I beg to differ, the South is over populated - we need to somehow spread people out, not simply get more people.
Newborn tax?
- Thread starter Cryogenic
- Start date
I beg to differ, the South is over populated - we need to somehow spread people out, not simply get more people.
Ok, 3 questions:
1. Should every couple have a child?
2. What do you think should be a maximum size limit per family, or do you propose there is no limit?
3. Should people with children pay more, or less tax?
I'm talking about demographic shifts, the ageing population means a reduction in those of working age and a shift towards dependents. This is not the same as population density in one area relative to another.
You forgot the 4th question, should the taxpayer be paying for chavs to have kids?
Yes, but the people having all the kids now-a-days are the chavs, mostly on benefits. They will not be contributing anything to the economy in the future anyway, and will in fact be just another drain.
Having an ageing population is not necessarily bad, potentially any extra people needed in country can be covered by immigrants (as if we don't have enough) or any funding shortages by corporate tax (either higher tax, or by attracting more companies to locate and be base din UX)
1. No
2. Thankfully there is no need to impose such a limit and as we do not live under communism or facism it is unlikely we will see one in the medium term
3. The number of children held by a family is not the system in this country for determining the amount of tax they pay - broadly speaking that comes down to income - if I earn more than you I pay more tax than you
The problem you are trying (and failing) to solve can best be solved through reform of benefits and has absolutely nothing to do with taxation in the direct manner you are proposing.
Yes, that sounds like an attractive package for attracting companies to Britain: increased corporate taxation and a reducing work force bolstered by imigration. Bravo.
Thanks for your reply, agreed about reform. In reponse to 1, true, not all couples have children. In response to 2, agreed, there is no limit yet. In reponse to 3, agreed, the more you earn the more tax you pay.
Now consider this. if I had 20 bars of chocolate and became overweight, doctors then propose a fat tax as they are doing on the news these days.
If I drink 1000 units of alcohol and get admitted to hospital, doctors are proposing an alcohol tax per unit as per the news.
If you propose there are no limits to children as my question 2 stated, then I guess are you also against fat taxes to prevent obesity, and alcohol binge drinking to prevent loutishness. My proposal was simply a newborn tax to make people think more before mindlessly having a child, and then expecting other people to support their child. People who have 7 children etc. should definately pay more tax regardless of income as benefits can be deducted too. In return, childless couples or single people should get a tax rebate for schools funding and child health to help them get on in life. Like everything in life, raising a child is a life choice and it is noones responsibility but yours
Thanks for your reply, agreed about reform. In reponse to 1, true, not all couples have children. In response to 2, agreed, there is no limit yet. In reponse to 3, agreed, the more you earn the more tax you pay.
Now consider this. if I had 20 bars of chocolate and became overweight, doctors then propose a fat tax as they are doing on the news these days.
If I drink 1000 units of alcohol and get admitted to hospital, doctors are proposing an alcohol tax per unit as per the news.
If you propose there are no limits to children as my question 2 stated, then I guess are you also against fat taxes to prevent obesity, and alcohol binge drinking to prevent loutishness. My proposal was simply a newborn tax to make people think more before mindlessly having a child, and then expecting other people to support their child. People who have 7 children etc. should definately pay more tax regardless of income as benefits can be deducted too. In return, childless couples or single people should get a tax rebate for schools funding and child health to help them get on in life. Like everything in life, raising a child is a life choice and it is noones responsibility but yours
Yes, OK then. If we're going in that direction, I wont pay much tax at all because I consume public services at a much lower rate than most people. How would that work? Oh dear, not enough to go around for all the semi-literates and plebs. So we best keep the status quo.
As to whether there should be a limit to the number of children or a tax on children - no and no (as I've said) - you are barking up the wrong tree. No need for new taxes or draconian reform. The minority who are not entering into parenthood responsibly should not benefit financially from having extra kids so that just means reforming benefits not making up some hokey tax.
Last edited:
Do you work for IR? You seem intent on creating arbitrary means of creating administrative work and of raising modest amounts of tax.
No to no limit on children
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one in favour of benefit reform.But you've hit upon a good idea, PAYG public services, you are onto a winner my boy, could work if it was optional like mobile phone services
Last edited:
My understanding of these is that the tax acts as a true deterrent, because the purchasing of the chocolate/alcohol becomes more expensive, hence (ideally) less attractive.
How exactly are you going to make sex an unattractive prospect at the point of consumption (so to speak)? It's one of the cheapest activities in the short term - doesn't even require you to be able to clothe yourself.
I can see why this might deter middle class parents from having children - as they may be more likely to actually plan their family. So we can have fewer middle class children (the ones who are more likely to end up paying lots of tax), and there is no obvious reason why there would be a massive drop off in "chav" offspring.
Whereas I do understand were you are coming from I think there are far too many problems that this would create.
Firstly, you make no distinction between the "large chav families" and people like Mrs Snail and myself who waited until we were financally secure before having Baby Snail and, as a consequence, payed huge amounts of tax in the meantime. I can also assure you that babies are bloody expensive things and come with a huge bill anyway!
