was wondering if we as a country should actively provide economical benefits for women to have more than one child? In some countries like Singapore there are a lot of economic incentives to have more than 2 kids. I have 3 kids myself and I don't know anyone in my friendship group who would have more than 2. In fact, most don't want to have even one child citing economical reasons.

AIBU?

Agree.

I'm single & childless and pay a lot of tax - I've been a nett contributor for most of my working life, and I'll work well beyond retirement age (as long as my health allows).

But I would like to see free childcare, publicly funded, for working parents (not for SAHPs). I'd also like to see maternity leave properly funded at 80% of the woman's salary, and for up to a year, so she can recover from the physical & mental stresses of pregnancy childbirth and the first 12 months of a new baby.

So that the 'child tax' isn't imposed on women who have children.

And as for women who decide that having babies is easier than working - I'd like to see childcare tied to them undertaking training and re-entering the workforce. I think it's really sad that a proportion of young women (often not more than girls) have so little sense of themselves that they see having babies in unstable family set ups (absent fathers quite often) and living on benefits to be a reasonable way of life. It's not.

I'd like to see an extra tax on those fathers who are irresponsible about supporting their children, and that this would also be linked to benefit payments to fathers who do not work to support their children

But if parents choose not to work, then no free childcare, or anything else, frankly.

Obvious physical inability to work excused all this of course.

Yup. I've always said men should be taxed 1% to 2% more than women, to pay for:

• male violence requiring huge public resources (police, prisons)
• fathers who don't pay for their children

I think you have a point, but employers would need to be incentivised to actually employ older people.
Right now, even 50 seems to be a critical threshold for many, which is ridiculous.

That’s so bizarre, on a parenting forum of all places, yet somehow not entirely surprising…

Increasing the retirement age will simply mean:

• more people on long term sick
• more people stopping work and cashing in their pensions to live on

The above is already happening. I am considering doing it as well. Because for all the talk of retirement ages, some of us have family histories and health issues which means that we will probably die younger.

People in poorer areas die ten years younger than those in better off areas. And they spend more time in ill health. Many people can not make it to 60. I am in my early sixties and know lots of people who have already had strokes, cancer, or heart issues. The vast majority of these people are not able to work full time.

Life needs to be more affordable for the average person. That's all that needs to be fixed, humans tend fo be quite good at reproducing without extra incentives.

What really needs to be sorted is housing. Sort that and everyone needs to make less to live.
It will nit happen though as too many well off people are making money from housing.

🤔 Hmmm, what tax benefits can I dream up that would support me?
I could share them on Mumsnet, and then everyone, who isn't in my situation, can disapprove!

And so many younger people are not having children because of the housing situation. Fixing this one issue would solve a lot of current problems.

Just give it time, once the government changes, landlords will find their life going from dandy to suddenly some of the worst things that can happen to you in a Sudanese prison.
Did you find that surprising to read? You're not half as surprised as landlords will be when it happens.

I've just had a look at statistics on the gov website.

There are 12.7m under 16s in the UK and there are 3.8m who have separated parents, so approx 30%.

Of the families involved, around 41% have relative low income after housing costs (38% of those with a statutory agreement in place, as opposed to 49% with no agreement in place and 33% of those with a non-statutory agreement.)

So, we're looking at roughly 12% of children in the UK who have separated parents and live in a low income household. 30% of children overall live in low income households so this makes up less than half. And even if the NRP paid everything he possibly could, that still might not make up enough for them to be out of the low income bracket.

It's a problem, but I'm not sure it would make a massive difference to the economy overall.

What annoys me is the lack of logic: many posters have this idea that the children are drain on resources as government pays some money towards them. Completely ignoring that a). Parents spend much more on their children than any government benefits so childless people are already much better off b) investment in children care and education will pay off.
It is like complaining about farmers getting tax deduction for the costs of seeds etc. I don't need a tax break but people need to acknowledge reality that parents give more to society than take.

I'm from Singapore. Nobody feels pressured to have kids ffs, and in fact I'd say the pressure seems to be greater in the UK or London, in my circles at least.

