Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think women with 3+ kids should pay less taxes

407 replies

WhatTodoALL · 21/06/2024 10:44

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?

OP posts:
Catza · 21/06/2024 12:20

This is such a flawed argument. Why women specifically? It typically takes two to make a baby. Does it mean male gay male couples will be penalised on gender grounds?
More children equals more state investment. Yes, it may or may not pay off in the future.
You are sending a signal that the woman's only value is motherhood. Think about the impact on young women/society.
You propose to penalise women who either can't have children or don't have time/emotional capacity/desire to have more than x number of kids.
What happens if, god forbid, one of the children dies. The tax bracket will be reviewed so mothers can also take economic hit alongside managing grief?
I am almost certain that countries who managed to increase their birth rates did it through improving maternity/paternity terms and providing heavily subsidised childcare, not through tax relief or other benefits.

bluemoonmilk · 21/06/2024 12:21

Singleandproud · 21/06/2024 12:13

@bluemoonmilk there is going to have to be more climate related immigration, we aren't designed to live in 50+C heat, Qatar and India are reaching those temperatures readily, other extreme weather events are going to cause people to have to move North and South if they can. And those droughts and heat waves will likely kill off the elderly, obese and other vulnerability populations faster than anything else.

We are heading for a global population decline over the next 30 years and all nations are going to have to start thinking globally rather than domestically to prop up economys.

This is true- but obviously if people are migrating due to climate making it impossible to live in their home countries, this should include entire families- not just the economically active ones who move to solve falling birth rates in other countries.

MrsSunshine2b · 21/06/2024 12:21

bluemoonmilk · 21/06/2024 12:17

These countries still need tax payers and workers though, even those who have population growth rather than decline. Especially in a third world country - the UK and wealthy countries should absolutely play a part in supporting these countries’ economies to thrive in order to ensure better work opportunities, but not by draining the countries of their workforce to build up their countries. The UK shouldn’t get first dibs on their workers just to solve our problems.

Did you not read what I said? Several countries have birth rates far above population replacement level. If anything, having children abroad and able to send money home is a boon to their economy, not a drawback. If each family is having ~7 children, 4-5 can leave the country and still leave the same number of tax payers and workers.

beergiggles · 21/06/2024 12:22

Anyone would think that children are like pet dogs; a hobby that benefits no unexcept the owner!
Children are a public good, the next generation of workers and taxpayers. The birth rate is dropping worldwide there will not be enough young immigrants to go around!

Tiredalwaystired · 21/06/2024 12:23

Ozanj · 21/06/2024 10:57

Singapore is one of the most expensive places to raise a child on the planet. Far more expensive than London. That’s why the ‘baby bonus’ exists - because cost was the single reason for Singaporean parents to stop at 1 baby. So they decided to incentivise more births. At some points the average age of first childbirth was 35 for women.

Bear in mind that illegitimate children and those of immigrants don’t count even though, as a population, both is increasing in Singapore.

This is not and will never be the case for the UK as there isn’t a political will to incentivise childbirth to benefit those populations who currently produce the most children (ie BAME).

But I do agree with you. I’m infertile. I would have loved to have received potentially unlimited discounted or free ivf cycles like some countries provide, free postnatal care, discounted childcare. But until we move away from the model of the welfare state (which means all benefits are prioritised to people who contribute least to the economy) it will never happen.

Edited

Your last sentence is chilling. Those that contribute the least are those that most need the MOST support. I don’t think I want to know what you would propose for the most severely disabled.

beergiggles · 21/06/2024 12:24

I am almost certain that countries who managed to increase their birth rates did it through improving maternity/paternity terms and providing heavily subsidised childcare, not through tax relief or other benefits
@Catza
My understanding is that NO countries have managed to increase their birth rate, despite generous incentives.

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 21/06/2024 12:24

We don’t need to encourage people to have more children. We need to have fewer but allow people from parts of the world that will soon become uninhabitable to move here, to bring them to safety and to care for the elderly.

We also need to do our damnedest to sort out the environmental catastrophe.

whirlyhead · 21/06/2024 12:25

If people have fewer children, there will be a few decades of not enough younger people to support older ones, but at some stage there will be fewer older people to support so I think we should actively encourage people to have fewer children not more! Maybe we should tax people on each child they have after 2??

