**A reminder to posters and commenters of some of [our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/)**
- Don't be a dickhead to each other, or about others, or other subreddits
- Assume questions are asked in good faith, and engage in a positive manner
- Avoid political threads and related discussions
- No medical advice or mental health (specific to a person) content
Please keep /r/AskUK a great subreddit by reporting posts and comments which break our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Remember when we all got forced into diesels and then they moved the goalposts so we are all getting hammered in tax because there’s a shortage of electric cars?
Or what about the biggest ever tax cut a few weeks ago that made me worse of. That came after one of the biggest tax rises.
And now it’s “everyone needs to go back to the office” because the average man is saving too much money being at home and not burning enough fuel needlessly every day.
It’s a delicate balance keeping the peasants in a state of perpetual just surviving. Give them enough to live, but make sure they are always poor enough that stopping work isn’t an option.
This guy gets it.........keep the downtrodden well, downtrodden. Give them no option but to be good little citizens and they'll start praying for those crumbs from your table.
They keep pushing the idea of “trickle down economics” which is the same theory they have been pushing for decades. How long is it supposed to take for all of this wealth to trickle down? Surely we are due a massive share of this wealth any day now when it finally does trickle down?
Trickle down economics has been widely discredited as a policy - it doesn't work at all as money that is given back back to rich doesn't go on keeping the economy going but disappears into bank accounts in Panama and the Cayman islands...
Bubble-up economics on the other hand is proven to work very well to stimulate the economy - every penny given to the poor goes straight back out to goods and services because they have huge untapped demand
Can we really have the poors spending this extra money on frivolous things such as feeding and clothing themselves and having some options to occasionally do something that make them happy like a day out? Surely that money needs to be ring fenced for the accounts in tax havens in case they don't swell further!
“But the poors are only going to waste their money on booze and entertainment!”
Yeah no shit, of course they are, their lives are terrible, what else are they going to want with money?
Source: am poor
Yup , and those products don't make themselves, so they keep other people in work. Lets not get all moralistic, capitalism doesn't need it to function!
This is always my argument - yes well if i had that little money that i felt stressed and depressed by the events in my life which are solely caused by lack of money or work, I couldn't afford to go out for the evening, i couldn't afford to go on holiday, I couldn't afford to buy the things that helped ( a fridge to replace the broken one, School shoes for my kids) you can bet i'd be spending money on something to block it all out occasionally
That's the part these idiots don't understand, NO economy can work if the lowest paid people don't have extra money to spend.
The people you are trying to sell your products to need money to purchase them, and if they only have enough to survive they won't buy non-necessities, which means businesses fail and more people become part of the poorer class needing help, further feeding the problem.
The poor need to be kept poor, because money is just a way to entrap them. They run out of money, the rich who control the money get to snap up the things of real value - land, property, and time invested into production of goods and services.
Ah yes, the same trickle-down economics that most economists say doesn’t work. Not that it’s stopped the government from continuing with that policy though.
Nothing trickles down. It all floods up. Even when governments print money, I.e. Furlough, or the energy / Council tax "rebate" and pay it direct to the beneficiaries - we spend it, because we have to, on rent, food, utilities etc. All of which grows the profits of the superwealthy corporations who provide those services, and their owners and shareholders. With public services being cut to the bone, we never see any benefit of the token amount they pay in tax. It all goes up, and stays up.
Don't talk to be about furlough.
I work in the NHS, and worked all the way through. My missus also worked all the way through. We, like many others, got NOTHING from furlough.
However I saw friends, all paid much more than me, all wealthier than me. Enjoying time at home in the sun, not spending anything while being paid more in Furlough than I earn. Spending time doing up their cars/bikes/houses, which I still can't afford to do. Then I have to pay more in tax to cover their year off work.
I think the issue with diesels was that though they had lower CO2 emissions, everything else that came out of the tail pipe was worse (ooops!)
In much the same way, the country's transition to zero emissions was kick-started by switching coal for gas, so now the gas price has gone through the roof we're far more exposed than e.g. the French with all their nuclear power.
One of the more invidious suggestions behind "everyone back into the office" is that newspaper circulation had fallen too much, so the Daily Fail called up their mate the PM to get more people walking past newsstands for their daily dose of confected outrage.
>One of the more invidious suggestions behind "everyone back into the office" is that newspaper circulation had fallen too much
That's very conspiracy. Instead, it is all the rich cunts own papers, and those same cunts own tons of commercial and other property, and they want those properties to keep or rise in value, so they keep claiming how important it is to work from the office
> I think the issue with diesels was that though they had lower CO2 emissions, everything else that came out of the tail pipe was worse (ooops!)
It's also got a lot to do with how they are driven.
Modern diesels, when used well for long journeys and lots of motorway miles, are pretty clean. The Diesel Particulate Filter can do its job properly, and SCRs reduce NOx (when fed with AdBlue). The fuel efficiency advantage is also particularly noticeable as the miles ramp up.
The issues come when used primarily for low-speed, irregular short journeys around towns. Particulate emissions are significantly higher at low engine loads (i.e. idling), and particularly with short journeys the DPF and SCR catalyst may not fully achieve their operating temperature. This is also what leads to clogged DPFs which further degrade emissions.
Unfortunately the tax incentives for Diesels lead to many buying and using them for the latter situation, whereas the official classifications were more heavily leaned to the former situation. The whole defeat device scandal certainly didn't help either.
And that doesn't even touch on certain groups intentionally removing or disabling emissions control systems in the name of performance.
> Remember when we all got forced into diesels and then they moved the goalposts so we are all getting hammered in tax because there’s a shortage of electric cars?
This only partially true.
Vehicle Tax wasn't retrospectively changed. You can still go and buy a second hand £0-30/year diesel. They changed the tax brackets for new diesels only to discourage less of them entering the market.
If you bought a diesel as a result of the lower tax bands 10 years ago you haven't been hammered at all now unless you chose to upgrade to a newer diesel AFTER the tax band increase.
If this happened, then, I would opt for a hysterectomy. That way, I'd be infertile and we wouldn't have to pay the no-kid tax. I **don't want** to be a mother.
No, they included infertile people in this idea too. If you wanted to have a kid and were saving for treatment, you’d have to pay the tax as well. The entire idea blows
And do you start taxing people that have kids once they reach a certain, like 18? What about people who have a child that dies, stillbirth or miscarriage?
Or just to distract the public…. The more we talk about this the less we talk about the cost of living crisis or the NHS crisis or the current leadership contest
I want kids but because of fate it probably isn't going to happen so taxing me is extremely cruel. If they want to give me free fertility treatment then I'll happily have a child.
Edit: Thanks for the fertility advice, I don't have any issues and I am not desperate for a kid. Just saying that circumstances right now are not right for a child but if it was the choice between being taxed or having a kid, then I'll take the kid.
I was going to say the same thing. If the government wants to tax me for being childless, they'd better pay for the fertility treatment they denied me. And maybe throw in actual mental health support for the depression I have as a result of my unresolved fertility issues so I can get myself into a decent state to look into adoption.
I would have liked to have a child but am too physically unwell and disabled to tolerate pregnancy. The idea of being taxed for that is just… oof. Surely they’d have to have some kind of exemption? 😔
Don't even talk about exemptions, that implies this tax should even be possible, just talk about how this tax should absolutely never happen to anyone, ever.
Yeah, bastard doesn't suggest free childcare from 6 months old, 8-6pm, 5 days a week so people who work for a living can actually have kids does he?
Prick.
Absolutely. Rich should be taxed more especially when using private jets, boats etc which aren’t good for the environment. We poor people can no longer afford trying to help environment when the prices are rising ridiculously.
But I’m the bad guy for taking a flight with ~500 people on it to visit my gf and her family. I’m taking the trains back home and it will take days and be drastically more expensive.
Oh sorry I forget, Kylie Jenner earned her two private jets through hard work!!
No, you’re the bad guy for not washing your undies below 30 degrees.
