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?

@beergiggles I said normalised, not compulsory!

If families like ours were able to openly emphasise the many positives of being ‘one and done’ in terms of finances, opportunities, career progression, time, focus and the environment, without the stigma of being deemed selfish for not providing your DC with a sibling, this option might be more attractive to some of the couples who are agonising over whether they can afford children, whether they have enough space to house them, how their careers might be affected, how their choice impacts the environment, what their child’s future prospects will be and so on. It might just encourage some of the thoughtful, intelligent, socially conscious young couples who are thinking deeply about these issues to take the plunge into parenthood where otherwise they wouldn’t.

One child has proved to be a brilliant balance for us, but so many of the other one-child families we meet (not including those not by choice, which is obviously a different situation) are almost apologetic about it, until they realise we have just the one child too.

Not advocating any element of coercion at all, and if people genuinely want 2/3/4 DC then that’s their personal decision to make, but I just think that actively choosing to have a small family should be validated by society in the same way as choosing to have 2+ DC.

My mum expressed a desire to die a good four or five months before she did. She had already been in hospital for almost two years at that point hooked up to a machine which was keeping her lucid and alive.

she had to put up with all those months of extra pain and suffering while we watched. All the time costing the tax payer money as well

She wanted to go, and expressed clearly that she did but there was nothing we or the doctors could do.

she literally could have been asked. In a room full of witnesses. She could have been asked by different witnesses every day for four months. She would have said the same.

I think there are definitely conversations that should be had around this.

Other countries have tried this. It does not work. You would have to give very large financial incentives to make a woman have more children for the money. Maybe £20,000 a year for each child over 2 years old until they are 18? I can see that would work. But there would then be complaints that those having children are not the "right sort" of mothers.
For most mothers, how many children you have is a big decision. It is not made on the basis of a tax break that will be way less than the cost of raising them.

Better access to childcare would be better. In my home country women are also given financial bonuses for each child they have, but there is very little affordable and available childcare, plus like in the UK it's is very expensive to raise children so our population has barely changed in decades. We have a massive problem right now with fewer children but a very large, non tax playing, eldery population.

The outrageous sexism of your comment aside, you've shown some deeply flawed logic here.

Based on your assumption of a mother's income and tax, you've concluded that she's costing the taxpayer more than she's contributing. Then you've taken that as the only economic impact of this set up.

I'll make it simple - in any given hour, what will bring more productivity to the economy - three childcare employees caring for the children of six parents, who spend that hour working in six different jobs, or those six parents sitting at home minding their children while the three would-be childcare workers work in three of those jobs instead, with the other three going unworked?

why shouldn't humanity build a galactic empire or a star trek version of the federation ?

Aside from population control levels then the other option is to advance humanity across the stars

OP you mean less tax or lower taxes

I think it would be much better - as well as more sensible - to provide all families with extra cash for childcare, and leave them to decide what sort e.g. stay at home with mum, looked after by grandparents, childminder, nursery. At the moment it is assumed if you don't go out to work you are a burden on the economy - and then everyone worries that a) there are not enough young people, b) children are turning up at school unsocialised and not potty-trained. A society that valued the work women do as mothers (and men as fathers) would not only give help for childcare if both parents are working.
Not only wealthy families have more than 2 children, btw, you will find many poorer people who do.

The planet doesn’t really need new humans making, for a variety of reasons, those trying to pin their child rearing decisions on altruistic endeavour are emphatically misunderstanding the cost that children are to each and every tax payer (childless or otherwise).

No, we shouldn't be encouraging people to have more kids full stop. We did this before. Family allowance was introduced in the 40s to encourage population growth after the war. It was only paid from the 2nd Child onwards originally which is why we have the 'boomer' generation. By having more kids we increase the need for more to fund the generation after and so on in a never ending cycle. We need to allow population to naturally decrease over time until we reach a manageable level, both for ourselves and the planet! I'm 48 and we have 1 child, I have 5 female friends our age who have chosen to have none and all of the rest have only 1. We've all worked all our lives and paid into both state and work pensions so although we won't have anything to leave our kids at least we shouldn't leave debt and should be able to fund our old age care... Provided whatever government we have then doesn't f things up even more!