In addition, what are you going to do if someone cannot pay? Not deliver the baby in hospital and perhaps let it die? If we had not been at an excellent NHS hostpital which provided fabulous care I might have lost both baby and wife when he was born.
One issue which is often forgotten here is that it is not the child's fault it has been born and you cannot penalize it for this. Unfortunately sex is a basic human drive and people will continue to have it.
Having said this, however, I agree that there is a problem here with society which I cannot see a single solution to. As stated above - perhaps a reform of benefits coupled with education????
Firstly, you make no distinction between the "large chav families" and people like Mrs Snail and myself who waited until we were financally secure before having Baby Snail and, as a consequence, payed huge amounts of tax in the meantime. I can also assure you that babies are bloody expensive things and come with a huge bill anyway!
In addition, what are you going to do if someone cannot pay? Not deliver the baby in hospital and perhaps let it die? If we had not been at an excellent NHS hostpital which provided fabulous care I might have lost both baby and wife when he was born.
One issue which is often forgotten here is that it is not the child's fault it has been born and you cannot penalize it for this. Unfortunately sex is a basic human drive and people will continue to have it.
Having said this, however, I agree that there is a problem here with society which I cannot see a single solution to. As stated above - perhaps a reform of benefits coupled with education????
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
This is by far the most sensible and concise reply.
Also, a common thing that crops up in people's posts (from what I can determine anyway) is that they automatically assume a family with money will give a better upbringing to a child than a family that has less money .
Using the stereotype of 'chav' families as a justification for any kind of new laws or taxes is unfair too.
I agree. Too many spoiled kids around I think
As is blaming anyone BUT the government\civil service\corporations for problems that are at least partially their doing. If they weren't leeching off us indirectly (Capita is one notable example, as is the LDA), there would be less taxation overall and we wouldn't see Middle England whining about it constantly on here.
PS: Chimerical, did you get my email?
"Firstly, you make no distinction between the "large chav families" and people like Mrs Snail and myself who waited until we were financally secure before having Baby Snail and, as a consequence, payed huge amounts of tax in the meantime."
Ok, firstly whether you have a baby or not, your tax bill stays the same currently. You have done the right thing by waiting until financially secure, I believe you should pay a premium to send the child to school and to pay for child healthcare. My argument is to cut the tax bill of those people who do not want a baby snail themselves so to put it
"I can also assure you that babies are bloody expensive things and come with a huge bill anyway!"
Of course, but it will be your choice to have the baby at the end of the day therefore these costs will have to be borne by yourself unfortunately.
"In addition, what are you going to do if someone cannot pay? Not deliver the baby in hospital and perhaps let it die?"
No, I do not propose a facist dictatorship
All babies will be allowed birth as the NHS currently does, but you will also get an invoice from HMRC to cover the childs future costs. Those who cannot pay could have £1 per week deducted from their benefits until the bill is repaid.
"One issue which is often forgotten here is that it is not the child's fault it has been born and you cannot penalize it for this."
My policy does not penalise the child, just the parents. You would not buy a car from a showroom, and expect the taxpayer to put petrol in the car.
" Unfortunately sex is a basic human drive and people will continue to have it."
Of course it is, most of the time it is casual. But if it (sex) leads to a little one, it should marry itself to the pocket of the parents.
"Having said this, however, I agree that there is a problem here with society which I cannot see a single solution to. As stated above - perhaps a reform of benefits coupled with education????"
This is the sort of reform I propose, sorry in advance if it sounds harsh but it is a realistic proposal
Ok, firstly whether you have a baby or not, your tax bill stays the same currently. You have done the right thing by waiting until financially secure, I believe you should pay a premium to send the child to school and to pay for child healthcare. My argument is to cut the tax bill of those people who do not want a baby snail themselves so to put it
"I can also assure you that babies are bloody expensive things and come with a huge bill anyway!"
Of course, but it will be your choice to have the baby at the end of the day therefore these costs will have to be borne by yourself unfortunately.
"In addition, what are you going to do if someone cannot pay? Not deliver the baby in hospital and perhaps let it die?"
No, I do not propose a facist dictatorship
All babies will be allowed birth as the NHS currently does, but you will also get an invoice from HMRC to cover the childs future costs. Those who cannot pay could have £1 per week deducted from their benefits until the bill is repaid."One issue which is often forgotten here is that it is not the child's fault it has been born and you cannot penalize it for this."
My policy does not penalise the child, just the parents. You would not buy a car from a showroom, and expect the taxpayer to put petrol in the car.
" Unfortunately sex is a basic human drive and people will continue to have it."
Of course it is, most of the time it is casual. But if it (sex) leads to a little one, it should marry itself to the pocket of the parents.
"Having said this, however, I agree that there is a problem here with society which I cannot see a single solution to. As stated above - perhaps a reform of benefits coupled with education????"
This is the sort of reform I propose, sorry in advance if it sounds harsh but it is a realistic proposal
Good point, I propose the NHS should be reformed slightly to be free to taxpayers and those on benefits only if the proposal were to work effectively. If such a scenario would be possible, then you would not get a rebate for your £1500 as it would count towards the childs education and health costs even if you went private. Though I should point out, an NHS midwife would be provided free as you pay tax hence contribute to the NHS.