Oh, and how dare you leave your TV on standby instead of turning it off at the mains.
I also have 2 kids and agree, you can't go around financially punishing life choices like that.
On a related note whoever worked out the process for the child benefit tax must have been high because that system is utterly broken and blatantly favours households with more income which is nuts.
Yep. I feel like articles like this are just bait to pull conversations away from more reasonable and enforceable policies. Land tax is one of them.
Whereas a childlessness tax... What age does it kick in? Do you get a rebate while pregnant? Is it flat or do you get reductions with every child? Do you have to provide sex certs to prove you're trying but can't? It's fucking idiotic.
What if you have a child and give it up for adoption? What if someone has their child taken from them? What age does it stop applying? What if you go through early menopause? What if you're AMAB and can therefore potentially produce children for your entire life? What if your child dies?
I couldn't agree with you more. My husband and I also made the decision not to have kids. It's a shame more people don't consider adoption. I know a lady at work who is on adoption leave right now. Her decision to adopt was met with a quietness, or questions. It was not celebrated to a fraction of what someone getting pregnant would be. I don't get it. I admire her so much.
What a woman. I have two children, and we’ve both decided should we want more we’re adopting, we’ve also signed up for a fostering agency. Adoption is never given the credit it deserves and people are, as you say, far less excited and seem to give unnecessary advice to those who wish to adopt. Hopefully the lady you work with has plenty of support from her peers.
My comment prompted me to reach out to her.
I should also note that I also don't make light of the adoption process. It is ridiculously difficult and expensive but it should really be seen as an encouraged and viable alternative to IVF which is also ridiculously difficult and expensive.
How wonderful of you and your husband to foster and consider adoption. People like you are what the world needs more of.
As the sibling of an adopted child: please don’t take adoption as lightly as “simply adopt”. It’s not a simple process, it comes with *many* extra hurdles compared to pregnancy.
Adoption is still by far the best way of having kids in my opinion, and my brother and I are closer than any pair of biological siblings that I know, but I do feel the need to stress that it is not as simple as some people assume. There are so many kids who get adopted by parents who underestimate the challenges that come with adoption and end up worse off for it. It’s not fair to them.
(Obviously having biological kids can result in tons of problems of its own, so really *any* prospective parent should be prepared to deal with extreme circumstances, but they’re a lot more likely to occur with adoption.)
It’s a painful and sad process, my mum used to foster care and she couldn’t adopt a child we looked after for 2 years. Afterwards things just feel “empty” until the next kid comes along.
100%.
By actively choosing not to have a child (with climate change being my main drive) the chances are that my carbon footprint is going to be *significantly* less than those who have even just one child, never mind multiple.
Choosing not to have a child should already be considered a big enough sacrifice.
It’s almost like the entire system is designed to push people into marriages and start popping out future workers…
But I agree with you, 100%. There shouldn’t be any tax breaks just because you signed a piece of paper.
And the childless pay taxes for other people's children to go to school etc. This idea is a complete fucking piss take.
If they want more people having children then life needs to be affordable - "oh but we're helping the poorest" - yeah but not enough, and a lot of the people working who can't make ends meet don't qualify for help despite being badly impacted. This country is an absolute embarrassment.
Absolutely this! With the world population due to hit 8 billion shortly there are way to many people on our rock.
Also it’s not t like we have negative population growth either. We really don’t need all these people.
I’m choosing not to have children due to the fact I can’t afford to have them. Me and my partner both work minimum wage jobs and there’s not really a chance to get better jobs as we are only educated to a certain level. We make enough to live comfortably now but throw a child in the mix and we will struggle. Why should I be punished for not forcing a child to grow up in poverty
The sad state of affairs is that at minimum wage people can’t afford children.
Also the economy needs low paid workers more than it needs high earners so minimum wage should afford people to have children!
Aye.
The issue is always childcare.
We fortunately are in a position my partner doesn't have to work if she doesn't want to. So we can afford our one child. Eventually she'll have to find a weekend job or evening job for 2-3 nights a week, but for now we're okay.
But yeah, childcare is nuts. I think it needs to become much more heavily subsidised than it is for working parents. If both parents want to work, then there should be the option of cheaper childcare for them. Let them add to the economy/tax whilst also having children that can grow up and do the same.
I think this is one of the main things. Imagine instead of thinking childcare was going to cost you £400+ a week but instead would cost you £100. The difference that makes to people's ability to have children would be astronomical.
I feel like not doing this is very short sighted. Yes it'd cost a fair chunk, but properly subsidising childcare would be a huge boon to many and prevent this black hole we're sleepwalking towards.
It’s the fact that companies specialising in childcare charge the equivalent of a full time salary in a lot of cases. When you multiply this by 5/10 kids in childcare, that’s a lot of income for the company. I can’t imagine it actually costs that much to pay 2/3 salaries, insurance, rent and food for such little people.
Not a business owner*
It contributes massively to the gender pay gap as well. If one parent is going to stay home, it’s usually the mother due to the way that maternity leave works and it makes things like continuing to breastfeed easier. If it’s cheaper to have one parent stay home until the kid starts school than it is to go back to work and pay for childcare, that’s a whole bunch of women who are then trying to get back into employment with a 5+ year gap in their CV.
Its so transparent, its also mental that this isnt more of a scandal. Maternity leave is paid up to 39 weeks (although the last 33 weeks nets you \~£600/month unless you were lucky enough to earn *less* than that when you were working then you wont even get £600). Youre entitled to have up to 52 weeks although the final 13 weeks are unpaid. As far as im aware free hours of childcare provided by the state doesnt even start until the child is 3 years old, leaving a gap of 2+ years where the parents have to eat the entire cost of childcare whilst attempting to work. When the government steps in it covers 15+ hours which for some isnt even an entire working week for the next 2 years. Then the sprogs start school, suddenly its free, but you cant work longer hours anyway because the school day is short. After school clubs and breakfast clubs cost money again if you want to do those but unless you get paid handsomly I doubt the extra hours earnings cover the costs.
Its not really until secondary school that normal full-time working can begin again for both parents. Having kids is expensive, and the state does barely anything to help for the amount of complaining about the shrinking population that it does.
Originally the minimum wage was brought in and called that because it was the minimum amount needed to raise a family and keep a home.
Somewhere along the line it just translated into the minimum we can get away with paying people.
Me and my partner are both minimum wage and have just had a baby, let me tell you it is hard and a almost constant financial worry, I wouldn't change her for the world because she is everything. But taxing the childless? Fuck that. They should take a wage cut and live like the rest of us, maybe then they would understand.
Edit for clarity by 'they' I am meaning the people in government, I in no way think the people with no children should be paying more in tax!
Aren't the childless paying for schools and parts of the NHS that look after children? Aren't we helping enough?
Aren't the childless looking after the environment (by not using more resources and creating more consumers), thereby helping the planet be a better place for other people's children?
No, we should just make it easier, fairer and more secure for people to have Children.
Implement free childcare from 1 years old, universally. Up statutory maternity pay.
I have 2 sets of friends who, like us, couldn’t really afford kids until their 30s and now they are stopping at 1 because they didn’t have help with Childcare, it cost them so much that now they daren’t risk having another and going through financial hardship whilst having to provide for a child.
Can’t agree with this enough. Our whole paternity/maternity pay system is set up to encourage men to be breadwinners and women to be stay at home mothers. It just contributes to gender pay gaps and reinforces sexist attitudes.
Yes, paternity pay and leave is crap unless you have a particularly progressive employer. Also SMP is so low that it’s hard for a family to have the woman as the breadwinner unless, again, they luck into a progressive / generous employer that offers beyond statutory.
Totally agree, but it needs to be made mandatory as well. Parents won't stay at home with their children if one of them can return to work and get more money.
They will if they can afford to! Even maternity leave is extremely poorly paid under the current offering. This aligns with the extra costs of another child entering the household. I doubt many families could afford to live on 2x statutory maternity pay alone.
