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?

This, exactly. My friend used to go on and on about being a boss woman and “working mother” and she was in this same situation. Working two days a week but receiving a lot of top ups on benefits.

But a single person on a sick leave would only need to pay their own costs, a single parent on the sick leave may get 100 extra in child benefit but then would need to pay thousands in child care or for older children hundreds to cover their food/clothes/hobbies. There may be some kids which don't need childcare and happy to reduce their spending to help a sick parent but in average it is the opposite - parent would skip meals/sell their belongings/get in debt to let their children have the same lifestyle as their peers

This really, with birth rates dropping and schools closing we should be able to spread a bit more money here.

We have long term illness benefits for those people not at retirement age and it is less than the state pension. Yes there would be more long term sick but also more people working and PIP is less than state pension anyway.

Those who still retire early due to private pensions will not be able to also claim a state pension until later but would still have their private pension taxed early as they do now.

@Decembersunset a parent on sick leave would be looking after their child themselves. And they would get far more on benefits than a single person.
There is a reason that nearly all street homeless women are childfree.
A child's costs would be reduced as well.
Before I had children I had a NMW nursey job supporting families on benefits on a rough housing estate. Nearly all were better off financially than I was and had better housing. The difference of course was that my situation was temporary.

Ha no. Children are a choice.

Biggest barrier to people having children is 1. The childcare cost - so make it free and 2. The generation that just don't want to give up their lifestyles to have kids - unfortunately not a lot can be done about the second part unless you stop fining parents for taking kids on holiday in term time or make family holidays cheaper make family homes cheaper - give parents a bigger tax break when they retire on the basis that we are providing the next generation of tax payers

I guess overall my point is that the state pension was never set up to allow the average person to have a relaxed old age not working. It was set up for those who lived beyond the average life expectancy and so were far too old to work.

If you want a nice retirement whilst still in good health, you need to spend your life saving for it.

So someone who is infertile will have to pay more tax than those who can just pop them out. No.

The vast majority of people too ill to work do not get PIP. If you have had a stroke and can dress and feed yourself albeit with difficulty, you are very unlikely to get PIP. But you are also very unlikely to get a job.
@Pookerrod As I said I am thinking of retiring early. My private pension is below the tax threshold. My colleague retired a few years ago and is in the same position. I remember reading research into this and it said people assumed that the increase in early retirers was driven by wealthy people, but it is not. It is people like myself who just withdraw our pension and live on it until state pension. Because frankly we have had enough. It is tough trying to work when you have a chronic illness. I do not want to live like this any more.

Just to add with PIP, if your difficulties are physical you have to be very incapacitated to get PIP. The questions are written far more for people who are neurodivergent or have cognitive difficulties.

give parents a bigger tax break when they retire on the basis that we are providing the next generation of tax payers

Is that just assumed or will you have to show evidence of your kids’ payslips? Will the tax break be removed if your kids suddenly stop being taxpayers - ill health, perhaps staying at home with their own kids? What about parents of kids who’ll never live and work independently?

I’m all for things which make parents’ lives easier but rewarding them for producing a good little taxpayer is pretty distasteful. And it ignores the fact that some (like me) cannot do it if we wanted to.

I'm a parent but I don't think it's right or fair to penalise those who aren't.

That's how I feel generally but also I think of my own DC. If when they're adults it turns out they don't or can't have children, I don't want them financially punished for that.

I'm on another thread about disability benefits
Current setup seems to be that someone who is childless or childfree might work for many years but if they become unable to work they're in awful poverty. They've paid for our children. Schools, maternity care etc. Yet when they need help they're left struggling. Doesn't sit right with me.

The best way to help people, parents and those without children is to have well-funded public services, more social housing (for all who need it, including the child free/childless), and job education and training opportunities.

With help for parents, one pressing issue is the need to improve the child support system, to ensure absent parents pay their share.

We live in Sweden, we’re on a similar income to when we worked in the UK, we actually pay less tax here than we did in the UK. Its also only £150 for the first child, the second is about £90.

At least she is working. We do this and it has saved us paying for childcare for two years. Should mention we have no family nearby and no available after school clubs. It works for us.

Bearing and raising children is work.

@Decembersunset a parent on sick leave would be looking after their child themselves
If you are able to look after the child, then you don't need to take a sick leave - the difference is that the parent looks after their own child and get 100 pounds in benefits, childless person can do 40 hours of babysitting and get 400 pounds in cash and no child related expense. Whatever the situation, with everything else being equal a childless person will have more time = more earning potential and no child related expenses and restrictions. This is what annoys me: people compare parent working 60 hours with childless person working 35 hours and complain the parent has 100 more.

Whatever the situation, with everything else being equal a childless person will have more time = more earning potential and no child related expenses and restrictions
Well said @Decembersunset
Children are a benefit to society as a whole (because as adults they contribute to human society) and a major cost to the parents who do the WORK of bearing & raising them.

@Decembersunset

Childless couples perhaps are better off. Sometimes. Lots are lower earners, and people without children are low priority for social housing.

Childless singles, however are worse off. Just as single parents are worse off than couples with children.

I think (can't remember where I saw the stats) that single childless are the poorest group in the UK. Higher housing costs, only 25% council tax discount, energy bills on a single income, and so on.

I understand that single disabled people are the worst off of all (second worst off are single disabled parents).

And with pensioners. Single pensioner poverty rates are about double that of pensioner couples. (Obviously not all single pensioners didn't have children. Many did and are single because of bereavement or were lone parents).

Obviously this doesn't mean parents don't deserve or need help. It just means that so do the childless and childfree (who pay for other people's children's schooling and maternity care and other costs).

CheshireCat1, not necessarily!

I think it would be more better to subsidise childcare.

You seem to have not understood the 'with everything else being equal' part of the post from @Decembersunset
(Or caeteris paribus if you prefer the Latin)

Are you suggesting that an activity can only be considered 'work' if it is done in exchange for money?