Should Childless couples be taxed more?

THEBLACKDEVIL

wonski wrote: »

Your state pension is guaranteed - .

I hope you're right!

wonski

THEBLACKDEVIL wrote: »

I hope you're right!

I can't guarantee you could live on it, but you will get it;)

EoinHef

THEBLACKDEVIL wrote: »

Although I think the OP is on a wind up, I sort of agree with some of his arguments, I think we should give parents extra/increased tax breaks to help with child costs, but I don't think childless people should pay more taxes. If current population trends continue, by the time I retire (God willing) there won't be enough people in the work force to fund my state pension,
very selfish I know, but that's how I feel.

The governments answer to this is that everybody will eventually support there own retirement. The mandatory occupational pension (MySaver iirc) is on the way. Like you i am skeptical weather the state pension in its current form will last.

Indo article on mandatory pensions that covers a few of the issues

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/pensions/mandatory-pension-plan-gets-name-but-no-start-date-30000628.html

THEBLACKDEVIL

EoinHef wrote: »

The governments answer to this is that everybody will eventually support there own retirement. The mandatory occupational pension (MySaver iirc) is on the way. Like you i am skeptical weather the state pension in its current form will last.

Indo article on mandatory pensions that covers a few of the issues

I've been paying in a defined contribution pension since my early 20's, so no guarantee of what my retirement income will be, as a result, I would like to receive the state pension aswell.

Guy:Incognito

wazky wrote: »

They should be forced to mate with eachother while I watch. If they refuse, I shall mate with the female half of the couple.

Much like the alternative to the 40 gorgeous virgins that the aul jihadists like to think are waiting for them in heaven, be careful what you wish for. There are plenty of childless couples I wouldn't want to watch mating, Nevermind join in with.

lazeedaisy

Not all childless couples are childless by choice, you seem to ASSUME they all are,

Must be nice living in a black and white world,

Fukuyama

Deleted User wrote: »

Considering the funding gap hole that Ireland is facing it certainly looks like everyone will be paying more tax.

That's interesting - because all of your economic wizardry posts on here seem to indicate that everyone else should pay taxes, water charges, non-child penalty tax etc... except you.

By the time single people in their 20s/30s reach retirement age there won't be a state pension.

It'd be far more constructive to see a small additional tax benefit given to single people who put away for their pension. It'd also be a good idea if people did a few sums before deciding to have kids.

As a single person, I think I pay enough towards raising other people's children. From what I can tell, a lot of people seem to think it's the state's responsibility to pay for their offspring. Penalizing people who didn't add another PPS number onto that list is a little harsh.

NZ_2014

There should be a tax on stupid and ugly people.

pconn062

I pay the Homer tax. Let the bears pay the bear tax.

Dan_Solo

Berserker wrote: »

We do as is.

We tax them more than we currently do already?
That's one way of paying back the Germans quicker.

SilverScreen

Deleted User wrote: »

We are often told that to keep society going we need to grow the population, the kids we have today will pay for our social services when we grow old and retire. Things such as hospitals, pensions etc.

We do certainly not need to grow the population. The world at the moment is in no fit state environmentally, socially and economically to handle more kids.

I'd say childless couples should be given a grant...

DiegoCosta

Fat Christy wrote: »

The population is set to rise in the coming years to a point where it will no longer be sustainable. I, personally, don't think we should be encouraging people to have more children....

What population level would be unsustainable in Ireland?

It seems like one of those things that the herd keeps saying, like how you used to always hear people saying that we should all be learning Chinese. Absolute nonsense, it was something that was said without much actual thought at all.

my teapot is orange

The thing is peoples children are primarily of benefit to them in the future, not to others. When parents are old, their children will take care of and do things for them. If I want their child, the painter, doctor, postman to do something for me, I will have to pay for the service. So I don't really buy the argument about socializing the rearing of a child to a great extent. I don't mind contributing towards childrens health and education a present, but I don't think it should go further.

osarusan

We used to award child benefit to help cover the cost of child raising however today the money given back to parents through child benefits hardly touch the surface of the true cost of children`s upbringing.