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 21/06/2024 12:26

I would have loved to have received potentially unlimited discounted or free ivf cycles like some countries provide, free postnatal care, discounted childcare

I'm assuming that when you say free, you mean free to you. Of course you'd love to receive them, someone else is paying for them.

MrsSunshine2b · 21/06/2024 12:27

beergiggles · 21/06/2024 12:22

Anyone would think that children are like pet dogs; a hobby that benefits no unexcept the owner!
Children are a public good, the next generation of workers and taxpayers. The birth rate is dropping worldwide there will not be enough young immigrants to go around!

So we can raising the next generation of children more a societal role. Subsidise childcare, for real, not funded hours below the cost of actually caring for them. Invest in schools. Put more money into the NHS. Bring back Sure Start Centres. Improve maternity and paternity leave. Make parents feel like they CAN have another baby IF they want one, and that baby is going to have a good chance at life from the start.

Directly incentivising parents to have more babies than they want is not the answer.

bakewellbride · 21/06/2024 12:27

Yabu plenty of people are having plenty of kids and we need to discourage it if anything. At my son's primary school there are families with 6, 4 and 9 children!

CrispieCake · 21/06/2024 12:28

I think we need to accept that there will be a top-heavy population for the foreseeable future and plan for it.

It's probably too late now to avoid the scenerio of large numbers of elderly people/pensioners with increased care needs, and insufficient workers/tax receipts to meet those need.

So we need an honest and open conversation about what people can realistically expect from the state in terms of care/healthcare/pension benefits given the demographic challenges we will be facing. The truth is that the state may not be able to guarantee a comfortable and dignified end to life for everyone and all options need to be considered, including uncomfortable ones like assisted dying.

We're probably in this situation already, when you look at the inadequate social care provided for many people, but haven't admitted it to ourselves yet.

The problem is - yes, there are some women who want 3/4/5 children but there are a much larger number who only want 1/2. And a growing number who want none at all. And this is unlikely to change so the population will probably keep on shrinking.

In the end, I suspect decent care will become astronomically expensive (if it isn't already) and available only to a privileged few. Most people will become dependent on family. For those who don't have children or whose families are unwilling to help, the future will be very bleak indeed unless they've amassed considerable financial security.

MayoMayoMayo · 21/06/2024 12:28

The problem with 'just allowing higher immigration' is that the population decline is being seen across the entirety of the West - so we'll effectively be competing with every country to attract people in. Which will mean £££.

And if I was an in-demand immigrant you'd better think I'd be heading for the Med rather than a rainy care home in Hull!

The focus really has to be on enabling people who would like to have more children the ability to do that- and the cost of childcare is the obvious place to begin that conversation.

TiddlyCove · 21/06/2024 12:28

No. There's an argument for them paying more tax, as they'll be using more services, but general taxation (income tax, council tax) doesn't work like that. If everyone was taxed on the basis of their individual circumstances, the cost of administrating it would outweigh the amount collected.

bluemoonmilk · 21/06/2024 12:29

MrsSunshine2b · 21/06/2024 12:21

Did you not read what I said? Several countries have birth rates far above population replacement level. If anything, having children abroad and able to send money home is a boon to their economy, not a drawback. If each family is having ~7 children, 4-5 can leave the country and still leave the same number of tax payers and workers.

I did read what you said, hence why my message began acknowledging that even if it happens in third world countries with population growth rather than decline etc.
These countries are in need of building up their economies to compete with other countries. They need extra support, not less - so draining their workforce is not going to help. You can’t create long term change simply by making them leave and send money back. Actually helping these countries in their own right is a better long term solution, not just draining the top economically active members from their workforce. Third world countries often lose out on their medical staff like doctors and nurses for that reason, leaving their own country with a reduced active medical force. Getting them to send back money to their family isn’t a long term solution - it’s a sticking plaster. The worker doesn’t pay taxes to the counties and the country has had to invest resources to train those workers. I absolutely support wealthy nations helping other nations, but by solely relying on immigration into the UK doesn’t provide a long term for the countries that they’re leaving.

