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?

I'm not comparing them to the UK, but the most populous countries in the world. Among the top 10 most populous countries in the world, only 1 (the US) features on the list you shared. I'm making the point that population mass doesn't dictate a country's political weight in today's era. This includes the UK, which as you pointed out has a relatively small population but is globally still influential.

The reason countries with more people appear powerful today is historical and twofold: a large labour force (as opposed to skilled labour pool, or advanced technological industries) during agricultural/industrial/manufacturing times for increased economic output, and more critical mass for premodern imperialist/colonialist territorial turf wars. Those reasons no longer apply today, but the legacy remains – many of the most populous or colonialist countries back then are first world countries today (including the UK).

Again, the most populous countries in the world (even China and India) don't generally rank very highly relative to their population size, and most are 3rd world countries as well.

Moreover, you've only listed all the countries tied for #1, conveniently ignoring all the other countries within the top #5-10 I mentioned which have smaller populations than just London: Singapore, the Nordic countries, European countries. It's literally there on the list. These countries tend to have the highest skilled labour forces.

I stopped replying the other poster because my mind was just rotting reading their replies. Yes, there's no doubt a large labour force (skilled or unskilled) has its benefits, but both your beliefs that the government is trying to expand the population for political power is simply ridiculous. In fact, the other poster implied the government wanted to increase population density, which is an even more disastrous recipe in modern times.

Sorry if this is rude, but I'm one of those foreigners (ironically "imported" for my economics expertise) the other poster mentioned, and if both your beliefs are common, my mind is simply blown at the level of education in the UK.

You’re still not really right. “Best passport” lists exist because the country involved has a sufficiently high standard of living that their citizens are unlikely to be overstayers elsewhere, plus an element of soft diplomacy.

New Zealand usually ranks highly and absolutely no one thinks they are a politically influential country (sorry to any Kiwis).

They're not a reflection of political influence in any way shape or form.

You have a very Eurocentric view of the world if you think that Finland is more politically influential than China or India, based on a list about who needs visas at the border.

I literally caveated exactly that in the very first post I mentioned it. It's clearly not the most indicative measure but it's very understandable to the layman (had the PP I was responding to in mind...) as somewhat, if reductively, indicative of soft and hard power.

It's also interesting you mention that – I'm not from Europe and in fact work more closely with the latter 2 countries. I previously explained about the historical legacy of critical mass being conflated with its present impact.

I hadn't noticed Turkey, a colonial power for millennia, is particularly influential today.

Now read the comments and think this daft idea through again. Properly!!

Maybe you think politicians increasing population density is mad, but what you have to do is look at their actions, not their words-100,000's of people have flowed into Britain every year since the 1970's,a small proportion leave again but the surge in population is simply a fact, no matter how mad you think it is. I may be wrong about their motivation, but it is still a fact.

Indeed! I'm retired, paying income tax on my pension and VAT on many things that I buy.

I’m struggling to understand your point of view. Either we take the passport list seriously or we don’t. You don’t dumb something down in order to prove a point that doesn’t exist?

Sweden, Finland, Luxembourg, Austria etc are irrelevant as political powers. They do however have good visa free access so have “powerful” passports. This is only because a) citizens aren’t likely to be overstayers and b) their governments don’t really offend anyone.

Energy supplies, access to minerals, land mass, geography, military capacity and to a certain extent absolute GDP are what matters. The UK is rapidly fading on all of these fronts, as is Europe as a whole.

Huh? No, because it's obviously not that simplistic and black and white? While not a final arbiter, passport index has consistently been linked to other key measures (see well-known research eg henly passport index linking citizens' global mobility to economic and other influence factors). Sorry to sound condescending but I wasn't about to start trotting out GDP per capita (absolute GDP is increasingly falling out of favour on power indexes), net liabilities, net assets, SPI, veto power etc to someone who doesn't know what structural unemployment is.

The various European countries (especially as a bloc), and even Anglosphere countries like NZ which you listed, have much more hidden leverage than you assume fyi. Ask anyone in govt.

Re: your last paragraph, that's exactly what I was trying to explain to PP, and literally what I said in my first post. Not sure what you're attempting to disagree with really

The UK will always be in demand because the vast majority of the world have English as a second language and because American, British and to a lesser extent, Australian and Canadian culture and content is so mainstream that everyone feels like they understand the Anglosphere. Finland is probably a much better place to live, but how many people worldwide speak Finnish, or know anything about Finnish culture?

Nobody forces you to have more than 2 kids. 2 kids is all I could afford and only just. You shouldn’t get luxuries because you choose to have more than 2

You've totally missed the point. The incentives, subsidies etc are meant exactly for people like you. The money would help you have 2 kids (or more) if you wanted to, but couldn't afford it or only barely.