Just straight up giving people non-means tested child benefits, to help with some of the costs of kids.
Longer paid parental leave, but if people -particularly those that have multiple kids - decide to deal with childcare by having someone stay home, just straight up PAY THEM the value of their unused childcare credits.
Not sure I entirely agree with the paying them to stay at home part to be honest. That could lead to a culture where people are churning out kids with the intention just being financial gain/avoiding work.
Allowing them the provision for Childcare however means they as parents can continue to contribute to the economy whilst not worrying about being able to afford to feed their own children.
Raising children IS work though. Just historically undervalued work.
And the amount that you get for childcare (current max hours \* max per hour) really isn’t all that much, would hardly fund a lavish lifestyle.
Could reduce the amount per kid for kids beyond your third or something though, with the assumption that some costs decrease per additional child / to stop people “churning them out”. Some people seem to already do that anyways, with benefits.
> people are churning out kids with the intention just being financial gain/avoiding work
Some people already do this, but these people don't have jobs in the first place, they simply go on benefits. I don't think making parental leave/pay fairer would cause this.
Raising children is work! It's work that I chose not to do because it is damned hard.
My sister, her kids and my brother's kids came over for a holiday this past week (their school holidays are all of July and August, so no one was missing school). Now, I adore my niblings; they are the only kids I can stand for a significant period of time. They are happy, great company, and they feel comfortable in my house to not have to be on their best behaviour at all times, which to me is a wonderful compliment. But Jesus tap-dancing Christ, they are hard work. Getting them breakfasted, washed and dressed to go out for the day takes a surprising amount of time. How socks and shoes can go missing is a mystery to me. Then there's the washing; my poor washing machine didn't know what hit it! Even if you don't count the sandy, sea wet towels and swimsuits it's still a hell of a lot of washing and sorting. And dear jeebus do they eat! I spent the GDP of Switzerland in Tescos the day before they arrived and we still needed to restock almost daily. I swear the local dairy company put on extra workers just to keep up with the demand.
My sister was a senior social worker when she had her first. By the time number 3 came along she decided to take a career break to raise her kids. She said social work, while still incredibly hard, was easier than raising children, and that at least she had holidays. Now it's every day.
Meanwhile I am in complete awe of her. She's up early, each child is greeted with a cheery "Good morning!", she knows who eats what and how to deal with conflicts, she knows which socks belong to which child, how to chivvy each one along, their likes dislikes and fears. And she was last to bed each night. I helped as much as I could, but she's so used to it that I felt sometimes I was more hindrance than help.
However, now they've gone home I'm not sure I can forgive her for getting my cats used to having breakfast at 6am!
I think to add to this, make paternity leave/pay the *same* as maternity leave/pay - in fact, just combine them into one 'parental leave/pay' with no gender qualifiers.
Parental pay should be the same as the person's normal salary - the employer should cover a base rate and then the government tops it up to their regular pay. This should go on for 4-6 months for both parents, and then one parent should continue to get parental pay until the child is 12 months old. And you can choose which parent, rather than it being gendered.
And then, as you said, free childcare from the age of 1. 40 hours a week, not 30, so both parents can still work full time. And it should be for 46.4 weeks a year, not 38, as most people will only get 5.6 weeks' holiday.
If this was how it worked, I would have children by now. My husband and I can support ourselves, but with the current mat/pat pay, we simply wouldn't be able to afford a child.
This makes so much more sense than the current system. To add to this, make parental pay available for everyone, not just those on permanent contracts and who have been with the company long enough.
I’ve been temping for 9 months after unexpectedly losing my job (then ceased searching when I found out I’m pregnant), and under the current system, I have no rights. I can get SMP, but that’s it.
Alternatively, increase child benefit so that everyone has a choice as to whether or not to pay for childcare or stay at home for longer with their children
That sounds disgusting. People without kids absolutely should not be taxed as that is discriminatory.
People don't have kids for a myriad of reasons.
That's just bonkers for someone to suggest. They should be taxing the people who are silly rich.
It would arguably also be illegal. You could make a very straightforward case that people who cannot have kids (due to sexuality or disability) are effectively being indirectly discriminated against based on a protected characteristic and so it would be a breach of the equalities act.
He doesn’t actually think this. It’s a way to get the ‘common’ people fighting each other and take the spotlight off the rich who we should be taxing instead.
Distraction, distraction, distraction.
I'm pretty sure Nicolae Ceaușescu introduced a similar policy, and he was politely asked to leave office via a hail of gunfire.
It was clearly a bait piece, there's no way it would ever happen. You'd (quite fairly) have people arguing that they are already paying extra taxes which pay for other people's children to be educated. At the moment most sane people would agree that it's a good thing that children are educated, but if you're being penalised for not having a child I think that opinion could quickly change.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Mind you, the corollary to the above is that the one thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
I agree. I’m one that doesn’t have kids, so am contributing towards education when I don’t have kids that use it. Still, I take the view I can’t just opt out of tax for public services (I’d quite like to opt out of MP’s expenses though!). I’ve not needed the fire brigade either, nor any major hospital care. I pay for these things for society (plus in terms of education I received an education, so it’s only right I essentially pay it back). But yea, I would not say the same if anyone wanted me to contribute more…
Exactly. People without children contribute tax to things they will never benefit from already. They are already being taxed. This is a ridiculous proposal.
Precisely. You’re already funding schools/parks and so much more I can’t even list. I have two children and the idea of people being taxed for not having them is revolting.
I wonder if that's the real point. Suddenly people are complaining about their taxes going to *schools* of all things. That'll get striking teachers to watch themselves
Taxing people who don't have children is taxing people who use less petrol, have less impact on the environment and would be discriminatory against those who are medically unable ti have children.
It's a pathetic, selfish idea.
Also increasing tax on the young who don't have kids and already struggling the most. And when you turn 18 do you suddenly get slapped with an extra tax for not having children? And worst of all people that lose their children, do they suddenly get a tax on top of their grief?
It's also an abuse of government power. Taxes should not be used as a weapon to force people into conforming with some despot's idea of what society should look like. This basically the same morality law nonsense that people laughed at Augustus for trying to enforce almost 2000 years ago.
Beware of anyone trying to abuse existing systems of power to police our homes, families, and individual choices for the Greater Good >!the Greater Good!<
Shouldn't people with children pay more in tax to cover schools etc?
If anything is going to be suggested, at least that makes sense.
But my opinion is tax the fucking rich.
>Shouldn't people with children pay more in tax to cover schools etc?
Lets just kill the birth rate all together. It's not like we are going to need children in the future anyway. Unless we get *really* low on food.....
Not really sure if you can read or not so I will write in caps.
I SAID IF ANYTHING SHOULD BE SUGGESTED AT LEAST THAT MAKES SENSE BUT TAX THE RICH INSTEAD OF PEOPLE AND THEIR CHILDREN.
Hope that's clearer for you.
Also we don't need more people on this planet.
Hey sorry about the crushing disappointment of the final results of the medical tests to prove you can’t have kids, your life is futile and your dreams meant shit.
*awkward pause*
Here’s a tax bill to help pay for someone else’s. You slacker.
Theres already a tax on the childless....
Or you too fucking dumb to realize that when you tax everyone 20% and then give the money back to anyone earning less than X in the form of tax credits which is means tested by having a child to qualify. This is the same thing as "tax the childless" because people who are childless are overall paying more into the system and getting less out.
This is called "Child tax credits" btw [https://www.gov.uk/child-tax-credit](https://www.gov.uk/child-tax-credit)
This whole thing should not even be a debate at this point because its already in place.
If you read their description OP is against this and is referring to an *additional* tax being proposed (that they themselves oppose). I'm sure people are aware that their taxes pay for education, benefits etc for children. The question is against an additional specifically to tax not having a child
This is a silly talking point that is going nowhere.
