Should there be a tax on having Children?

jock101

With the cost to the state of people having children through Welfare and other benefits, should the State tax people on the number of children they produce!

rockmongrel

No. Absolutely unequivocally no.

jock101

Why not, there are an future asset, and they cost the State money. So why not tax by direct or indirect taxation!

rockmongrel

jock101 wrote: »

Why not, there are an future asset, and they cost the State money. So why not tax by direct or indirect taxation!

A future asset? You realise from a purely economical point of view an asset is a good thing.
You have to be either taking the piss or have a fundamental misunderstanding of both human rights and logic.

mikom

jock101 wrote: »

Why not, there are an future asset,

Soylent green?

jock101

Whats illogical about taxing young or future Consumers. How does it affect childrens human rights?

rockmongrel

jock101 wrote: »

Whats illogical about taxing young or future Consumers. How does it affect childrens human rights?

In before lock.

jock101

rockmongrel wrote: »

In before lock.

Come again???

It may cost you though?

rockmongrel

jock101 wrote: »

Come again???

It may cost you though?

What may cost me?

jock101

rockmongrel wrote: »

In before lock.

What?

rockmongrel

jock101 wrote: »

What?

Disregard that, I said in before lock as this thread will probably be closed quite soon, or at least moved.

Anyway, what may cost me OP? Unless you're trolling and have no idea where you're going with this, but, I digress.

jock101

rockmongrel wrote: »

Disregard that, I said in before lock as this thread will probably be closed quite soon, or at least moved.

Anyway, what may cost me OP? Unless you're trolling and have no idea where you're going with this, but, I digress.

Forget about it, Why would it be closed! Its a legitimate idea!

Or is Idea's and opinion not allow by you?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

rockmongrel

jock101 wrote: »

Forget about it, Why would it be closed! Its a legitimate idea!

Or is Idea's and opinion not allow by you?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

You still haven't answered my question, how will it cost me? And how is it legitimate? What do you even mean by that?

lmimmfn

no, there should be a dole bonus on NOT having kids

jock101

lmimmfn wrote: »

no, there should be a dole bonus on NOT having kids

Thats one reason for taxing people who procreate, giv'it with one hand, and tak'it with the other! Stop the incentives to breed!:)

rockmongrel

lmimmfn wrote: »

no, there should be a dole bonus on NOT having kids

I'm 20 and have no kids. However, many of my friends parents are struggling through the recession on the dole, have kids and the what not. Not risk takers during the boom years. You actually think they should be punished for what is effectively a biological imperative?

jock101

rockmongrel wrote: »

I'm 20 and have no kids. However, many of my friends parents are struggling through the recession on the dole, have kids and the what not. Not risk takers during the boom years. You actually think they should be punished for what is effectively a biological imperative?

Well many people should be not encouraged to have kids, and hitting the pocket is a good way to persuade not people to!

rockmongrel

jock101 wrote: »

Well many people should be not encouraged to have kids, and hitting the pocket is a good way to persuade not people to!

How sweet, human existence reduced to petty cash.

jock101

rockmongrel wrote: »

I'm 20 and have no kids. However, many of my friends parents are struggling through the recession on the dole, have kids and the what not. Not risk takers during the boom years. You actually think they should be punished for what is effectively a biological imperative?

Well then, if not taxing it, licensing the right to reproduce! Based on income and resources!

Byron85

jock101 wrote: »

Well many people should be not encouraged to have kids, and hitting the pocket is a good way to persuade not people to!

I hope you realise that Ireland is only one of I think three countries in Europe, the two other countries being Britain and France, whose birth rate is higher than the death rate. Be glad that we live in such a country.

Edit: Here's some more information worth mulling over.

Giuseppe Carone and Declan Costello of the International Monetary Fund projected in September 2006 that the ratio of retirees to workers in Europe will double to 0.54 by 2050 from four workers to two workers for every retiree.[1]

By 2050 the ratio of Europe's working age to senior age population will decrease by 50%, two workers instead of four for every retiree.[3] The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the European Union will experience a 14% decrease in its workforce and a 7% decrease in its consumer populations by 2030.[

rockmongrel

jock101 wrote: »

Well then, if not taxing it, licensing the right to reproduce! Based on income and resources!

Changing your tune quite suddenly aren't we? Almost as though you're posting to get a rise out of people, not really having thought through any point really.

