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?

Yeah this is a brilliant idea. As a child free person you should put me on the highest tax band to help reduce your tax, so you can pay for the children you chose to have to take expensive swimming lessons you chose for them to do.

I would really love to further prop parents up financially, as I'm sure would childless women who wanted but couldn't have kids.
You sound like you're trying to kid yourself that having more than two kids was some benevolent act on your part towards society. No, you had a lot of kids because you wanted a lot of kids. Own your choice and don't expect others to fund that choice further than they already are.

Yeah this is a good point.

What really needs to be done is incentives via free childcare, better statutory maternity pay, free school dinners for all children.. stuff like that
Otherwise it's just going to entrench inequality

Nah, there's enough people on the planet as there is. Why offer incentives to increase that. If we need more young people, whats wrong with immigration? The climate crisis means we're not going to be short of people wanting to move here any time soon.

Can anyone tell me what was the point of Sure Start.

When DD (18) was born they insisted on coming to see us. They brought us a couple of balloons and some leaflets and gave us their address in case we ever needed any help. Well I did need help - actually I really needed help but when I turned up it was an office - they gave me a leaflet and told me I could get some information from the library.

Utterly pointless waste of money hopefully they won't be wasting it like that again but I'm sure Labour will find a way to p*ss money away like last time. I have absolutely know idea why people go on about how great Sure Start was - if I'd become PM they'd have been one of the very first things I'd cut

@alltoomuchrightnow

But then those children eventually give back to the public purse and things supposedly come full circle again.

Invest in children - they become more productive as adults - more wealth is created - public services can be funded.

There are clearly key moments in time at which an injection of cash/resources makes a huge difference. So targeting these directly might make a big difference.

If parents are finding it difficult/unaffordable to have one or two u-5s, then they are unlikely to have a second or third one even if they want one (the most common age gaps being 2-4 years). So free u-5 childcare or a big cash payout at this stage might mean an extra child in that family. Whereas more money for parents of primary/secondary age is unlikely to make a difference.

And then for your payout of £20,000, you might have another taxpayer who will contribute many times that.

Likewise, investment in the u-5s makes a huge difference in terms of educational outcomes (which then has knock-on economic benefits).

So there really are huge pragmatic arguments in favour of literally throwing money at u-5s and their parents.

Think France have something like this. It does incentivise higher educated, higher paid individuals to have more kids. Something that we probably need more of given the general decline in birthrate among this cohort.

Here in Belgium there are tax incentives to having 3 children or more. It's great!

It is quite a common thing in other countries. It isn't a new idea.

And how are people in Belgium with none or fewer children coping with that, do they match the outraged posts on mn?

You are joking surely????

When I was a child the parent's tax code was changed for evey child, so the more children, the less tax paid. Of course for those on a very low income if you had lots of kids this perk could get used up so that there was no benefit to your income if you had more children.
One of my friends had 7 brothers and sisters - she said her father paid no income tax - he was a tax inspector 😁

💐

I think it would be more better to subsidise childcare.

That’s what you get child benefit for.

Why are some people acting like this is some heinous unimaginable proposal? It happens in quite a few countries already and those numbers will likely increase as more countries see the need for natalist policies.

Do they still get medals on France? Serious question.

Child benefit is highest for the first child, if you get it at all.

3/4 of my team have 3 kids - they already get to work fewer hours than they’re paid to work (because my workplace takes family friendly to the absolute extremes) and the remaining 1/4 of us without kids pick up the slack.

So they’re already being paid more than the childless per hour. If they were also taxed less on the basis of being parents, think I’d genuinely consider emigrating.

But then those children eventually give back to the public purse and things supposedly come full circle again.

Not necessarily. They may emigrate, become SAHP, be on benefits/low earners most of their lives. You just cannot guarantee that every child born as a result of this subsidy will end up a directly contributing to the UK economy.

Personally I’d like to see having just one child become more normalised. The falling birth rate, I believe, comes largely from more couples choosing not to have any children at all, while (judging by my own circle) those who do have children generally go on to have the ‘standard’ 2 or 3.

I have one by choice, for many reasons, some of which relate to environmental/future quality of life concerns. Even now, though, there’s a lot of stigma and judgement around only children, and it’s difficult to advocate for this decision in a positive way without someone telling you you’re selfish (this is slowly changing in some areas I think, but this is very much my experience here in Zone 5 suburbia!)

I think a wider spread of families choosing to/being able to afford to have 1 or 2 children plus better managed and distributed immigration would be the best solution to balance economic and environmental concerns.

This is not just about women though is it ?

There are fathers involved too

No, I am not in favour of this extra tax

If you wish to have 3 or more children, then pay for them

Yes I am fairly sure I'm on my own working full-time with three primary aged children. And more to the point it's not really about women it's about families. We came to the conclusion we couldn't both work, and as I earned a lot more, it was me that stayed at work. That does however also mean that because my industry doesn't offer part time work, we couldn't do what would have been way better for taxes and both work part-time. I think what's wrong isn't so much giving a tax break for 3+ kids, but the fact the tax system is incentivising both parents working up to 50k, rather than having one SAHM and the other partner earning, say, 110k - it's kinda nuts that if you concentrate your income as a family in order to look after your kids yourself, you end up on an insane marginal rate, even though that also means you are not consuming any state childcare at all.

Think about yourself why don't you, OP...
Will your view change when you're not parenting anymore?