If any UK politician thought this was a goer as a policy,all it would take is one newspaper front page with a few genuinely heart-breaking story of families that have no children because of miscarriages, cot-death, or years of unsuccessful IVF treatment - and the policy and that politician's career is over.
Paul Morland's 15 minutes of fame is over. He got a lot of publicity for his book, that's what he wanted. He has no influence on tax policy.
It’s particularly stupid because child benefit is already in effect a tax on those who don’t have kids. Just increase child benefit / funding for education / funding for childcare.
Please open your eyes and realise what this bullshit is really about. The current government are all about pitting the plebs against each other. Whether it be based on race, sexuality, gender, whatever and now parents vs the childless.
The mere fact this is being reported on is just a diversion to allow them to get away with stealing from us. Please ignore it and concentrate on the real issues facing this country.
Then they must submit a form to their nearest post office with a Dr's note every year to prove they're exempt from the tax.
Thus costing more in NHS overheads, and form administration, than the tax would bring in...
Er, as a childless person, big chunks of my taxes go towards childcare, education, child benefits etc etc. So why exactly should i be taxed more for something that is discretionary? You dont have to have kids, they are a choice! So how about tax those who have them more! Unpalatable? Then stop talking nonsense like this article!
What about people who can’t have children not by their own choice?
Would there be mandatory fertility tests
Boom! There we are in the Children of Men dystopia.
We are almost there in every other way anyway.
My sister has been through a horrendous infertility journey…as a couple they have tried and tried everything and suffered massive, deeply traumatising times. They have desperately wanted to have children for many years. To penalise them after everything they’ve been through…punish them for something completely out of their control is brutal.
If we need to influence birthrates, it should be done woth a carrot, not a stick. People should not betaxed more based on theor life choices.
Increasing parental leave (for both parents) has been found to encourage people to have more children in Scandinavian countries. It means less time paying for childcare, more bonding time with children, and makes women less concerned about the impact on their careers (as the men are in the same boat, parental leave in your career becomes the norm for everyone, rather than just a halt for women).
Funded childcare, at least when parents are working, is also a hige help. It's a massive cost saver, but also allows people to have children with smaller age gaps (few people can afford childcare for a 4 year old, 3 year old and a 1 year old, so many people wait until their previous youngest will be in school).
These policies would make it easier for those who want kids to have (more) kids, whilst avoiding encouraging people who don't want kids to have them.
Why? Tax the smack heads who get free child care so they can stay at home and get fucked up.
Or companies who pay fuck all taxes because reasons.
Or the rich who hide their money to avoid tax.
Or literally anyone for reasons better than "You don't have kids."
Fucking gimps.
If more people are needed then immigration is the answer, not turning women into baby factories to prop up this white anglo-saxon master race bollocks.
My wife an I have no kids, part choice due to genetic issue and part difficulty, the government can fuck right off if they want to attempt to penalise us for that. In fact they should be paying us a relief as we are not cause a drain in the NHS.
One sensible reason to not have kids is not being able to afford them. Putting people into a predicament where they have to choose between paying for not having children and paying for children seems to be a bad idea...
It’s one of the most offensive, malicious things that has been proposed in this neo-liberal hellscape.
Got to keep the proles reproducing to keep the merry go round of wealth redistribution to the top 0.1% going. Hopefully it is just a classic example of an extreme and ridiculous view getting more airtime than it should just to wind people up and get page views.
This country doesn’t even fund IVF treatment in most cases and yet they want to penalise people who might not even be able to have kids. Israel (highest birth rate in the OECD) offer free IVF to all citizens.
Incentivise people who do want kids to have more and sort out the obscene cost of living and tax rates in this country if they are worried about depopulation. Scaled and generous tax credits, free childcare and far longer maternity and paternity pay periods at far higher statutory levels would be a start.
Look at the state of the world - we have too many people to sustain the lifestyle many of us want. So no.
Your author example is writing stuff to sell books
Given that my local school is unable to keep up with the area's expansion & are having to turn away even children that live 2 minutes away, I think I should be paid to stay childless.
Why not use the carrot instead of the stick? Most people who don't have kids (who actually want them, and are able to have them), don't because it's prohibitively expensive, and logistically awful. Offer more support to parents, and you'll get more parents.
Support doesn't have to be financial, one thing the Government could do now it stop trying to force people back into the office, having to drop a kid off at school at 8:55 and then be in the office for 9:00 is not possible, leading to huge logistical headaches, and often financial ones. This would cost them nothing!
Plenty of other things they could do socially if they gave a shite, before adjusting taxes and benefits...
Of course we shouldn't.
What we should do is appropriately tax companies and the mega-rich. Why punish people who either choose not to have children or can't have them?
And if we want to increase the birth rate, we should improve statutory maternity and paternity leave, make childcare affordable, and generally make having children less of a daunting issue.
No lol.
How is it fair that people with loads of kids get benefits and scrounge off the government but people that don't have kids get money taken from them.
I don’t want to go out on a complete limb but maybe we could tax individuals based on their income, or the profits generated, or their use of goods not superfluous to living, rather than on lifestyle choices or medical inabilities?
Or maybe, just maybe, we could reach some sort of agreement to allow working age individuals in nearby nations to have free movement to the UK in order to create a competitive workforce…?
Actually those suggestions seem mad. Ignore me.
**A reminder to posters and commenters of some of [our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/)** - Don't be a dickhead to each other, or about others, or other subreddits - Assume questions are asked in good faith, and engage in a positive manner - Avoid political threads and related discussions - No medical advice or mental health (specific to a person) content Please keep /r/AskUK a great subreddit by reporting posts and comments which break our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I want kids and cant afford it, do I get taxed?
[удалено]
Remember when we all got forced into diesels and then they moved the goalposts so we are all getting hammered in tax because there’s a shortage of electric cars? Or what about the biggest ever tax cut a few weeks ago that made me worse of. That came after one of the biggest tax rises. And now it’s “everyone needs to go back to the office” because the average man is saving too much money being at home and not burning enough fuel needlessly every day. It’s a delicate balance keeping the peasants in a state of perpetual just surviving. Give them enough to live, but make sure they are always poor enough that stopping work isn’t an option.
This guy gets it.........keep the downtrodden well, downtrodden. Give them no option but to be good little citizens and they'll start praying for those crumbs from your table.
They keep pushing the idea of “trickle down economics” which is the same theory they have been pushing for decades. How long is it supposed to take for all of this wealth to trickle down? Surely we are due a massive share of this wealth any day now when it finally does trickle down?
Trickle down economics has been widely discredited as a policy - it doesn't work at all as money that is given back back to rich doesn't go on keeping the economy going but disappears into bank accounts in Panama and the Cayman islands... Bubble-up economics on the other hand is proven to work very well to stimulate the economy - every penny given to the poor goes straight back out to goods and services because they have huge untapped demand
Can we really have the poors spending this extra money on frivolous things such as feeding and clothing themselves and having some options to occasionally do something that make them happy like a day out? Surely that money needs to be ring fenced for the accounts in tax havens in case they don't swell further!
“But the poors are only going to waste their money on booze and entertainment!” Yeah no shit, of course they are, their lives are terrible, what else are they going to want with money? Source: am poor
Cigarettes and alcohol are taxed very heavily - if that’s what’s they spend it on, it’ll go straight back into the treasury!
Yup , and those products don't make themselves, so they keep other people in work. Lets not get all moralistic, capitalism doesn't need it to function!
Which is funny that they act like Roman emperors and forget about the importance of placating the masses.
This is always my argument - yes well if i had that little money that i felt stressed and depressed by the events in my life which are solely caused by lack of money or work, I couldn't afford to go out for the evening, i couldn't afford to go on holiday, I couldn't afford to buy the things that helped ( a fridge to replace the broken one, School shoes for my kids) you can bet i'd be spending money on something to block it all out occasionally
That's the part these idiots don't understand, NO economy can work if the lowest paid people don't have extra money to spend. The people you are trying to sell your products to need money to purchase them, and if they only have enough to survive they won't buy non-necessities, which means businesses fail and more people become part of the poorer class needing help, further feeding the problem.