Anyway, while we're at it, why not euthanise the elderly! Sure they're just sponging off the state.

lmimmfn

rockmongrel wrote: »

I'm 20 and have no kids. However, many of my friends parents are struggling through the recession on the dole, have kids and the what not. Not risk takers during the boom years. You actually think they should be punished for what is effectively a biological imperative?

everyone has their own story, im not saying people should be punished as is, im saying whatevers there now, keep it, but reduce the number of welfare kids.

Dont know about your friends, but both myself and the wife are having a kid in November and i dont even know how we're going to fair with just supporting 1 kid. We both have decent jobs, so WTF is the story with being on the dole and having more than 1 kid? dont get me wrong i realise people might have been working and got laid off but still, how the hell do people afford kids in this country? and why on top of that can welfare heads have tonnes of kids and workers can barely afford 1.

As i said in another thread if the wife took a year off then based on my earnings( and i get more than the wife ) between the 2 of us for a year we would be better off on the dole lol

I was down in the hospital 4-5 weeks ago with my wife for her scan, there was a woman there who was well on in her pregnancy, she was about 45, proud as punch that it was her 8th kid and her eldest was 23? i mean cmon, WTF is that about.

Also i have a mate who gets over 700euro a week on welfare with his 3 kids, dole and rent allowance, WTF is going on?

Hardcore as it is, there should be a license to have kids, if you cant afford a kid before having one then you shouldnt be allowed to have kids

jock101

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

I hope you realise that Ireland is only one of I think 3 countries in Europe whose birth rate is higher than the death rate. Be glad that we live in such a country.

Well by the behavour of the little delinquents produced in the 80's and early 90's roaming our streets now, and lack of Laws to contain them. Do you really want more! Especially if they are produced by the current so called parents! Thats what I call some Society to live in. Tax it now!

jock101

rockmongrel wrote: »

Changing your tune quite suddenly aren't we? Almost as though you're posting to get a rise out of people, not really having thought through any point really.

Anyway, while we're at it, why not euthanise the elderly! Sure they're just sponging off the state.

Oh no, Im quite serious on my views!

BostonB

jock101 wrote: »

With the cost to the state of people having children through Welfare and other benefits, should the State tax people on the number of children they produce!

It makes no sense to give out money, then have the expense of getting it back again.

jock101

BostonB wrote: »

It makes no sense to give out money, then have the expense of getting it back again.

True, but it would be far more politically difficult to try and convince the welfare classes to practice contraception!;)

dan_d

No.
Why would you tax people for existing?

BostonB

jock101 wrote: »

True, but it would be far more politically difficult to try and convince the welfare classes to practice contraception!;)

All of your ideas are political suicide.

In real life, poorer people are much more likely to have big families, so there will be someone to look after them when they are older themselves. Thats been human nature for centuries.

So your ideas fail on every level.

Liam Byrne

Don't tax them, but don't subsidise them either.

ei.sdraob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Don't tax them, but don't subsidise them either.

i didnt think you were a free marketer

johnnyskeleton

jock101 wrote: »

Well many people should be not encouraged to have kids, and hitting the pocket is a good way to persuade not people to!

So basically, anyone with any sort of job or income of a moderate nature should be discouraged from having children, while the people on benefits can have as many as they like with increasing welfare payments the more they have kids?

So wipe out the productive elements of society, leaving only those who are welfare dependant to populate our country into the future.

That's not a particularly good idea IMO.

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i didnt think you were a free marketer

Ah but that was just you speculating!

gandalf

Children are the future taxpayers of the country. Don't worry they will pay back anything they get in their formative years many times over (and maybe more now that this current generation have saddled them with debt for years to come).

An alternative view would be to tax people more who decide not to have children. They are not providing the state with future tax payers and therefore should be expected to take up some of the future tax loss that the state incurs because of this. You see that is an alternative view to yours

jmayo

jock101 wrote: »

Why not, there are an future asset, and they cost the State money. So why not tax by direct or indirect taxation!

Ehh you do know difference between an asset and a liability ?

Assets tend to be good things you know.
BTW I am not counting the ones owned by NAMA. :rolleyes:

SomeGuyCalledMi

people with kids spend a lot and create jobs eg creches and schools. maybe we should tax childless couples!

RichardAnd

This is a non starter as an idea. Whilst I am in favour of getting rid of the host of benefits that we hand out for having children, making a parent pay the state for a child is absurd.

