Should childless couple be taxed higher?
Discussion
Before giving a rash answer you need to consider things from the perspective of society as a whole, including how that society develops over time.
We do live in a society and we rely every day and all the time on other people. I just had a cup of tea. The web of connections to all the people involved in me having a simple cuppa is enormous - there was the whole energy infrastructure allowing me to use the electricity to heat the water, the infrastructure to allow me to pour fresh water from my tap, the web of people involved in growing the tea, processing it, bringing it to the U.K., packaging it and delivering it to the supermarket where we bought it. However that just scratches the surface. What about all the machinery involved in the process (and vehicles)? They had to be developed, manufactured and sold. However that would have involved thousands of smaller suppliers, extraction of raw materials, processing, etc. To the side of all that is the legal, financial and legislative systems. You could get lost trying to trace all those directly and indirectly involved. That applies to pretty much all the goods and services we consume.
Behind all of that is people. None of that is possible without workers. Improvements in productivity can reduce the number needed for each task but ultimately without people our society as we know it won’t work. Workers don’t grow on trees (or yet in vats a la Brave New World). They have to born and raised by parents. Raising children is expensive, difficult and exhausting. It can also be rewarding.
People who remain childless by choice, even if they work and pay taxes, are undermining the fabric of society and also freeloading. When they retire they continue to use goods and services being produced by other people’s children. However if enough people don’t have children, or just have one, then there might not be enough workers to provide all the goods and services we have come to expect.
Not having children is the ultimate expression of selfishness. People that deliberately don’t contribute to the continuation of society should perhaps be required to contribute in other ways through higher taxes, restrictions in the benefits they receive from society, such as healthcare and pensions.
We do live in a society and we rely every day and all the time on other people. I just had a cup of tea. The web of connections to all the people involved in me having a simple cuppa is enormous - there was the whole energy infrastructure allowing me to use the electricity to heat the water, the infrastructure to allow me to pour fresh water from my tap, the web of people involved in growing the tea, processing it, bringing it to the U.K., packaging it and delivering it to the supermarket where we bought it. However that just scratches the surface. What about all the machinery involved in the process (and vehicles)? They had to be developed, manufactured and sold. However that would have involved thousands of smaller suppliers, extraction of raw materials, processing, etc. To the side of all that is the legal, financial and legislative systems. You could get lost trying to trace all those directly and indirectly involved. That applies to pretty much all the goods and services we consume.
Behind all of that is people. None of that is possible without workers. Improvements in productivity can reduce the number needed for each task but ultimately without people our society as we know it won’t work. Workers don’t grow on trees (or yet in vats a la Brave New World). They have to born and raised by parents. Raising children is expensive, difficult and exhausting. It can also be rewarding.
People who remain childless by choice, even if they work and pay taxes, are undermining the fabric of society and also freeloading. When they retire they continue to use goods and services being produced by other people’s children. However if enough people don’t have children, or just have one, then there might not be enough workers to provide all the goods and services we have come to expect.
Not having children is the ultimate expression of selfishness. People that deliberately don’t contribute to the continuation of society should perhaps be required to contribute in other ways through higher taxes, restrictions in the benefits they receive from society, such as healthcare and pensions.
I would say no. They may not be contributing anything to society generally but there's nothing worse for the planet than more population. If anything throughout the world there should be incentives for people not to have kids. It's the only solution to almost all of the world problems but lots of old people = a ponzi scheme that needs feeding from the bottom.
Childless couples are not free loading.
Each person will be supported by society as a child, work and contribute to society as a working age adult, then be supported by society in retirement. In an ideal world this would balance out across your lifetime.
The number of children you have doesn't change that. They will also draw and contribute to society as they go through life.
In reality the average person in the UK will take more from society than they will give, so the more kids you have the more is being taken. Then there are all the negatives about population growth. We don’t have enough houses and natural resources to cope with more and more people.
Each person will be supported by society as a child, work and contribute to society as a working age adult, then be supported by society in retirement. In an ideal world this would balance out across your lifetime.
The number of children you have doesn't change that. They will also draw and contribute to society as they go through life.
In reality the average person in the UK will take more from society than they will give, so the more kids you have the more is being taken. Then there are all the negatives about population growth. We don’t have enough houses and natural resources to cope with more and more people.
Should people with unhealthy lifestyles be taxed more? What about childless couples that were ubsbke to conceive? Same sex couples. Shall we force them to adopt indirectly?
What a bizarre thread. In my opinion no.
Tax should fair and reasonable. It’s not perfect but taxing childless couples more sounds very odd viewpoint.
Why not tax couples more as a per child added tax? Afterall if you want more children you should contribute more for their benefit not just bank on the strangers kindness through the tax system?
What a bizarre thread. In my opinion no.
Tax should fair and reasonable. It’s not perfect but taxing childless couples more sounds very odd viewpoint.
Why not tax couples more as a per child added tax? Afterall if you want more children you should contribute more for their benefit not just bank on the strangers kindness through the tax system?
