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?

Why should those of us with no kids subsidise you and your offspring ? Don't be ridiculous I already pay more for using fewer services than you consume

👆

Currently, we are not replacing our population i.e. most women have fewer than two children (2 children is replacement value) so I'd thank Heaven fasting, if I were you, that someone has 3 children and stays at home to bring them up properly. Those children will be paying your pension (doesn't matter if you have a work pension, still same dibs, I'm afraid) and for your hospital care, the police, defence etc. Without them we up up a creek without a paddle.
And immigration will not solve this problem, because immigrants also grow old and need pensions.

Fine. If you don't want to pay taxes for the education of my children then I am quite happy to let you get on with it. But do not expect my children to pay taxes, and work, and pay more taxes to pay for your health care, your pensions, your defence, your policing. D'you not realise that a major problem for first world countries is a drop in population meaning that their advanced welfare states are going to end up having no-one to pay for them? Hence the drive for immigration (which makes the problem worse in the long run, since immigrants will also need the services paid for by our children's taxes).
People who have more children should pay fewer taxes, since they are working to guarantee the next generation of taxpayers is going to be around to pay for all the stuff everyone wants/needs. (Basic economics!)

pensions will the absolute least of a government’s 50 years from now. There won’t be as many jobs. AI is already automating many things, this will only get worse. The unprecedented speed of technology developments means that employment is going to look a whole lot different for our children, grandchildren etc. the economy won’t be able to sustain large populations as there just won’t be the jobs. I have been in finance for the best part of 25 years- in that time a team which employed about 10 people, now only needs 3-4, it probably will only require 1 soon. If everyone had 2 or less children there would be a slow gradual decline to manage this. I dread to think what the world will be like in 50 years if this doesn’t happen.

If we depopulate in the way you suggest we will have major economic problems. There will be no pensions either state or attached to jobs, there will be no health care, free at the point of use or otherwise, because we will not be able to produce enough to keep our society working, nor grow enough food. I can imagine a combine harvester without a driver (we probably have them) but the means to growing crops, birthing lambs, mating cows etc is not going to be done by AI - try automating assisting a ewe to give birth, for example. I also have yet to see a piece of AI that can plumb in a toilet (one of the basics of our civilization). This, the jobs in the future will be different, is always being said (they said it in the 14th century) but it is never true. Jobs change, but mostly they do not disappear. Cane polishing may no longer be a job for an individual, but someone somewhere is certainly running a machine that polishes canes. AI might be able to do a simple conveyance on a house, but can it build the house? Can it make limewash to paint the seventeenth century cottage (well, maybe make it) and apply it? Can it make a roof waterproof? It is office jobs that will change, not the hands-on type of job.

I've paid and am paying taxes for healthcare, defense, policing, education amongst other things. Have done for 40 years. Not asking your children for anything. Immigration of skilled people is good for the country and the economy.

If you ever draw a state pension then yes, her children will be paying that for you.

You don't understand basic economics. It is my children who are paying for your pension, however your pension is funded. It is my children who are paying for your policing, and will continue to do so after you have stopped paying a lot of these taxes. Everyone pays for everyone, that's how a tax system works. Your bit of tax does not have a note on it saying 'this is x's tax for paying for their healthcare etc', it all goes into one pot and everything comes out of that pot. If no children are born what do you think will happen to the economy btw?
No-one disputes (much) that skilled immigration is good for the economy, but immigrants also have children and will also require services, they are not an free goody to top up the economy - they cost. They give a short-term boost but in the long term having a population which is skilled is better (and why pinch other countries' skilled people whose taxpayers have paid to get them skilled?) - to train and educate the local population has a much better long term effect.

And you know nothing about me and whether I have a pension or not. You also don't know anything about my knowledge of economics and make a lot of assumptions. How condescending of you.

Why only women, assuming that means mothers? Should a father with 3+ children not get tax breaks or is the acceptable to MN face of sexism?

Thus decreasing the volume of property to rent, well done the Socialists yet again, never known to ignore a sound bite!
Maybe a party could support landlords against thieving tenants who refuse to pay rent, let's say they can be evicted after 2 missed payments, no need to go to court, just have the evidence of their theft available, ie no rent paid.

Be careful or you’ll have policies like Nicolai Chaucescu in Romania.

I am 100% sure that within a few generations pensions will not be universal but a means tested benefit like any other. When the idea of a pension was conceived they expected that a) most people would be dead before they got a chance to claim it or b) most people would only claim for a couple of years. It was never conceived as a system to saddle the next generation having to pay taxes to pay for 10-30 years of their elder’s pensions. It is not sustainable much longer- it barely is now.

I’m not sure why your point is directed at me? I’ well aware of the ageing population and I am not anti-immigration. Nor am I drawing my pension any time soon 😂

My point was that the last time women were actively incentivised to have children they were not in general those who stayed at home and ‘brought them up properly’ and it made a mockery of the benefits system. Regardless of your political persuasion, there is irrefutable evidence that economically inactive families do not give children the best socioeconomic outcomes in order to continue contributing. The whole welfare state exists from everyone doing their bit in terms of contribution - not simply being and taking from it.

I have no issue with women actively choosing to stay within the family unit to raise children if that is their choice.

I’m not sure about your point regarding workplace pensions? They are funded by the contributions the Government makes via relief, the worker themselves and the employer makes into their personal pot. Nothing to do with anyone else. State pensions are quite different.

Oh and @Grammarnut to be clear I have contributed to the system for decades. I am economically active. My children are economically active. I have paid for both private schooling and I have used the private health and dentistry system so I don’t think I could be considered to be an economic burden on the state. I have not been entitled to child benefit. And if it was necessary, I wouldn’t begrudge not being able to claim a state pension when the time comes having made my own provision.

Nope, absolutely not. And I don’t agree with free childcare either. Have the kids you can afford.

Because kids cost more to raise?

What a short sighted view. Most kids of poorer families won't get any nursery/preschool experience if it isn't provided. It is well known the free 15 hours at three benefit the children.

I don't think the government provides enough for parents in the UK in comparison to other European countries.

The average European birth rate is less than that of the UK- the less births there are, the more the government can provide for each child.

It makes perfect sense for people with more children to pay more tax- they are using more resources and are more of a strain on infrastructure.
This policy would not encourage anyone in a lower income bracket to have more children, and would therefore have no impact on immigration policy-concerns about taxation levels are traditionally the province of the wealthy.
Singapore has this policy because it has one of the fastest growing economies in the world-the UK's economy on the other hand has been shrinking for many years , bolstered only by the financial sector-which we are slowly losing due to Brexit.

Indeed. Investing in under 5s ends up paying for itself many times over.

If you really want to give something back to society then adopt or foster a child. Adopters should definitely get more financial support, we are not so desperate for future tax payers that people need to be encouraged to have more children (and expect others to pay for it). The more children you have the more you cost the state.

Isn’t this why we have record high immigration. And immigrants tend to bring more children anyway