For many young Brits, expanding your family seems to be tied to the idea of showcasing your financial stability, ability to own a house, etc... whereas children are much less of a status symbol in Singapore where everyone owns property due to universal housing.

The incentives aren't going to make anyone pop a baby out for some quick cash, in Singapore at least where most of the population are white-collar graduates. They're more targeted at stable couples who actively want to take the next step, but are deterred by concerns about financial stability and COL for the next 18 years or so.

I can see loads of problems surrounding childcare and finances amongst parents on Mumsnet, so that's obviously a potential issue for would-be parents in the UK or elsewhere.

There are plenty of self proclaimed lifelong DINKS (Dual Income No Kids) in Singapore – in fact statistically that's the norm.

That's the unspoken reasoning behind the "tax breaks as well as benefits" model.

At the moment, the UK acknowledges the cost of raising dependent children through benefits, but not through a change in the tax allowance. It's a model solely driven by child poverty reduction - once you're out of the poverty level then the government takes the view that it's personal choice.

A reasonable and defensible view, but not the only reasonable and defensible approach.

@Decembersunset I think the government needs to invest in children. But parents are not always worse off than childfree people. A single person off long term sick gets just over £90 a week plus some help with housing benefit if renting and some help with council tax. They are poorer than parents off sick.

I’ve noticed that too and I find it so odd.

@Metempsychosis but tax breaks to people already out of poverty does not lead to them having more children. Other countries have tried it.
It would make more sense to tackle housing so young couples can have children earlier. The later you have children, the more likely you are to only have one.

How is this relevant to the conversation ? 🤣

Because the assumption that childless people are all “much better off” than parents - which doesn’t take into account relationship status, salary, locatiom, age, housing, health, upbringing, generational wealth, other dependencies etc. - is partly why we live in a society where childless people are ignored by policymakers.

Because it’s assumed that we don’t need help, because children are the only thing that’s expensive and therefore the only reason a person might be poor.

It’s highly relevant to a conversation about who should get more govt financial help.

I'm not advocating population control, just against incentivising women in the uk to have 3+ children.

Which planet are you proposing? Very interested to hear the plan. I don't do well in the heat so a move further from the sun might suit me 🤔

exactly, and what if they have kids that stay in the UK but don’t work?

My friend didn’t work until she was 30, and she had 3 kids. She was on benefits from age 18 to 30 and still is due to working so few hours and her partner does cash in hand work.

I see her kids going the same way due to the way she’s raised them. They’re nice kids and have potential but unfortunately she never pushed them and they’re very unambitious. This is a common scenario. Although the kids are teens she only works part-time (and she’s not a single parent)

Excellent post.

I also agree with the pp who said they need to tackle housing and making living more affordable in general. That would be a fairer incentive that goes to the root of some of the issues.

Also can I add a lot of men and even some women shouldn’t have had one kid let alone three. Let’s not be in a rush to incentivise people to have kids just so we can create more worker bees, when they’re not capable of taking care of them properly and many even regret having kids.

I'm from Singapore. Nobody feels pressured to have kids ffs, and in fact I'd say the pressure seems to be greater in the UK or London, in my circles at least.

Possibly the pressure you've noticed in the UK and London is related to the what you say below? Especially for people on lower incomes.

Singapore where everyone owns property due to universal housing

In the UK the childless and childfree are low priority for social housing.

The Singapore housing model sounds good actually. Lack of decent affordable housing in the UK is a problem for both families and the childless/child free. It also costs so much money (money that could be used amongst other things to help support parents).

Housing, health, and poverty are interlinked, so more social housing would reduce the welfare benefits bill and NHS cost.

I agree parents should have support, but I don't agree with financially penalising those without children.

There's people like my friend's mum who resented having children. That's awful for their kids. There's also people who struggle with their fertility. Already emotionally hard, so extra cruel to also financially punish them.

And a previous poster made a good point that the childless especially those who are single are often the worst off financially.

Just sort housing out. Much lower rents and mortgages would benefit everyone.