According to the Irish Interdependent in 2009 a report claimed that the average cost of raising a child was around €120,000


http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/raising-children-can-be-extremely-expensive-26514758.html

Child benefit stands at €130 which over 18 years equal to around €28,000 far short of the €120,000 figure quoted.

If it's such a monstrous and hard-to-get amount, how do families on welfare manage to raise kids (which they do perfectly well most of the time)?

NZ_2014

DiegoCosta wrote: »

What population level would be unsustainable in Ireland?

It seems like one of those things that the herd keeps saying, like how you used to always hear people saying that we should all be learning Chinese. Absolute nonsense, it was something that was said without much actual thought at all.

I don't think the poster you quoted was speaking about Ireland in particular, but the world.

Plenty of thought and research is put into sustainable population, that much is true!!

efb

pconn062 wrote: »

I pay the Homer tax. Let the bears pay the bear tax.

No, its the Home Owner Tax

NZ_2014

my teapot is orange wrote: »

The thing is peoples children are primarily of benefit to them in the future, not to others. When parents are old, their children will take care of and do things for them.

Not if they emigrate

Son Of A Vidic

Deleted User wrote: »

Should Childless couples be taxed more?

Feck no, they should be given tax exemptions and hero status for not producing parasitic vermin.

efb

NZ_2014 wrote: »

There should be a tax on stupid and ugly people.

boards users would be the most taxed then, or maybe journal.ie commenters...

Sam Kade

Deleted User wrote: »

Should Childless couples be taxed more be they straight, gay or from Mars?

We are often told that to keep society going we need to grow the population, the kids we have today will pay for our social services when we grow old and retire. Things such as hospitals, pensions etc.

We used to award child benefit to help cover the cost of child raising however today the money given back to parents through child benefits hardly touch the surface of the true cost of children`s upbringing.

According to the Irish Interdependent in 2009 a report claimed that the average cost of raising a child was around €120,000


http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/raising-children-can-be-extremely-expensive-26514758.html

Child benefit stands at €130 which over 18 years equal to around €28,000 far short of the €120,000 figure quoted.

Is it fair that parents should take such a huge hit and only share the same benefits and entitlements as those who choose not to have children at retirement?

In fact those who choose not to have children can enjoy a much more selfish lifestyle and go onto earn considerable more than a household trying to raise a child and yet when it comes to retirement they still enjoy the same rights and privileges.

So should we tax those who choose not to have kids more than what they currently pay?

Maybe just tax people that ask stupid questions more

Deenie123

People with children get a dependent child tax credit.

People without children do not get this credit.

People without children in otherwise identical circumstances pay more tax than people with children.


It already happens. End of argument.

DazMarz

looking_around wrote: »

better idea, lets kill everyone when they reach the age of 70. They get a couple of years retirement, and we can use that saved pension money to lower the tax for everyone. :pac:

win - win.....................eh well......

Fúck that... let's go the whole hog and do a Logan's Run on it!

Life stops at 35 and there's no pensions or old people to worry about! Plus, we all get to live in massive bio-domes, wear naff 70's-futuristic clothes, have passionless sex and have big carnivals where people explode into colourful confetti!!!

efb

Deenie123 wrote: »

People with children get a dependent child tax credit.

People without children do not get this credit.

People without children in otherwise identical circumstances pay more tax than people with children.


It already happens. End of argument.

No they don't:

There is a tax credit for single parents, or those with incapacitated children, or stay at home mothers, they is NO General dependant children tax credit.

One eyed Jack

Tax people for NOT having children?

I'm drunk as a skunk right now and even I can tell you that's a regressive tax! The State can only incentivise people to have children, it can't punish them for NOT having children.

While you're right OP that we face an uncertain future with an ageing population that will be poorly serviced if the current lack of State resources already are anything to go by, this doesn't entitle the State to place undue hardship on people who either have chosen not to have children, or are unwilling or unable to have children, or simply lack the financial means to support children.

