Should Childless couples be taxed more?

One eyed Jack

SMJSF wrote: »

right I need to correct this:

"childless" people CAN'T have kids.

"Childfree" people choose not to have kids.

Childless/childfree, same thing really tbh - they have no dependent children.

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.

You're neither paying more for child benefit nor education than anyone else. You're paying your taxes the same as everyone else, and how that income is distributed is decided by Government. We have no control over where our taxes are spent.

People choosing to have children isn't silly, it's a personal choice, just like your personal choice is to remain child free. You're not paying any more for not using your "baby making equipment" than anyone else isn't paying for using their "baby making equipment".

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.

The people "popping them out" as you so pleasantly put it (disregarding of course options such as adoption) shouldn't pay any more in tax than you do.

Your concern for employers, while touching, is neither here nor there, as employers are fully aware of their statutory obligations with regard to maternity leave, and indeed employees are all too aware of the fact that staying at home to mind little John means they could well be down a days pay as well as having to cover GP and medical bills. That doesn't come directly out of your pocket either.

Really I'm not sure what your quibble is here tbh, unless you'd care to be more specific?

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Childless/childfree, same thing really tbh - they have no dependent children.

The implication is that people who choose not to have kids are somehow selfish for not doing so.

bodice ripper

I can't stand some gom who thinks that he is saving the planent having kids. Congratulations on clogging up the planet even further, and your functioning genitals. Pay for your own damn little validation units.

MsQuinn

Yes - great idea and it makes total sense.

All newly formed couples should report immediately to the Revenue Commissioners. I don't think one night stands should count though. Also, when a couple splits, both parties must notify for the tax to be reduced otherwise they might be scamming.

I think I'll apply to work in the Government Department tasked with keeping track of people's relationship statuses for those non compliant.

SpaceTime

MsQuinn wrote: »

Yes - great idea and it makes total sense.

All newly formed couples should report immediately to the Revenue Commissioners. I don't think one night stands should count though. Also, when a couple splits, both parties must notify for the tax to be reduced otherwise they might be scamming.

I think I'll apply to work in the Government Department tasked with keeping track of people's relationship statuses for those non compliant.

Don't forget that you'd also have to pay the copulation levy. A special meter would be installed under the bed.

steddyeddy

Tarzana2 wrote: »

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.

Well it might not be a problem now but the rate of growth will create a problem. We don't have limitless resources.

steddyeddy

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Not in this country we don't

Local problems don't always have local consequences. Over population in one country effects the whole world to some degree.

wexfordman2

steddyeddy wrote: »

Local problems don't always have local consequences. Over population in one country effects the whole world to some degree.

My point still stands.

steddyeddy

wexfordman2 wrote: »

My point still stands.

It never stood in the first place.

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well it might not be a problem now but the rate of growth will create a problem. We don't have limitless resources.

That's what I was talking about.

The world population will level off in the next 50 years according to some, which is sustainable. The problem is that the resources aren't evenly distributed rather than there not being enough.

NZ_2014

Nigeria is heading for a billion and what will China and india be then? Remarkable population growth since the industrial revolution from circa 1 billion around 1800 and around 2 billion about 1900.

groucho marx

Worst thread ever

dr.bollocko

I think we should tax children.

AndreaCollins

bodice ripper wrote: »

I can't stand some gom who thinks that he is saving the planent having kids. Congratulations on clogging up the planet even further, and your functioning genitals. Pay for your own damn little validation units.

Indeed. And the idea of childless people being penalised with extra taxes for not having kids is laughable.

NZ_2014

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I think we should tax children.

Start with taxing communion and confirmation days, and birthdays, enforced by debt collectors.

SaveOurLyric

No. End the discrimintion - they should be paid childrens allowance the same as people with childers.

DanDublin1982

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why?


I have highlighted that overall those with kids are providing far more to society than those without kids on average.

No you haven't. You've made a blanket assumption that kids = good.

Your idea is beyond ridiculous, never mind impractical and incredibly difficult to enforce.

wendell borton

If you cant afford kids don't have them, why should someone else pay for their upkeep.

One eyed Jack

wendell borton wrote: »

If you cant afford kids don't have them, why should someone else pay for their upkeep.

The first part of your post is just nonsense talk that nobody is going to listen to, the second part of your post implies that you're paying for the upkeep of someone else's children.

Unless you're their legal guardian, you're not paying for the upkeep of someone else's children.

1st dalkey dalkey

wendell borton wrote: »

If you cant afford kids don't have them, why should someone else pay for their upkeep.

From a personal perspective, I suppose you are right.
But from a national perspective, given the falling incomes of almost all sectors of society, it might not be a good policy.
The State needs citizens. Without them it dies. The economy needs people, customers.
The OP has a point, but has expressed it badly.
"Children" may be a personal choice on an individual level, but they are an issue of survival at the national level, not a matter of choice.
Should the tax system be used to ensure national survival? Of course it should. But how, exactly?