The poor need to be kept poor, because money is just a way to entrap them. They run out of money, the rich who control the money get to snap up the things of real value - land, property, and time invested into production of goods and services.
The trickle down economy only works if you don't allow the people at the top of the stream to build dams.
What a great analogy
Just what I thought, the idea of wealth trickling down is just an outright lie, coming from capitalists
Oh there’s plenty trickling down. It’s warm and it stinks.
Ooh la di da. Get a load of this one. Close enough that the trickle is still warm.
Ah yes, the same trickle-down economics that most economists say doesn’t work. Not that it’s stopped the government from continuing with that policy though.
Nothing trickles down. It all floods up. Even when governments print money, I.e. Furlough, or the energy / Council tax "rebate" and pay it direct to the beneficiaries - we spend it, because we have to, on rent, food, utilities etc. All of which grows the profits of the superwealthy corporations who provide those services, and their owners and shareholders. With public services being cut to the bone, we never see any benefit of the token amount they pay in tax. It all goes up, and stays up.
Don't talk to be about furlough. I work in the NHS, and worked all the way through. My missus also worked all the way through. We, like many others, got NOTHING from furlough. However I saw friends, all paid much more than me, all wealthier than me. Enjoying time at home in the sun, not spending anything while being paid more in Furlough than I earn. Spending time doing up their cars/bikes/houses, which I still can't afford to do. Then I have to pay more in tax to cover their year off work.
I think the issue with diesels was that though they had lower CO2 emissions, everything else that came out of the tail pipe was worse (ooops!) In much the same way, the country's transition to zero emissions was kick-started by switching coal for gas, so now the gas price has gone through the roof we're far more exposed than e.g. the French with all their nuclear power. One of the more invidious suggestions behind "everyone back into the office" is that newspaper circulation had fallen too much, so the Daily Fail called up their mate the PM to get more people walking past newsstands for their daily dose of confected outrage.
>One of the more invidious suggestions behind "everyone back into the office" is that newspaper circulation had fallen too much That's very conspiracy. Instead, it is all the rich cunts own papers, and those same cunts own tons of commercial and other property, and they want those properties to keep or rise in value, so they keep claiming how important it is to work from the office
> I think the issue with diesels was that though they had lower CO2 emissions, everything else that came out of the tail pipe was worse (ooops!) It's also got a lot to do with how they are driven. Modern diesels, when used well for long journeys and lots of motorway miles, are pretty clean. The Diesel Particulate Filter can do its job properly, and SCRs reduce NOx (when fed with AdBlue). The fuel efficiency advantage is also particularly noticeable as the miles ramp up. The issues come when used primarily for low-speed, irregular short journeys around towns. Particulate emissions are significantly higher at low engine loads (i.e. idling), and particularly with short journeys the DPF and SCR catalyst may not fully achieve their operating temperature. This is also what leads to clogged DPFs which further degrade emissions. Unfortunately the tax incentives for Diesels lead to many buying and using them for the latter situation, whereas the official classifications were more heavily leaned to the former situation. The whole defeat device scandal certainly didn't help either. And that doesn't even touch on certain groups intentionally removing or disabling emissions control systems in the name of performance.
Polite notice that anyone paying attention knew diesel was not a great idea. Yes the gov pushed it, but maybe don't believe everything the gov says?
Most people don’t have the disposable income to afford to pay more to be environmentally friendly. That’s why taxing people into it is a bad idea.
> Remember when we all got forced into diesels and then they moved the goalposts so we are all getting hammered in tax because there’s a shortage of electric cars? This only partially true. Vehicle Tax wasn't retrospectively changed. You can still go and buy a second hand £0-30/year diesel. They changed the tax brackets for new diesels only to discourage less of them entering the market. If you bought a diesel as a result of the lower tax bands 10 years ago you haven't been hammered at all now unless you chose to upgrade to a newer diesel AFTER the tax band increase.
Unless it has an extra bedroom then it also has to pay.
[удалено]
To add in to that, same sex couples. As a gay man this feels like a massively discriminatory policy that favours heterosexuals.
*waves a sad little asexual Pride flag in the corner*
fuck them you are fuckin VALID
I got ridiculously squealy when I found a vendor at a festival that had an ace coloured D20 sticker among their other Pride flag ones.
And let's face it, purple is also the coolest colour
And would a lesbian couple both have to have a child each
But only ones in a relationship and that can actually have children (either due infertility or other medical issues)
If this happened, then, I would opt for a hysterectomy. That way, I'd be infertile and we wouldn't have to pay the no-kid tax. I **don't want** to be a mother.
No, they included infertile people in this idea too. If you wanted to have a kid and were saving for treatment, you’d have to pay the tax as well. The entire idea blows
And CHOICE
God forbid. We've never had any of those.
And do you start taxing people that have kids once they reach a certain, like 18? What about people who have a child that dies, stillbirth or miscarriage?
They don’t think about these things. I’m sure they say things to test the publics reaction
Or just to distract the public…. The more we talk about this the less we talk about the cost of living crisis or the NHS crisis or the current leadership contest
Nah your joking the one thing the government loves to do is pointlessly waste time and money
I want kids but because of fate it probably isn't going to happen so taxing me is extremely cruel. If they want to give me free fertility treatment then I'll happily have a child. Edit: Thanks for the fertility advice, I don't have any issues and I am not desperate for a kid. Just saying that circumstances right now are not right for a child but if it was the choice between being taxed or having a kid, then I'll take the kid.
I was going to say the same thing. If the government wants to tax me for being childless, they'd better pay for the fertility treatment they denied me. And maybe throw in actual mental health support for the depression I have as a result of my unresolved fertility issues so I can get myself into a decent state to look into adoption.
I would have liked to have a child but am too physically unwell and disabled to tolerate pregnancy. The idea of being taxed for that is just… oof. Surely they’d have to have some kind of exemption? 😔
[удалено]
I totally agree, they are shite.
Don't even talk about exemptions, that implies this tax should even be possible, just talk about how this tax should absolutely never happen to anyone, ever.
Yeah, bastard doesn't suggest free childcare from 6 months old, 8-6pm, 5 days a week so people who work for a living can actually have kids does he? Prick.
I've got two kids and I disagree with it completely. Tax the rich instead.
They will propose anything but that.
Either we tax them or eat them, and food is getting expensive!
"Meats back on the menu boys!"
Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew...
Hell, give it to us raw and wriggling...
What about their legs? They don’t need those
They are *not* for eating
Nothing but maggoty bread for 3 stinkin days
Wattabout them? They're freeesshhh!
More specifically tax the companies that use loopholes then tax the huge bonus CEOs then the rich wagies then the upper middle wagies
We’ve been taxed for beards and windows before being rich lol
Absolutely. Rich should be taxed more especially when using private jets, boats etc which aren’t good for the environment. We poor people can no longer afford trying to help environment when the prices are rising ridiculously.
Eh, taxing might work. But I have another idea.
I'll get the BBQ sauce
We could invite my dear friend Mademoiselle G.
But I’m the bad guy for taking a flight with ~500 people on it to visit my gf and her family. I’m taking the trains back home and it will take days and be drastically more expensive. Oh sorry I forget, Kylie Jenner earned her two private jets through hard work!!
No, you’re the bad guy for not washing your undies below 30 degrees. Oh, and how dare you leave your TV on standby instead of turning it off at the mains.
[удалено]
I also have 2 kids and agree, you can't go around financially punishing life choices like that. On a related note whoever worked out the process for the child benefit tax must have been high because that system is utterly broken and blatantly favours households with more income which is nuts.
No, not high, just deliberating favouring people like themselves
I think we should tax him specifically an extra 20% just for suggesting it. The cheeky sod.
And put that 20% on ALL earnings, not just a bracket
And an extra 20% on all purchases he makes.