DarkForces · 21/06/2024 12:29

As the human race can't keep growing exponentially at some point we have to face a shrinking population. The main issue is how much some populations consume compared to others. Children born in the uk are massive consumers and so global comparisons of the impact on the planet are complicated. But I struggle to look at our world on fire with diminishing polluted and polluting resources and ww3 as a realistic potential on the horizon and think the answer is more people to fight over shrinking resources

Metempsychosis · 21/06/2024 12:29

beergiggles · 21/06/2024 12:24

I am almost certain that countries who managed to increase their birth rates did it through improving maternity/paternity terms and providing heavily subsidised childcare, not through tax relief or other benefits
@Catza
My understanding is that NO countries have managed to increase their birth rate, despite generous incentives.

Countries that provide huge tax breaks and/or generous childcare provisions do have noticeably higher birth rates than countries that operate a more "you chose to have kids" approach. But still not as high as replacement level.

Porridgeislife · 21/06/2024 12:31

I would like to see nursery fees treated as a tax deduction. That’s what stops many people having another.

Not sure on the tax breaks, that’s kind of what child benefit is for.

OperationDinnerout · 21/06/2024 12:32

DarkForces · 21/06/2024 12:29

As the human race can't keep growing exponentially at some point we have to face a shrinking population. The main issue is how much some populations consume compared to others. Children born in the uk are massive consumers and so global comparisons of the impact on the planet are complicated. But I struggle to look at our world on fire with diminishing polluted and polluting resources and ww3 as a realistic potential on the horizon and think the answer is more people to fight over shrinking resources

Humans always fight in any given era, over different things, we can expand just need to colonise other planets

Porridgeislife · 21/06/2024 12:33

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 21/06/2024 12:26

I would have loved to have received potentially unlimited discounted or free ivf cycles like some countries provide, free postnatal care, discounted childcare

I'm assuming that when you say free, you mean free to you. Of course you'd love to receive them, someone else is paying for them.

Well, same thing goes for roads, police, school places and all NHS care. That’s how public services work.

I didn’t drive for 10 years, it doesn’t mean I thought roads shouldn’t be funded.

Catza · 21/06/2024 12:34

beergiggles · 21/06/2024 12:24

I am almost certain that countries who managed to increase their birth rates did it through improving maternity/paternity terms and providing heavily subsidised childcare, not through tax relief or other benefits
@Catza
My understanding is that NO countries have managed to increase their birth rate, despite generous incentives.

Perhaps you are right. I just had a look at Estonia who have one of the best maternity leave terms and their rates were increasing by as much as 4% between 1999 and 2008.
In contrast, countries like the UK and Australia only had 1,5% increase in the years between 2004 and 2008.
There is global decline since 2008 which reflects economic situation many found themselves in since the financial crash. But I highly doubt tax relief is nearly enough to patch family budget holes left by COL crisis.

lolly792 · 21/06/2024 12:34

Putting this is as kindly as possible, you really haven't thought this through OP.

DarkForces · 21/06/2024 12:36

OperationDinnerout · 21/06/2024 12:32

Humans always fight in any given era, over different things, we can expand just need to colonise other planets

This doesn't address my point about significant variations in consumption on a global scale
Humans have always been and will always be war hungry isn't an argument for more of us
'Just' colonise another planet...okey dokey.

TemuSpecialBuy · 21/06/2024 12:36

Amazed but also not that surprised you cant find support for this idea on a FORUM FOR MOTHERS in a country with a birth crisis.

Your idea isnt stupid its so good some countries are doing it!
Hungary has introduced a similar scheme and you actually pay NO income tax if you have 4 children and almost none of you have 3.

They introduced it in 2015
Their birthrate IS increasing

www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/HUN/hungary/fertility-rate%23:~:text%3DThe%2520current%2520fertility%2520rate%2520for,a%25200.66%2525%2520increase%2520from%25202021.&ved=2ahUKEwiqs8WbzuyGAxWxVEEAHW5TD4sQFnoECBEQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2WnVd8Sp3ORECDQTvHnIUG

allthemiddlechildrenoftheworld · 21/06/2024 12:38

@WhatTodoALL you have a bloody cheek!! you seem to be expecting others to help pay for your children yet you admit your friends all have only two kids, citing economics! do you not understand the meaning of economics? its just common sense, but obviously you do not possess any of that!

Swipe left for the next trending thread