(Btw, it's not for your sake tbh. A country with an ageing population running on transient immigration labour – especially for age-related healthcare, but also for public services and private corporations – isn't sustainable.

British people are talking about environmental concerns which are valid – though a much more impactful solution would be certain industry/STEM related policies which many elements of the govts are trying to get past other silos of the govt – but when the UK gets to the sorry state of countries like Japan, full hospitals and empty schools and absolutely no manpower to sort that out, they'll sit up.)

It would be a good idea to train our own people, certainly, and also encourage families of at least 2 children to boot. It is not 'family' friendly policies we need, however, but women-friendly. So training and career progression must be fitted around women's reproductive life so that women who have children (and no-one else can) are not disadvantaged by that fact. Society is relying on women having children so society needs to gear itself out of its man-centred ways and fit itself around the fact that for society to work women must bear and rear children, so we had better make it easy to do so, arranging matters so that women can qualify, have children and go back when they wish to their outside work, whilst providing policies that encourage mothers who want to stay at home to have a wide social network for their children etc, and making it easy to have part-time work. We do not want all children institutionalized in nurseries instead of with their mothers, but some women with children will want to go out to work and so we will need some nurseries - nurseries with the priority of good educational outcomes for children, however, not just there to turn their mothers into productive economic units. Similar facilities for women who stay at home - no reason why a mother cannot use a nursery and spend her time on growing her interests, doing voluntary work etc. These things being available, we might get somewhere.

@Grammarnut yes agreed, fyi incentives for childbirth also encompass the monetary cost/value, so for example Singaporean incentives for childbirth include the cost of things like doubling paid paternity and maternity leave, childcare funding, tax rebates for working mothers, support for SAHM mothers, and the list goes on... It's a massive budget per capita but impact is debatable though

But is more women-friendly. Family economics and logistics also play a part, since children take up time and space as well as money. Besides, it might take time because the current and two previous generations of women have been steeped in the idea that staying at home with children turns you into a cabbage and is a waste of your education, so are reluctant to do it. If that mind-set can also change then people will have more children, 3 rather than 2, perhaps.

@Grammarnut It’s mum-friendly, not women-friendly - a whole-society policy design revolving around a woman’s reproductive life excludes women who cannot reproduce and therefore do not have a reproductive life. I’m not saying it’s bad or that I disagree but I think we need to be accurate with terminology. Nothing about what you’ve suggested would improve my working life one iota nor could it increase my chances of having a baby, and yet I’m a woman. .

It's women-friendly in that it acknowledges women's reproductive role. I did not spell it out, but such an environment would encompass leave for painful menstruation/ability to work from home, accommodate the menopause as well as accommodating pregnancy, childbirth, lactation and child rearing. Women's biology is different from men's and we cannot function well in a society and career structure that assumes our hormonal balance never changes, that our bodies do not leak fluids regularly and this needs to be accommodated, and that this should be the case for a reasonably civilised society. So, not just those who become mothers, all women in all their phases to be properly accommodated since we are 51% of the population and whether we breed or not, society depends upon our existence and our work and will cease to exist without some of that work.

Thus, women who do not have children are not excluded. The rhythms of their sexed bodies are accommodated just as they are of the women who become mothers. We are different. What suits men does not suit us and to force women to act as if they are men is both sexist and misogynistic and also damaging. 51% of the population should not have to 'fit in' to the model of 49%.

I am yet to meet a child that was ever “institutionalised by nursery”. Dramatic, much?

People without children will use alot more state resources when they are old, as they don't have their children to help and support them.

Absolutely not. They'd end up increasing taxes to pay. I hd one child because that's what I could comfortably afford. Why should I pay for your kids.
No.

How many people do you think actually do 'help and support' their elderly parents? Very many either can't or won't.

I don't know anyone that doesn't support their parents, but maybe that is not the norm? Do you not support your parents or would you not?

I agree, especially these upcoming generation who have been screwed over so much. I think if anything they’re needing their parents to support them and many will never be never position to support their parents.

Most people I know from my generation - millienials- do not financially support or provide care for their parents. The exception to that is friends from immigrant backgrounds. Some of them do but even then it’s not the majority.

We do not want all children institutionalized in nurseries instead of with their mothers

!!!!!

I'm paying for your health care, police, fire service etc. Tax goes into one pot, we all pay for each other, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. So I have paid for your child.
Or else have everything, including police, fire service etc private and each pays for their own bit - except that even then the money is pooled. Selfishness means a society will not function very well.