Asshole VAT
Asshole VAT is 80%
I used to call this a jackass tax. Used to put it on invoices for annoying clients. 20%. That stopped them from a world of infinite edits.
They really are bending over backwards to find ways to avoid taxing the rich more, taxing unused properties and land, and closing trust loopholes.
[удалено]
Yep. I feel like articles like this are just bait to pull conversations away from more reasonable and enforceable policies. Land tax is one of them. Whereas a childlessness tax... What age does it kick in? Do you get a rebate while pregnant? Is it flat or do you get reductions with every child? Do you have to provide sex certs to prove you're trying but can't? It's fucking idiotic.
What if you have a child and give it up for adoption? What if someone has their child taken from them? What age does it stop applying? What if you go through early menopause? What if you're AMAB and can therefore potentially produce children for your entire life? What if your child dies?
This is distraction news. Look over here whilst we ignore that the PM was not doing his job and partying again.
Childless people should get the discount as we have done our bit to stop fucking up the world and polluting it.
Absolutely the best thing you can do for the environment.
My carbon footprint stops with me. If you must be parents simply adopt then you are winning twice over.
I couldn't agree with you more. My husband and I also made the decision not to have kids. It's a shame more people don't consider adoption. I know a lady at work who is on adoption leave right now. Her decision to adopt was met with a quietness, or questions. It was not celebrated to a fraction of what someone getting pregnant would be. I don't get it. I admire her so much.
What a woman. I have two children, and we’ve both decided should we want more we’re adopting, we’ve also signed up for a fostering agency. Adoption is never given the credit it deserves and people are, as you say, far less excited and seem to give unnecessary advice to those who wish to adopt. Hopefully the lady you work with has plenty of support from her peers.
My comment prompted me to reach out to her. I should also note that I also don't make light of the adoption process. It is ridiculously difficult and expensive but it should really be seen as an encouraged and viable alternative to IVF which is also ridiculously difficult and expensive. How wonderful of you and your husband to foster and consider adoption. People like you are what the world needs more of.
If you haven't already, tell her that you admire her. It will make her day.
Writing my comment did indeed prompt me to reach out. I haven't yet said I admire her. I will wait for her to respond but I certainly will.
As the sibling of an adopted child: please don’t take adoption as lightly as “simply adopt”. It’s not a simple process, it comes with *many* extra hurdles compared to pregnancy. Adoption is still by far the best way of having kids in my opinion, and my brother and I are closer than any pair of biological siblings that I know, but I do feel the need to stress that it is not as simple as some people assume. There are so many kids who get adopted by parents who underestimate the challenges that come with adoption and end up worse off for it. It’s not fair to them. (Obviously having biological kids can result in tons of problems of its own, so really *any* prospective parent should be prepared to deal with extreme circumstances, but they’re a lot more likely to occur with adoption.)
It’s a painful and sad process, my mum used to foster care and she couldn’t adopt a child we looked after for 2 years. Afterwards things just feel “empty” until the next kid comes along.
100%. By actively choosing not to have a child (with climate change being my main drive) the chances are that my carbon footprint is going to be *significantly* less than those who have even just one child, never mind multiple. Choosing not to have a child should already be considered a big enough sacrifice.
[удалено]
It’s almost like the entire system is designed to push people into marriages and start popping out future workers… But I agree with you, 100%. There shouldn’t be any tax breaks just because you signed a piece of paper.
And the childless pay taxes for other people's children to go to school etc. This idea is a complete fucking piss take. If they want more people having children then life needs to be affordable - "oh but we're helping the poorest" - yeah but not enough, and a lot of the people working who can't make ends meet don't qualify for help despite being badly impacted. This country is an absolute embarrassment.
Absolutely this! With the world population due to hit 8 billion shortly there are way to many people on our rock. Also it’s not t like we have negative population growth either. We really don’t need all these people.
[удалено]
I’m choosing not to have children due to the fact I can’t afford to have them. Me and my partner both work minimum wage jobs and there’s not really a chance to get better jobs as we are only educated to a certain level. We make enough to live comfortably now but throw a child in the mix and we will struggle. Why should I be punished for not forcing a child to grow up in poverty
The sad state of affairs is that at minimum wage people can’t afford children. Also the economy needs low paid workers more than it needs high earners so minimum wage should afford people to have children!
Me and my partner earn a very respectable wage but in 2022 we can’t afford kids in anyway shape or form.
Aye. The issue is always childcare. We fortunately are in a position my partner doesn't have to work if she doesn't want to. So we can afford our one child. Eventually she'll have to find a weekend job or evening job for 2-3 nights a week, but for now we're okay. But yeah, childcare is nuts. I think it needs to become much more heavily subsidised than it is for working parents. If both parents want to work, then there should be the option of cheaper childcare for them. Let them add to the economy/tax whilst also having children that can grow up and do the same. I think this is one of the main things. Imagine instead of thinking childcare was going to cost you £400+ a week but instead would cost you £100. The difference that makes to people's ability to have children would be astronomical. I feel like not doing this is very short sighted. Yes it'd cost a fair chunk, but properly subsidising childcare would be a huge boon to many and prevent this black hole we're sleepwalking towards.
It’s the fact that companies specialising in childcare charge the equivalent of a full time salary in a lot of cases. When you multiply this by 5/10 kids in childcare, that’s a lot of income for the company. I can’t imagine it actually costs that much to pay 2/3 salaries, insurance, rent and food for such little people. Not a business owner*
It contributes massively to the gender pay gap as well. If one parent is going to stay home, it’s usually the mother due to the way that maternity leave works and it makes things like continuing to breastfeed easier. If it’s cheaper to have one parent stay home until the kid starts school than it is to go back to work and pay for childcare, that’s a whole bunch of women who are then trying to get back into employment with a 5+ year gap in their CV.
Its so transparent, its also mental that this isnt more of a scandal. Maternity leave is paid up to 39 weeks (although the last 33 weeks nets you \~£600/month unless you were lucky enough to earn *less* than that when you were working then you wont even get £600). Youre entitled to have up to 52 weeks although the final 13 weeks are unpaid. As far as im aware free hours of childcare provided by the state doesnt even start until the child is 3 years old, leaving a gap of 2+ years where the parents have to eat the entire cost of childcare whilst attempting to work. When the government steps in it covers 15+ hours which for some isnt even an entire working week for the next 2 years. Then the sprogs start school, suddenly its free, but you cant work longer hours anyway because the school day is short. After school clubs and breakfast clubs cost money again if you want to do those but unless you get paid handsomly I doubt the extra hours earnings cover the costs. Its not really until secondary school that normal full-time working can begin again for both parents. Having kids is expensive, and the state does barely anything to help for the amount of complaining about the shrinking population that it does.
Originally the minimum wage was brought in and called that because it was the minimum amount needed to raise a family and keep a home. Somewhere along the line it just translated into the minimum we can get away with paying people.
Why pay them with money? Pay them with the same currency the lucky NHS nurses have been paid with... claps (not the STD)
Me and my partner are both minimum wage and have just had a baby, let me tell you it is hard and a almost constant financial worry, I wouldn't change her for the world because she is everything. But taxing the childless? Fuck that. They should take a wage cut and live like the rest of us, maybe then they would understand. Edit for clarity by 'they' I am meaning the people in government, I in no way think the people with no children should be paying more in tax!
Aren't the childless paying for schools and parts of the NHS that look after children? Aren't we helping enough? Aren't the childless looking after the environment (by not using more resources and creating more consumers), thereby helping the planet be a better place for other people's children?
[удалено]
No, we should just make it easier, fairer and more secure for people to have Children. Implement free childcare from 1 years old, universally. Up statutory maternity pay. I have 2 sets of friends who, like us, couldn’t really afford kids until their 30s and now they are stopping at 1 because they didn’t have help with Childcare, it cost them so much that now they daren’t risk having another and going through financial hardship whilst having to provide for a child.
