Tax childless couples

2022 - 7 - 4

Post cover — Image courtesy of "HuffPost UK"

A Plan To Tax Women For Being 'Childless'? Welcome To Gilead (HuffPost UK)

“Introduce a 'negative child benefit' tax for those who do not have offspring,” he says. “This may seem unfair on those who can't or won't have children, but it ...

“Was the tax a proportion of income or is it a poll tax? And if you get a divorce do you bring the tax benefit with you or does that depend on custody of the kid? If you have a child then put it up for adoption does it count?” he asked. Never mind the fact that you may want to save up for fertility treatment, which already costs upwards of £5,000 per cycle and is quietly being removed from NHS provision. “Introduce a ‘negative child benefit’ tax for those who do not have offspring,” he says. Tax the people who don’t have kids.

Could there be a tax on childless couples? Expert's comments ... (NationalWorld)

Could there be a tax on childless couples? Expert's comments explained as Census reveals drop in child births · University of Oxford academic Dr Paul Morland has ...

So whoever mooted that policy idea in the Times today needs to f right off.” Or listening to women who have children and are sinking fast. On Twitter, political party the Women’s Equality Party (WEP) wrote: “Can’t believe this needs to be said but: 1) DON’T tax women for exercising their bodily autonomy. Or listening to them. 2) Know what would help women who want children? - The creation of a “pro-natal culture” that would include the introduction of “a national day to celebrate parenthood,” as well as a telegram from the Queen “whenever a family has a third child”.

Tax childless couples? There's a dark side to this debate (The Plainsmen Post)

Refugees are criminalized and to be deported to Rwanda. We have a restrictive “points-based” migration regime which cuts off lower skilled or unskilled labour, ...

This is the dark side of the debate. What usually rescues nations from unpromising demographics is increasing the productivity of the economy. The likes of Boris Johnson would never have to pay taxes again. The post-study visa system for Indian students suggests one way forward for the UK economy to become competitive again. On top of this, each new child they produce is used as a credit to cancel out part of the marital loan. Modest tax breaks won’t make up for the cost of finding a house with a garden and sufficient bedrooms, or the reality of the costs of rearing a child, from toys and food to needing a bigger car and an extra fare for holidays. The restless toddlers of today are the decrepit pensioners of the 21st century. Unless we constantly increase the birthrate, at some point the natural laws of demographics in wealthy societies will prevail, but with the overhang of old folk relative to working-age adults even heavier than it is now. First off, surely no one takes on the responsibility of parenthood just for the tax breaks? I don’t really see why I should actively encourage people to have more children, not just on what might be perceived as selfish grounds, but because it’s a bad policy. We’ve a labor shortage, a severe one that is contributing to inflation. The same goes for child benefits, childcare subsidies, and the remaining general costs of further education.

Tax the childless! Encourage 'our own' to breed! What an asinine ... (The Guardian)

The demographer Paul Morland has some novel ideas for rejuvenating Britain's ageing population. That's 'novel' as in unacceptable.

Then wham: six short years later, we’re trying to debate demographics on the basis of who belongs and who doesn’t, who among us is breeding responsibly and who isn’t. The most controversial idea was for a “negative child benefit”, which is to say, childless couples paying more tax, to atone for their failure to provide the next generation of bin collectors. The demographer Paul Morland spelled this out for readers of the Sunday Times, and initially it was manageable news: would it be preferable if the political horizon stretched to encompass these matters, rather than lurching in fortnightly cycles from one tawdry scandal to another?

Tax childless adults to tackle plummeting birth rates, leading ... (LBC)

A tax should be imposed on childless people to tackle plummeting birth rates, a leading demographer has said.

He pointed out that countries with good provisions tend to produce more children. This comes as the government launches a consultation to bring down the cost of childcare in a bid to tackle the cost of living crisis. Both, funded by taxes, involve a substantial amount of money spent on child-related expenses. The population of people in the 70-74 age bracket has reached three million, which is up more than a third in a decade, and the number of toddlers dropped by 7.6 percent to 3.2 million. He also suggested women should be educated that getting pregnant becomes more difficult later in life, and they should have children at a younger age, on the birth of the third child, they would receive a telegram from the Queen. He suggested in an opinion piece in The Times that in order to incentivise parenthood, a tax should be created to be put on those without children.

Taxing the childless would be an insult, not a solution (New Statesman)

A truly “pro-natal” society would ensure that having a child doesn't mean career suicide and financial devastation.

Those who don’t have children would still be subsidising those who do, in the same way that we all pay for schools and roads and infrastructure we do not personally use for the sake of the public good. And perhaps it’s easier to turn the falling birth rate into a culture war than it is to confront the real reasons about why it is so low. And there are things the government could do to help – from investing in nursery schemes to offering tax breaks to parents that balance the cost. Many have pointed out the impracticality and downright cruelty of taxing people who are unable to have children. But even this pales next to Morland’s suggestion that we tax the childless (“introduce a ‘negative child benefit’”) to guilt-trip those who refuse to reproduce. For those who have not read the article, recommendations include instituting a “national day” to celebrate parents (presumably in addition to the two we already have in March and June) and sending parents a telegram from the Queen on the birth of their third child, in the style of Soviet “Maternal Glory” awards.