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?

If governments really want to encourage women to have children, I think they should start by figuring out a way to make it so that childbearing does not entail a potentially career-killing blow to mothers. Childcare doesn’t have to be free, but right now there are a lot of people who genuinely cannot afford to go back to work after having a child because doing so would mean having to pay to go to work at a rate that is more than a family can spare. Most sane people do not want to have babies they cannot afford, and even for those who can technically afford
the massive financial hit, women are also (rightly) concerned that they will disproportionately suffer career-wise because of the childcare burden. There are structural inequalities at play that make this a very difficult problem to solve—certainly more nuanced than anything that could be fixed with a bit of tax relief.

There are a lot of different views here as to whether children are a public good or a public burden (as well as being (hopefully) a private joy, obviously).

Surely you mean pay increased taxes. Using public resource such as education and healthcare so pay for it.

Not at all! More people a family has, the more resources they use. Most bigger families I know have at least 1 ND kid that uses a lot more resources than a few NT kids. Many of those ND kids won’t be able to contribute to society in any meaningful way, quite the opposite (non verbal; won’t ever be able to be independent etc). So no, those families shouldn’t be paying less tax. And I do understand I’ll be eaten alive here and called names.
also the more kids there are the less likely at least one parent to be working (and paying taxes ) is. So they contribute much less as it is on average.

Cool idea. I’d be up for that as long as you agree to forego any form of state pension or health care in your old age. Neither of these things are funded; they are paid for directly by the current working generation.

Can't do that because you haven’t got enough money to retire comfortably and pay for your increasing aged related healthcare needs without the state? Well why didn’t you plan for it? You had your whole working life!

Sounds mad? Hardly. It’s the same argument used against parents raising the issue of unaffordable costs.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

The world’s biggest problem is too many humans causing climate change, water shortages, drought, flooding. We will have to accept more immigrants because other parts of the world will become uninhabitable - probably in our lifetimes. So, no encouraging people to have more kids isn't a good idea in the long term.

Everyone except the very wealthy should pay less tax than currently

If that's your rationale then it's just too difficult, ethically and practically.

You'd have to find a way of giving the tax break to mothers who are likely to have children who are net contributors to the public finances.

You could give mothers (or households) a waiver from Additional Rate tax I suppose, if they have 3+ children. I can't see it flying though.

Whatever you pay now to support these children, they will pay you back many times over once you're old to cover your pension, care cost and nhs.Our 3 kids family pays in average 40k taxes a year, let's say 20 of which are used to pay for kids education and nhs (not entitled to child benefit). In 15 years kids will start working and pay probably another 30 k of taxes while not taking anything, so 70 k/year total net contribution for the government for about 10 years , then my husband and I will start to get pension/use nhs more , so 40 k expense for the government out of 60 k contribution by kids, so still 20 k left to support the next generation of kids and your pension. This high level of tax contribution is possible due to the investment in children's education, imagine government would close schools to save 60 k per child , how much taxes will they the get from the illiterate population?

This would favour me, and I wouldn't say no if it came my way, but I don't think you would see an improvement in the fertility rate with this move. Financial motivations haven't been very successful to achieve population growth in other counties.

Paying people to have extra children straight doesn't work. It costs about $1million per genuinely "extra" birth, which is more than that citizen can possibly repay the state in taxes in a lifetime.

You are the one lacking understanding
you are seeing children only as a drain on resources as if they were a hobby or pets- something that the owners have for their own amusement.
Children are the next generation they are the economy we need children to be produced and raised, producing and raising children is vital work. The fact that it is unpaid blinds us to how vital it is.

A stopped clock can be right more than once. I’m not commenting on the OP’s idea, but you can’t bounce every idea just because one side or the other likes it. Each policy needs to be looked at on its own merits. Critical thinking needs to be applied.

Vegetarians are not like Hitler just because he happened to be one…

I agree.
The people at the top who have hoovered up all the money should be the ones paying it back.
(I agree with you because I am a normal/poor person if I was a person at the top I would no doubt be hiding it all away in tax havens just like they are)

On one hand we have the narrative that the population is increasing too fast due to migration, on the other hand we have the narrative that we need to increase our birth rate to support the population.

Which is it?? Or do we just have the 'wrong' type of people.😡

Sorry but families with children get a loy of tax breaks

I just want to live a modest life as a single childless woman but it is very hard on one income even a reasonable one

Yeah I would love unlimited IVF until I had reached the size of family we want. Alas we have to pay for siblings.

@WhatTodoALL Supposing the policy was brought in but for FOUR children - would you agree with it then or have you chosen 3 because that's the number you have

Your third child means your family uses more resources paid for by the state and there is nothing to say that any or all 3 of your children will become net contributors or even pay tax. They could potentially all claim benefits. They could develop a health condition and need long term medication or care. With each child you have you're taking a gamble that they'll not cost the country more than they contribute either in useful employment and / or money

I was one of 3 children but I don't think it ever crossed my DMs mind that she should pay less tax as a reward for procreating.

Absolutely not. There’s too many variables at stake. There’s no guarantee any child will grow up to be a fully functioning tax payer. Childcare needs to be more affordable, equal paternity and maternity leaves and more flexible working options. And why should people who don’t/can’t reproduce be punished for not producing a future tax payer when there’s no guarantee anyway?

Maybe they could do a few practical things like incentivise large hotels to have a family room with a higher occupancy or ask schools in close proximity to co-ordinate school holidays - even if they fall out of the LA remit? (Otherwise, across three schools, we've had Easter holidays span over an entire month, for example)

Cheaper childcare and no child limit on benefits might help increase the birth rate.

@Porridgeislife your argument has so many holes. Of course I have paid higher rate taxes all my working life as has my husband and we were not eligible for child benefit and of course I have independent pensions x3 that means I won’t rely on the paltry state amount. So what. I should subsidise more benefits for someone that wants more children, and before you say they are not on benefits,we live in a socially funded country and I am part of that as a taxpayer, so yes proportionally those people benefit more. More children for someone else. More health. More education. More council budgets. Get a grip.

FFS, you do know that the more children you have, the more you take from the public purse? But you think you should pay even less tax, and let the rest of us subsidise you even more? Sorry - we're not that dim!

Some countries have the opposite to the UK with far too many young people than older people and there aren't enough jobs etc. For example Nigeria, Gaza, Niger, Uganda, India and many more.

Less taxes ??
Shouldn't it be less tax or fewer taxes?