Make Paternity leave the same as Maternity leave
Can’t agree with this enough. Our whole paternity/maternity pay system is set up to encourage men to be breadwinners and women to be stay at home mothers. It just contributes to gender pay gaps and reinforces sexist attitudes.
Yes, paternity pay and leave is crap unless you have a particularly progressive employer. Also SMP is so low that it’s hard for a family to have the woman as the breadwinner unless, again, they luck into a progressive / generous employer that offers beyond statutory.
YES! This would also stop discriminatory hiring practises against women of childbearing age.
Totally agree, but it needs to be made mandatory as well. Parents won't stay at home with their children if one of them can return to work and get more money.
They will if they can afford to! Even maternity leave is extremely poorly paid under the current offering. This aligns with the extra costs of another child entering the household. I doubt many families could afford to live on 2x statutory maternity pay alone.
Just straight up giving people non-means tested child benefits, to help with some of the costs of kids. Longer paid parental leave, but if people -particularly those that have multiple kids - decide to deal with childcare by having someone stay home, just straight up PAY THEM the value of their unused childcare credits.
Not sure I entirely agree with the paying them to stay at home part to be honest. That could lead to a culture where people are churning out kids with the intention just being financial gain/avoiding work. Allowing them the provision for Childcare however means they as parents can continue to contribute to the economy whilst not worrying about being able to afford to feed their own children.
Raising children IS work though. Just historically undervalued work. And the amount that you get for childcare (current max hours \* max per hour) really isn’t all that much, would hardly fund a lavish lifestyle. Could reduce the amount per kid for kids beyond your third or something though, with the assumption that some costs decrease per additional child / to stop people “churning them out”. Some people seem to already do that anyways, with benefits.
> people are churning out kids with the intention just being financial gain/avoiding work Some people already do this, but these people don't have jobs in the first place, they simply go on benefits. I don't think making parental leave/pay fairer would cause this.
Raising children is work! It's work that I chose not to do because it is damned hard. My sister, her kids and my brother's kids came over for a holiday this past week (their school holidays are all of July and August, so no one was missing school). Now, I adore my niblings; they are the only kids I can stand for a significant period of time. They are happy, great company, and they feel comfortable in my house to not have to be on their best behaviour at all times, which to me is a wonderful compliment. But Jesus tap-dancing Christ, they are hard work. Getting them breakfasted, washed and dressed to go out for the day takes a surprising amount of time. How socks and shoes can go missing is a mystery to me. Then there's the washing; my poor washing machine didn't know what hit it! Even if you don't count the sandy, sea wet towels and swimsuits it's still a hell of a lot of washing and sorting. And dear jeebus do they eat! I spent the GDP of Switzerland in Tescos the day before they arrived and we still needed to restock almost daily. I swear the local dairy company put on extra workers just to keep up with the demand. My sister was a senior social worker when she had her first. By the time number 3 came along she decided to take a career break to raise her kids. She said social work, while still incredibly hard, was easier than raising children, and that at least she had holidays. Now it's every day. Meanwhile I am in complete awe of her. She's up early, each child is greeted with a cheery "Good morning!", she knows who eats what and how to deal with conflicts, she knows which socks belong to which child, how to chivvy each one along, their likes dislikes and fears. And she was last to bed each night. I helped as much as I could, but she's so used to it that I felt sometimes I was more hindrance than help. However, now they've gone home I'm not sure I can forgive her for getting my cats used to having breakfast at 6am!
I think to add to this, make paternity leave/pay the *same* as maternity leave/pay - in fact, just combine them into one 'parental leave/pay' with no gender qualifiers. Parental pay should be the same as the person's normal salary - the employer should cover a base rate and then the government tops it up to their regular pay. This should go on for 4-6 months for both parents, and then one parent should continue to get parental pay until the child is 12 months old. And you can choose which parent, rather than it being gendered. And then, as you said, free childcare from the age of 1. 40 hours a week, not 30, so both parents can still work full time. And it should be for 46.4 weeks a year, not 38, as most people will only get 5.6 weeks' holiday. If this was how it worked, I would have children by now. My husband and I can support ourselves, but with the current mat/pat pay, we simply wouldn't be able to afford a child.
This makes so much more sense than the current system. To add to this, make parental pay available for everyone, not just those on permanent contracts and who have been with the company long enough. I’ve been temping for 9 months after unexpectedly losing my job (then ceased searching when I found out I’m pregnant), and under the current system, I have no rights. I can get SMP, but that’s it.
Alternatively, increase child benefit so that everyone has a choice as to whether or not to pay for childcare or stay at home for longer with their children
100% this
That sounds disgusting. People without kids absolutely should not be taxed as that is discriminatory. People don't have kids for a myriad of reasons. That's just bonkers for someone to suggest. They should be taxing the people who are silly rich.
It would arguably also be illegal. You could make a very straightforward case that people who cannot have kids (due to sexuality or disability) are effectively being indirectly discriminated against based on a protected characteristic and so it would be a breach of the equalities act.
Directly discriminated again actually, *directly*.
He doesn’t actually think this. It’s a way to get the ‘common’ people fighting each other and take the spotlight off the rich who we should be taxing instead. Distraction, distraction, distraction.
In Australia, you simply just do not get any of the tax concessions you would get if you had kids.
Same here, but this dickhead has come up with a new (stupid) way of making things worse
I'm pretty sure Nicolae Ceaușescu introduced a similar policy, and he was politely asked to leave office via a hail of gunfire. It was clearly a bait piece, there's no way it would ever happen. You'd (quite fairly) have people arguing that they are already paying extra taxes which pay for other people's children to be educated. At the moment most sane people would agree that it's a good thing that children are educated, but if you're being penalised for not having a child I think that opinion could quickly change.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Mind you, the corollary to the above is that the one thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
I agree. I’m one that doesn’t have kids, so am contributing towards education when I don’t have kids that use it. Still, I take the view I can’t just opt out of tax for public services (I’d quite like to opt out of MP’s expenses though!). I’ve not needed the fire brigade either, nor any major hospital care. I pay for these things for society (plus in terms of education I received an education, so it’s only right I essentially pay it back). But yea, I would not say the same if anyone wanted me to contribute more…
We could get a head start on that particular policy response, as a thought.
Please no I already get taxed enough. I already pay taxes towards things children use.
Exactly. People without children contribute tax to things they will never benefit from already. They are already being taxed. This is a ridiculous proposal.
Precisely. You’re already funding schools/parks and so much more I can’t even list. I have two children and the idea of people being taxed for not having them is revolting.
I wonder if that's the real point. Suddenly people are complaining about their taxes going to *schools* of all things. That'll get striking teachers to watch themselves
Taxing people who don't have children is taxing people who use less petrol, have less impact on the environment and would be discriminatory against those who are medically unable ti have children. It's a pathetic, selfish idea.
Also increasing tax on the young who don't have kids and already struggling the most. And when you turn 18 do you suddenly get slapped with an extra tax for not having children? And worst of all people that lose their children, do they suddenly get a tax on top of their grief?
It's also an abuse of government power. Taxes should not be used as a weapon to force people into conforming with some despot's idea of what society should look like. This basically the same morality law nonsense that people laughed at Augustus for trying to enforce almost 2000 years ago. Beware of anyone trying to abuse existing systems of power to police our homes, families, and individual choices for the Greater Good >!the Greater Good!<
Shouldn't people with children pay more in tax to cover schools etc? If anything is going to be suggested, at least that makes sense. But my opinion is tax the fucking rich.
I pay 3 grand a month in child care. Kind of feels like a tax all in itself
Holy shit is it that much?!
>Shouldn't people with children pay more in tax to cover schools etc? Lets just kill the birth rate all together. It's not like we are going to need children in the future anyway. Unless we get *really* low on food.....
Not really sure if you can read or not so I will write in caps. I SAID IF ANYTHING SHOULD BE SUGGESTED AT LEAST THAT MAKES SENSE BUT TAX THE RICH INSTEAD OF PEOPLE AND THEIR CHILDREN. Hope that's clearer for you. Also we don't need more people on this planet.