Skeptisk said:
People who remain childless by choice, even if they work and pay taxes, are undermining the fabric of society and also freeloading.
The freeloaders are those who decide to have multiple kids with no means of supporting them, and rely on the benefits system. If they need to claim benefits for one child, then any further offspring should not qualify.
Skeptisk said:
Before giving a rash answer you need to consider things from the perspective of society as a whole, including how that society develops over time.
We do live in a society and we rely every day and all the time on other people. I just had a cup of tea. The web of connections to all the people involved in me having a simple cuppa is enormous - there was the whole energy infrastructure allowing me to use the electricity to heat the water, the infrastructure to allow me to pour fresh water from my tap, the web of people involved in growing the tea, processing it, bringing it to the U.K., packaging it and delivering it to the supermarket where we bought it. However that just scratches the surface. What about all the machinery involved in the process (and vehicles)? They had to be developed, manufactured and sold. However that would have involved thousands of smaller suppliers, extraction of raw materials, processing, etc. To the side of all that is the legal, financial and legislative systems. You could get lost trying to trace all those directly and indirectly involved. That applies to pretty much all the goods and services we consume.
Behind all of that is people. None of that is possible without workers. Improvements in productivity can reduce the number needed for each task but ultimately without people our society as we know it won’t work. Workers don’t grow on trees (or yet in vats a la Brave New World). They have to born and raised by parents. Raising children is expensive, difficult and exhausting. It can also be rewarding.
People who remain childless by choice, even if they work and pay taxes, are undermining the fabric of society and also freeloading. When they retire they continue to use goods and services being produced by other people’s children. However if enough people don’t have children, or just have one, then there might not be enough workers to provide all the goods and services we have come to expect.
Not having children is the ultimate expression of selfishness. People that deliberately don’t contribute to the continuation of society should perhaps be required to contribute in other ways through higher taxes, restrictions in the benefits they receive from society, such as healthcare and pensions.
I think you need to give your head a wobble.We do live in a society and we rely every day and all the time on other people. I just had a cup of tea. The web of connections to all the people involved in me having a simple cuppa is enormous - there was the whole energy infrastructure allowing me to use the electricity to heat the water, the infrastructure to allow me to pour fresh water from my tap, the web of people involved in growing the tea, processing it, bringing it to the U.K., packaging it and delivering it to the supermarket where we bought it. However that just scratches the surface. What about all the machinery involved in the process (and vehicles)? They had to be developed, manufactured and sold. However that would have involved thousands of smaller suppliers, extraction of raw materials, processing, etc. To the side of all that is the legal, financial and legislative systems. You could get lost trying to trace all those directly and indirectly involved. That applies to pretty much all the goods and services we consume.
Behind all of that is people. None of that is possible without workers. Improvements in productivity can reduce the number needed for each task but ultimately without people our society as we know it won’t work. Workers don’t grow on trees (or yet in vats a la Brave New World). They have to born and raised by parents. Raising children is expensive, difficult and exhausting. It can also be rewarding.
People who remain childless by choice, even if they work and pay taxes, are undermining the fabric of society and also freeloading. When they retire they continue to use goods and services being produced by other people’s children. However if enough people don’t have children, or just have one, then there might not be enough workers to provide all the goods and services we have come to expect.
Not having children is the ultimate expression of selfishness. People that deliberately don’t contribute to the continuation of society should perhaps be required to contribute in other ways through higher taxes, restrictions in the benefits they receive from society, such as healthcare and pensions.
You're ignoring the worldwide situation, immigration, housing, health etc etc.
If I have no children but still have to pay out for others to be schooled I think I should be reimbursed or be given sizeable tax credits.
What are your plans for single people or simply in a close relationship ?
.
CrgT16 said:
Should people with unhealthy lifestyles be taxed more? What about childless couples that were ubsbke to conceive? Same sex couples. Shall we force them to adopt indirectly?
What a bizarre thread. In my opinion no.
Tax should fair and reasonable. It’s not perfect but taxing childless couples more sounds very odd viewpoint.
Why not tax couples more as a per child added tax? Afterall if you want more children you should contribute more for their benefit not just bank on the strangers kindness through the tax system?
So do you think it is okay if nobody has children? That society and humans should just die out? What a bizarre thread. In my opinion no.
Tax should fair and reasonable. It’s not perfect but taxing childless couples more sounds very odd viewpoint.
Why not tax couples more as a per child added tax? Afterall if you want more children you should contribute more for their benefit not just bank on the strangers kindness through the tax system?
If you don’t believe that humanity should die out then you indirectly recognise that people need to have children. If we need children then shouldn’t that burden be shared? I suspect that the main reason for birth rates dropping below the replacement rate across most of the developed world (apart from access to contraceptives/the pill) is that prospective parents can see all the negatives of having children (time, cost, effort) and the long term rewards (for many the odd visit and phone call once they have flown the nest) and decided that they would be better off with no or fewer children. However collectively that is going to lead to huge demographic problems.