Children for the most part (excluding unexpected and unfortunate circumstances) are a lifestyle choice for most people, and I don't believe in the State incentivising lifestyle choices for it's citizens. I also don't believe in expecting children should become their parents primary carers saving the State another fortune.

Tbh OP I've come out with some hair brained notions even while sober, so I'm sitting here wondering what the hell is your excuse?

Deenie123

efb wrote: »

No they don't:

There is a tax credit for single parents, or those with incapacitated children, or stay at home mothers, they is NO General dependant children tax credit.

My bad, obviously misread something somewhere.

Doesn't matter anyway, they still get children's allowance so their overall contribution is that much less.

I'm of the view that having children is a choice you make. If you can't afford them - dont have them. They're your choice to have, the state as a whole funds services only children avail of so why should the state go any further? Having dependent children also brings some people into medical card qualification who otherwise wouldnt qualify.

efb

Deenie123 wrote: »

My bad, obviously misread something somewhere.

Doesn't matter anyway, they still get children's allowance so their overall contribution is that much less.

I'm of the view that having children is a choice you make. If you can't afford them - dont have them. They're your choice to have, the state as a whole funds services only children avail of so why should the state go any further? Having dependent children also brings some people into medical card qualification who otherwise wouldnt qualify.

What should the state pay for???
That's a very individualisc way to look at things not looking at the bigger picture, or society's needs

Deenie123

efb wrote: »

What should the state pay for???
That's a very individualisc way to look at things not looking at the bigger picture, or society's needs

The state is already as a whole paying for educating every child as well as giving parents a cash stipend for each and every child they have. How is it individualistic to say that if people choose to have kids they should cover the bulk of the cost associated with them?

One eyed Jack

efb wrote: »

What should the state pay for???
That's a very individualisc way to look at things not looking at the bigger picture, or society's needs

People aren't obliged to look at the bigger picture though, that's falls under Government's remit, one apparently they're not giving much attention to either, but thankfully I can't see them adopting the OP's ideas any time soon as they understand the idea behind individual taxation and progressive taxation.

Expecting people to pay extra taxes for something they don't have, something they gain no benefit from? That's never going to fly.

jimgoose

How about a tax on dumbass jawflapping that gives the fcukan Blueshirts even more ideas?

Merrion

Child benefit is not means tested which means it is a de-facto tax benefit (if you get money from the state it is functionally equivalent to a tax rebate) so in fact Deenie123 is correct.

Should this be the case? I'd argue yes since we are going to rely on these children to both pay our pensions and take care of our incontinence diapers when the time comes. It's a fairly disgusting prospect for them so we'll need to monopolise the housing market so as to force them into eternal rent. Who's with me?

Jester252

Why only childless couples? Why should childless singles get away with free monies?

SterlingArcher

Jester252 wrote: »

Why only childless couples? Why should childless singles get away with free monies?

That's it Burn them all.

B.A._Baracus

Fat Christy wrote: »

The population is set to rise in the coming years to a point where it will no longer be sustainable. I, personally, don't think we should be encouraging people to have more children....

What are you mental? :pac:
Wait, I bet you are a student.

cruais

Yes, lets penalise those that don't have children, because that would make a whole lot of sense....

No way would that discriminatory tax work.
I bet you're "inda kinny"

Pumpkinseeds

Children are a luxury not a necessity. Means test child benefit or stop paying child benefit and abolish Rent Allowance and see how fast the birth rate falls. If people can't afford kids they shouldn't have them. Those of us who chose not to have kids shouldn't have to pay for anyone else's kids. There's no shortage of immigrant workers so we don't need to continue to encourage people to breed.

Tarzana2

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

There's no shortage of immigrant workers so we don't need to continue to encourage people to breed.

Dear lord.

steddyeddy

We have a problem with human over population in the world right now. We need to be rewarding people for having less kids.

K.Flyer

DazMarz wrote: »

Fúck that... let's go the whole hog and do a Logan's Run on it!

Life stops at 35 and there's no pensions or old people to worry about! Plus, we all get to live in massive bio-domes, wear naff 70's-futuristic clothes, have passionless sex and have big carnivals where people explode into colourful confetti!!!