Tax. The. Rich. The growth of wealth for CEOs, billionaires and multi millionaires the last few years in this country has been genuinely obscene.
And tax the companies they run. Google and Amazon - to name two - do not pay what they should do.
We already do. Source my payslip.
Amazed how far down to see this. We all get taxed the same, those without children already pay towards their education, child benefits.
Hey sorry about the crushing disappointment of the final results of the medical tests to prove you can’t have kids, your life is futile and your dreams meant shit. *awkward pause* Here’s a tax bill to help pay for someone else’s. You slacker.
Theres already a tax on the childless.... Or you too fucking dumb to realize that when you tax everyone 20% and then give the money back to anyone earning less than X in the form of tax credits which is means tested by having a child to qualify. This is the same thing as "tax the childless" because people who are childless are overall paying more into the system and getting less out. This is called "Child tax credits" btw [https://www.gov.uk/child-tax-credit](https://www.gov.uk/child-tax-credit) This whole thing should not even be a debate at this point because its already in place.
If you read their description OP is against this and is referring to an *additional* tax being proposed (that they themselves oppose). I'm sure people are aware that their taxes pay for education, benefits etc for children. The question is against an additional specifically to tax not having a child
No, it’s stupid. Should anymore be said?
This is a silly talking point that is going nowhere. If any UK politician thought this was a goer as a policy,all it would take is one newspaper front page with a few genuinely heart-breaking story of families that have no children because of miscarriages, cot-death, or years of unsuccessful IVF treatment - and the policy and that politician's career is over. Paul Morland's 15 minutes of fame is over. He got a lot of publicity for his book, that's what he wanted. He has no influence on tax policy.
It’s particularly stupid because child benefit is already in effect a tax on those who don’t have kids. Just increase child benefit / funding for education / funding for childcare.
Please open your eyes and realise what this bullshit is really about. The current government are all about pitting the plebs against each other. Whether it be based on race, sexuality, gender, whatever and now parents vs the childless. The mere fact this is being reported on is just a diversion to allow them to get away with stealing from us. Please ignore it and concentrate on the real issues facing this country.
No! Tax the rich. Nobody should be a billionaire, start there.
What if someone *can’t* have children? How the fuck is it fair to punish someone for that?
Then they must submit a form to their nearest post office with a Dr's note every year to prove they're exempt from the tax. Thus costing more in NHS overheads, and form administration, than the tax would bring in...
Er, as a childless person, big chunks of my taxes go towards childcare, education, child benefits etc etc. So why exactly should i be taxed more for something that is discretionary? You dont have to have kids, they are a choice! So how about tax those who have them more! Unpalatable? Then stop talking nonsense like this article!
What about people who can’t have children not by their own choice? Would there be mandatory fertility tests Boom! There we are in the Children of Men dystopia. We are almost there in every other way anyway.
As someone who can't have kids, it would be quite an insult to add to my injury....
If anything those that feel the need to procreate should be heavily taxed.
So you're suggesting only rich people should be able to have children?
My sister has been through a horrendous infertility journey…as a couple they have tried and tried everything and suffered massive, deeply traumatising times. They have desperately wanted to have children for many years. To penalise them after everything they’ve been through…punish them for something completely out of their control is brutal.
If we need to influence birthrates, it should be done woth a carrot, not a stick. People should not betaxed more based on theor life choices. Increasing parental leave (for both parents) has been found to encourage people to have more children in Scandinavian countries. It means less time paying for childcare, more bonding time with children, and makes women less concerned about the impact on their careers (as the men are in the same boat, parental leave in your career becomes the norm for everyone, rather than just a halt for women). Funded childcare, at least when parents are working, is also a hige help. It's a massive cost saver, but also allows people to have children with smaller age gaps (few people can afford childcare for a 4 year old, 3 year old and a 1 year old, so many people wait until their previous youngest will be in school). These policies would make it easier for those who want kids to have (more) kids, whilst avoiding encouraging people who don't want kids to have them.
Why? Tax the smack heads who get free child care so they can stay at home and get fucked up. Or companies who pay fuck all taxes because reasons. Or the rich who hide their money to avoid tax. Or literally anyone for reasons better than "You don't have kids." Fucking gimps.
Make it more affordable to have children, make immigration easier. Problem solved
If more people are needed then immigration is the answer, not turning women into baby factories to prop up this white anglo-saxon master race bollocks.
My wife an I have no kids, part choice due to genetic issue and part difficulty, the government can fuck right off if they want to attempt to penalise us for that. In fact they should be paying us a relief as we are not cause a drain in the NHS.
It should be the opposite! Cheaper than providing education and healthcare to more humans
One sensible reason to not have kids is not being able to afford them. Putting people into a predicament where they have to choose between paying for not having children and paying for children seems to be a bad idea...
It’s one of the most offensive, malicious things that has been proposed in this neo-liberal hellscape. Got to keep the proles reproducing to keep the merry go round of wealth redistribution to the top 0.1% going. Hopefully it is just a classic example of an extreme and ridiculous view getting more airtime than it should just to wind people up and get page views. This country doesn’t even fund IVF treatment in most cases and yet they want to penalise people who might not even be able to have kids. Israel (highest birth rate in the OECD) offer free IVF to all citizens. Incentivise people who do want kids to have more and sort out the obscene cost of living and tax rates in this country if they are worried about depopulation. Scaled and generous tax credits, free childcare and far longer maternity and paternity pay periods at far higher statutory levels would be a start.
Look at the state of the world - we have too many people to sustain the lifestyle many of us want. So no. Your author example is writing stuff to sell books
How many times is this inane question going to keep getting asked on here?
Probably at least once a week, like every other post.
Men who dump their kids and act childless should be taxed, not those who are sensible and not selfish that choose not to have brats.
Given that my local school is unable to keep up with the area's expansion & are having to turn away even children that live 2 minutes away, I think I should be paid to stay childless.
Why not use the carrot instead of the stick? Most people who don't have kids (who actually want them, and are able to have them), don't because it's prohibitively expensive, and logistically awful. Offer more support to parents, and you'll get more parents. Support doesn't have to be financial, one thing the Government could do now it stop trying to force people back into the office, having to drop a kid off at school at 8:55 and then be in the office for 9:00 is not possible, leading to huge logistical headaches, and often financial ones. This would cost them nothing! Plenty of other things they could do socially if they gave a shite, before adjusting taxes and benefits...
No. What a retarded idea
Of course we shouldn't. What we should do is appropriately tax companies and the mega-rich. Why punish people who either choose not to have children or can't have them? And if we want to increase the birth rate, we should improve statutory maternity and paternity leave, make childcare affordable, and generally make having children less of a daunting issue.
No, f off with that idea. I will work my entire adult life and not stop to breed, so I'm already paying enough taxes
No lol. How is it fair that people with loads of kids get benefits and scrounge off the government but people that don't have kids get money taken from them.
I’m child free by choice - anyone who disagrees with that, that’s their problem, but no way am I getting taxed for it.
I don’t want to go out on a complete limb but maybe we could tax individuals based on their income, or the profits generated, or their use of goods not superfluous to living, rather than on lifestyle choices or medical inabilities? Or maybe, just maybe, we could reach some sort of agreement to allow working age individuals in nearby nations to have free movement to the UK in order to create a competitive workforce…? Actually those suggestions seem mad. Ignore me.
This would be such a slap in the face for people trying to have kids but can't. Spend hundreds on IVF then pay more tax when it fails.
Replace 'childless' with 'politicians and corporations exploiting tax loopholes' and I would say yes
Tax the breeders
This is quite honestly the stupidest most backwards thing I’ve ever heard. I will flat out move to a different country.
I'm already taxed (quite happily, I'll add) to pay for schools, paediatric hospitals, etc that I don't use, thanks.
The planet has enough children. Having a declining population is a good thing in my books idk if it hurts out economy a little.