Hi, can I see your economic analysis of the long term impact (say 60 years?) of a zero birth rate on global tax revenues?

I agree, that's different, and I'm sorry to hear about what happened to your mum. I'm not necessarily saying that people shouldn't get to actively choose the time and manner of their own death where this is genuinely what they want.

But I am very concerned about how we manage any such discussion in a way that people who haven't made this decision of their own free will don't end up being bullied/badgered/coerced/guilt-tripped/'encouraged' to shuffle off just to free up resources. Might just sound like I've watched Soylent Green too many times, but any number of posts I've seen around MN recently give me the feeling that we might not be a million miles away from that scenario if we're not careful.

(Not necessarily saying that's what CrispieCake meant, btw, but when assisted dying is raised within a post that details how under-resourced the country currently is and the fact that it's set to get worse, it's kind of hard not to wonder.)

However, OP, I don't think your suggestion is the answer either, because inevitably whatever incentive is offered people to have more children won't fully cover the cost of said children in every case, so could lead to an increase in child poverty.

Remind me what temperature the planet will be in 60 years?

Zero birth rate = widespread famine and population collapse etc within about 30 years surely ?
Great for the environment though 🥳👍🏻

You've said we don't need any more births, and implied that every birth has a net cost to the taxpayer. I'm asking you for the evidence of that in the long term economic benefit of your advocation of a zero birth rate.

Without all the UC payments we may even be able to afford proper schools and healthcare.

But there would be no one available to build the schools and administer the healthcare

So you want to have more people using a failing system whilst also putting less funding into said system? What could go wrong.

I’d rather the government come up with a plan to reduce the cost of housing ( both rented and owner occupied), reduce the cost of utility bills and reduce childcare costs. Just make life more affordable for everyone, basically.

It’s poor political decisions that have led to life being so expensive. It’s not inevitable.

A tax break wouldn't anywhere near cover the cost of a child though, so it's not really a huge incentive.

Finding some way to drastically reduce childcare costs, and going some way to improve maternity and postnatal care would be a far greater incentive. Some of the stories you here from posters on here and in real life about how horrific their pregnancy, childbirth and postnatal experience was, it's clear it's not just finances that are stopping women having children.

I would be happy to pay more tax if we all got more for it. E.g. Sweden has a v high tax rate but nursery is £150 per month. So equality is better, mums go back to work etc.
Parents would pay a higher tax rate but less out of their pocket in other areas....so works out. This is in my mind better than directly incentivising 3+ kids.
Also for the tax have ~18 months Mat and Pat leave paid to 90% up to 90k - which is great.
The 'unfairness' creeps in when you are in that country and childless. All the tax, less of the benefits. But it is still a really great place to live!!

have a massive problem right now with fewer children but a very large, non tax playing, eldery population.

Life expectancy is starting to fall
Also everyone pays tax.

And, there's fewer job vacancies than people on jobseekers benefits (that's not even including people looking for a job who aren't claiming benefits).

Separately, as well as the childless not by choice, I mentioned secondary infertilty in my previous post. Another friend of mine is an only child. Her parents wanted a second but it didn't happen for them.

Why should people in those positions (childless through infertility or 'one and done' through secondary infertility) be financially penalised for something already emotionally upsetting?

Not to mention OP's idea could encourage a worrying move towards women losing bodily autonomy. We're not just 'baby-making machines'.

I love being a mother but that was my choice. My friend whose mother resented being a mum wishes women hadn't felt so pressured to have kids.

Think of the children of women (and men) pressured into parenthood against their wishes. They won't have good childhoods even if they're financially ok. My friend still suffers from depression because of her childhood. Her mum has depression too.

Because there are multiple benefits of homogenous society with shared values and culture.
Just look up UK diversity and compare to crime rate.

And the more people who will need pensions and care in 60+ years time, just making the ponzi scheme even worse!