Nah..

Lets be the first country to introduce the Soylent Green system.

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

We have a problem with human over population in the world right now. We need to be rewarding people for having less kids.

That's debatable really. Lots of scientific opinion pushes against that.

steddyeddy

Tarzana2 wrote: »

That's debatable really. Lots of scientific opinion pushes against that.

Lots of scientific literature says we don't have huge increases in human population or that it's not a problem?

ChillMhantain

Deleted User wrote: »

Still going down, thus this supports that right across Europe people cant afford to have children. So should we give out more in benefits or tax those without kids more?

Cant afford to start a family, lets tax them even more. At this stage I really think you are trolling.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

We have a problem with human over population in the world right now. We need to be rewarding people for having less kids.

Isn't that like, rewarding people for doing nothing?

Chocolate Lions

Some cretin decides they'd like a group of people they are clearly jealous of (ridiculously) taxed in order to supplement themselves, and everybody jumps in? Seriously guys, rise above..

SMJSF

right I need to correct this:

"childless" people CAN'T have kids.

"Childfree" people choose not to have kids.

I am childfree.
why should I pay more for child benefit, education, etc because silly people choose not to wear protection? (im not saying that about EVERYONE)
Just because I've "baby making" body parts - doesn't mean I should pay more because I don't use it. I'll choose to use it. Its my body.

The people popping them out should pay more.
They are the ones who cost employers more to cover them for maturity leave, and days off when they have to stay am home and mind ill little John because he's got chicken pox or whatever.

rainemac

Deleted User wrote:

Everybody pays for that if they are working, the point I am raising is that when it comes to retirement those who choose not to have kids enjoy the same rights and privileges as those who did have kids, yet those with kids paid far more to have them despite the kids of the future paying for everything in their taxes.

Didnt read the replies but Some people have no choice in whether they can have kids or not and the only way they make it through that is by using that extra money to get away from their happy family friends now and again. It could also be said that childless couples contribute more throughout their lives in their taxes and take less from social welfare by not taking maternity leave or having child benefit.

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

Lots of scientific literature says we don't have huge increases in human population or that it's not a problem?

We obviously have had huge increases in population, but not all consider it a problem. It's probably a nascent field at this stage, hypothesis stage. But yeah, google around. You'll find some credible people taking about it.

wexfordman2

steddyeddy wrote: »

We have a problem with human over population in the world right now. We need to be rewarding people for having less kids.

Not in this country we don't

SpaceTime

What a ridiculous suggestion.

If that were introduced, I would emigrate.

Ireland's already been down the route of socially engineering enormous families by banning contraception for decades making us deservedly look like she kind of crazy theocracy for all that time.

Maybe put some effort into reducing the cost and improving the quality of childcare, deal with the vast waste of money going on as the theoretical National Children's Hospital fights with itself over its location while pouring 10s of millions of the health budget down the toilet etc etc etc etc etc

Ireland's population is also growing. There's no impending population shrinkage going on.

Ensuring the economy is functioning and most importantly predictably stable will ensure population growth.

The post Tiger crisis drove and continues to drive a lot of Irish people abroad.

eviltwin

SMJSF wrote: »

right I need to correct this:

"childless" people CAN'T have kids.

"Childfree" people choose not to have kids.

I am childfree.
why should I pay more for child benefit, education, etc because silly people choose not to wear protection? (im not saying that about EVERYONE)
Just because I've "baby making" body parts - doesn't mean I should pay more because I don't use it. I'll choose to use it. Its my body.

The people popping them out should pay more.
They are the ones who cost employers more to cover them for maturity leave, and days off when they have to stay am home and mind ill little John because he's got chicken pox or whatever.

You don't get to pick and choose where your taxes go. It's not charity.

eviltwin

Chocolate Lions wrote: »

Some cretin decides they'd like a group of people they are clearly jealous of (ridiculously) taxed in order to supplement themselves, and everybody jumps in? Seriously guys, rise above..

And then you get the inevitable responses from those without children who look down their noses at those who do. Can we not just respect one another's choices?