This should be fun for a Sunday morning.
So, tax 30 percent of the population who don’t have children? They’ll consume less tea because they won’t have excess money any more now they’re paying more tax. which will reduce sales of tea, meaning redundancies and the tea company may go bust. Impacting the entire supply chain.
You’d then have to pay more for your tea due to less competition.
(Think my logic is as sound as the op’s
So, tax 30 percent of the population who don’t have children? They’ll consume less tea because they won’t have excess money any more now they’re paying more tax. which will reduce sales of tea, meaning redundancies and the tea company may go bust. Impacting the entire supply chain.
You’d then have to pay more for your tea due to less competition.
(Think my logic is as sound as the op’s
No. As alreday stated, massive population increases are not sustianable.
We already can't cope with the current population, lack of GPs, infrastructure etc.
When they build new houses, they rarely include the required infrastructure and just tag extra houses on to already struggling towns etc.
It wont happen in my lifetime but I think society needs to get away from its obsession with growing the economy and instead focus on the quality of life of its citizens instead.
We already can't cope with the current population, lack of GPs, infrastructure etc.
When they build new houses, they rarely include the required infrastructure and just tag extra houses on to already struggling towns etc.
It wont happen in my lifetime but I think society needs to get away from its obsession with growing the economy and instead focus on the quality of life of its citizens instead.
Billy_Rosewood said:
People with more kids than they can afford are the selfish ones. I wouldn't consider someone without kids selfish at all. I don't blame them given the world today!
If anything, there a should be progressive tax on having more than 2 kids.
If governments were doing anything more than paying lip service to issues like Global Warming/water supply/natural resources having progressive taxation on bigger families would be real. I say this with 3 kids (would have been two but we got a third one free! Twins!) If anything, there a should be progressive tax on having more than 2 kids.
The population apparently within 50 years or so is supposedly going to be in steep decline so conversely to the situation today there might actually be programs of very strong incentives or even compulsion to have children as populations decline. The issue of declining population is in some ways more worrying than over population.
Skeptisk said:
pidsy said:
Erm…
I would love to hear the logic behind that belief.
It was set out in the first post…did you read it or just respond to the thread title?I would love to hear the logic behind that belief.
Shows deeply flawed logic. Just wondered if this was something you’d read in the internet (and could provide a link to) or if it was something you came up with.
jayymannon said:
No. As alreday stated, massive population increases are not sustianable.
We already can't cope with the current population, lack of GPs, infrastructure etc.
When they build new houses, they rarely include the required infrastructure and just tag extra houses on to already struggling towns etc.
It wont happen in my lifetime but I think society needs to get away from its obsession with growing the economy and instead focus on the quality of life of its citizens instead.
It's one gigantic ponzi schemeWe already can't cope with the current population, lack of GPs, infrastructure etc.
When they build new houses, they rarely include the required infrastructure and just tag extra houses on to already struggling towns etc.
It wont happen in my lifetime but I think society needs to get away from its obsession with growing the economy and instead focus on the quality of life of its citizens instead.
This feels slightly bonkers.
I don't have children. I don't think I "consume" much from the state.
Perhaps look at tax breaks for parents but I'm struggling a little with why I should have some sort of arbitrary "no kids" tax imposed on me.
I've read the OP several times and I'm still not seeing it or understanding it if it's there.
I don't have children. I don't think I "consume" much from the state.
Perhaps look at tax breaks for parents but I'm struggling a little with why I should have some sort of arbitrary "no kids" tax imposed on me.
I've read the OP several times and I'm still not seeing it or understanding it if it's there.
Skeptisk said:
Not having children is the ultimate expression of selfishness. People that deliberately don’t contribute to the continuation of society should perhaps be required to contribute in other ways through higher taxes, restrictions in the benefits they receive from society, such as healthcare and pensions.
We already can't build enough houses and infrastructure like GP surgeries and schools, to cope with the selfish ones who can't keep their zippers shut.Childless couples are actually doing the country a favour.
I guess that this thread was triggered by the current child benefit thread?
My simple answer would be no, they obviously shouldn’t.
There is an argument however that non-parents, on average, will tend to earn more, be more economically productive and consume fewer government services so perhaps they should pay less?
Yes, the world needs repopulating but let’s please stop pretending that parents are doing anything for the benefit of society rather than to meet their own personal desires. If a financial payment or tax discount is what it takes to motivate someone to become a parent it’s far less likely that the resulting offspring will become a credit to future society so it’s probably best that they don’t bother.
My simple answer would be no, they obviously shouldn’t.
There is an argument however that non-parents, on average, will tend to earn more, be more economically productive and consume fewer government services so perhaps they should pay less?
Yes, the world needs repopulating but let’s please stop pretending that parents are doing anything for the benefit of society rather than to meet their own personal desires. If a financial payment or tax discount is what it takes to motivate someone to become a parent it’s far less likely that the resulting offspring will become a credit to future society so it’s probably best that they don’t bother.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff