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?

Absolutely not. The world doesn’t need more people in it. With global warming more and more countries will become unliveable for humans.

Unfortunately many on MN have kids they can’t afford, propped up by jobs that don’t cover the costs of their offspring, and are therefore eligible for UC payments. Maybe if there weren’t UC payments, people would think more carefully before plunging themselves and their families into poverty, almost entirely on purpose. As you’ve probably noticed, anyone who suggests that families should be net contributors (50k+ income per household member) are called disgusting Tories, which dilutes any intelligent debate around the topic. I don’t vote Tory. Do I think families should pay for/or be taxed appropriately for services they pull on, yes most certainly.

They do!

@beergiggles "Bearing and raising children is work."

It's not employment which is what the word 'work' in this context means.

@LondonFox Ok, if we do assume it is unequivocally true, then how do you explain that the three countries with the highest crime index are Venezuela, Papua New Guinea and Afghanistan? Whereas top three countries based on, say, religious fractionalisation are South Africa, United States and Australia… Could it be that there are, indeed, confounding variables that sociological research is/was unable to factor in?

I am not talking about countries with religious and political system that supports violence or is based on it.
I am talking about generally "safe" countries where "rough areas" are always a boiling point of several cultures, religions and set of beliefes that do not go together.
Feel free to look up USA population and crime rate by state.

I wasn't making that assumption, but, as I said to a pp, when assisted dying is brought up on a thread that deals with scarce resources, imo it's natural to wonder whether there's some kind of subtext about 'encouraging' people to end things sooner rather than later.

I find your second paragraph a bit mealy-mouthed though as you still don't say what you yourself are advocating. (And, btw, you can't necessarily extrapolate that someone who is ill is miserable - many will be, granted, but not all.)

The planet may not need new humans (debatable) but the UK does to keep its welfare system, NHS, defence, police, fire services and everything else we need to stay afloat. lf it costs more to have a woman place her children in a nursery and work part-time rather than support her at home, then we should start pointing out how necessary mothers are and how much they contribute to GDP - and that contribution ought to be counted as part of GDP (as other countries do). Mothers who stay at home are the backbone of our society and it is time we admitted it.

Why?
No one forces you to have 3+ children. Don't have more children than you can afford.

'At least she is working'! If she has three kids she is working anyway - no need to go out and do it somewhere else and then do some more at home.

As a bit of an aside, Poland’s 500+ programme introduced by the previous conservative PiS government (which meant about 100 pounds for each second and additional child in a family, or also for the first child in those with lower incomes), was successful in increasing births and in significantly reducing child poverty. However, it also resulted in rather large numbers of (particularly less educated) younger women leaving the workforce. The latter effect quite probably suited the conservative politics dominating the country in 2015-2023, and may have been part of the motivation. The OP’s suggestion of tax breaks would favour the rich (depending on how it was implemented), but even when there is “free money” as in the 500+ program it’s clear that there can be very significant other socioeconomic (and gender-biased) impacts. This short report gives a brief overview if anyone is interested: https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=19760&langId=en

Exactly. But if you cast your mind back to the ‘golden Blair years’ so often talked about on here…. there were incentives to have more children in the form of unlimited child benefit and other tax credits - and many of those kids were born into low economic situations with mothers who were hoping to increase their income and who already couldn’t afford the kids they had… and I don’t think those children went on to become contributors to the tax system - they were the second generation in a family who hadn’t had a job and they’ve gone on to create the third, tying up social housing in the process. It is those people who gave a bad name to anyone who truly needed benefits and fucked the system up for everyone else in the process because it became impossible to discern actual need. It is those same people who were caught out when the child benefit system changed and discovered to their horror that like everyone else they’d have to get a job.

Why should the government pay . Your children you pay for them

No, more than 2 kids is a choice and should not be paid by the state. Of course there will be circumstances where families need more help but people should not have children or pets they can’t afford.

Happened in Hungary if you’re interested in the experiment. Families were offered subsidized mortgage and car loans, preferential tax rates, some women were even offered zero income tax rates and early retirement. While it lifted the birth rate from 1.3 per woman to 1.7, the cost of the program was enormous, and improvements have now stalled and birth rates are again declining. It gave an unneeded financial boost to higher earners while it punished childless and low income families and simply brought forward children who would have been born anyway. Meanwhile, children born to less fortunate parents are living in poverty, so a much better solution is to give child benefit to people who need it and lift the 2-kid cap.

We need to encourage working age adults back onto the work place. This would best be done by providing free child care to those who are working.

What a ridiculous, ignorant and entitled comment! This is a kick in the teeth for childless and child free people, who are already paying tax through the nose and you think you should contribute less?! OP you need to give your head a wobble!

What happened to creches? I remember my Mum took my brother to one at her workplace and often thought when I returned from MAT leave how ideal it would be. Idk how they used to work, but in an organisation of our size it would really be a drop in the ocean of overall expenditure to have a few qualified nursery nurses and small indoor and outdoor spaces in the main hubs where children could be looked after and parents could visit them regularly, breastfeed as necessary and have lunch with their children. And it would massively boost the number of women who stayed after having children, willingness to come into the office and morale.

No, definitely not. The world is already overpopulated. We need to encourage people to have less children not more. The more children you have the higher taxes you should pay.
It's not fair on single and childless couples for them to pay taxes for your children.

It is actually quite rare for three generations of a family to not work. It isn't common as people think.

I think if anyone wants children they should pay for them earn enough to care for them instead of using benefits.
And reling on others if you cant afford them dont have them.
Parents should pay not taxs payers.

I think free childcare and 2 years fully paid maternity leave for both parents like they have in Sweden should be the norm, both parents would experience what it’s like to stay at home with their baby, both would be able to bond with their child. I think so many couples separate because of the pressure being put on women when they have children to stay at home and be the primary care giver with no outside financial support. The lack of maternity leave and the high nursery costs means many opt to skip going back in the workforce. Less tax would hardly touch that.

Turn your question around. Why not have fewer kids?

Would we need to pay higher taxes for that? Is pricy!