A parent, a decent one, will have to buy cloths, food, school books and all the other stuff kids need which generate VAT for the state.

I do agree that something has to be done to stop wasters and drug addicts from reproducing but tax is not the answer as they won't pay it anyway. My dad's solution to skangers having offspring is mass sterilisation

jock101

Well the less people there are using public services and resources, the less expense the State has, hence less tax revenue is required to run the country!:rolleyes:

BostonB

jock101 wrote: »

Well the less people there are using public services and resources, the less expense the State has, hence less tax revenue is required to run the country!:rolleyes:

Welcome to Boards Agent Smith

I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we … are the cure.

simplistic2

The state is a massive human farm and no farmer in his right mind wants fewer animals.

seanin4711

hell no!

jmayo

jock101 wrote: »

Well the less people there are using public services and resources, the less expense the State has, hence less tax revenue is required to run the country!:rolleyes:

Eh do you ever think through some of your arguments ?
If you look long term the less people there will be to contribute towards the cost of running the public services necessary for the mass of aging people who will be nearing retirement.
Aging people require more health services, more public transport and pensions.

Or is your solution some form of euthanasia for the retirees ?

Knarr

Children would be turned into a 'status symbol' to a greater degree if a tax like this were introduced. As it is children already do increase the social status (and indeed self worth) of the parents, in a similar way marriage increases a persons percieved status.

The newer the car reg, "the more I am".

The more children, "the more I am".

It turns children into a sort of commodity fetish, if that is the right term.

Im not saying there would be a highly noticable effect like this, but there would be slight changes in this direction imo. We do live in a society where 'self worth' is conflated - in general - with what we can afford and how wealthy we are. With a 'price' on children, this is what would happen.

As it is, children are affordable for almost everyone due to state subsidies and so the status attached is limited.

A tax like this would probably increase the number of births as the poor and working class attempt to increase their social status (as they do with cars and other material objects).

Knarr

jmayo wrote: »

Eh do you ever think through some of your arguments ?
If you look long term the less people there will be to contribute towards the cost of running the public services necessary for the mass of aging people who will be nearing retirement.
Aging people require more health services, more public transport and pensions.

Or is your solution some form of euthanasia for the retirees ?

Is it sustainable to continue population growth simply to serve a market dynamic?

I mean its similar to property construction - build build build in order to keep people in jobs, and in the meantime the bloody countryside and environment are getting shagged.

Very scary > http://math.berkeley.edu/~galen/popclk.html

To solve these problems we must look beyond the market system.

jock101

I dont know whether you have noticed, but the Planet is way over crowded. Look around you, Soaring fuel and commodity prices due to high demand from up and coming areas in the former third world i.e China, India etc.. with ever deceasing resources:rolleyes:. Borders undersiege by Hordes of have nots! Do you really want to bring children into this uncertainty, and now with the worlds economy in the toilet. Review recent history, and you might see whats coming down the line!:eek:

BostonB

If you're not happy you can always leave.

carwash106

If that ever came in I think that the people who receive welfare for children wouldnt have to pay tax because they are on welfare, only the people who could afford to pay for their children would get taxed.

Its not a very nice notion taxing people for having children, its a right to have children not something a state should be allowed to tax.

jock101

BostonB wrote: »

If you're not happy you can always leave.

Leave, go where, the Moon?:rolleyes:

average_runner

Well maybe put it another way, dont tax the parents for the kids but tax the kids when they start their first fulltime job so they pay for all their education etc, so higher tax for your first 5 years!


You like that Jock101?


Of course this is a bad idea like this post is!:D

jock101

average_runner wrote: »

Well maybe put it another way, dont tax the parents for the kids but tax the kids when they start their first fulltime job so they pay for all their education etc, so higher tax for your first 5 years!


You like that Jock101?


Of course this is a bad idea like this post is!:D

No, just tax people for having children. You have a choice, have them and pay, or dont have them and no tax! Or use the China rule, one child per household!:D

doc_17

jock101 wrote: »

No, just tax people for having children. You have a choice, have them and pay, or dont have them and no tax! Or use the China rule, one child per household!:D

In Australia they are paying people to have children, not taxing them. Who will pay for the retirement of millions of people if there are no young workers of the future? Your idea of taxing people because they have kids is not a runner imo

stimpson

jock101 wrote: »

No, just tax people for having children. You have a choice, have them and pay, or dont have them and no tax! Or use the China rule, one child per household!:D

How long have you been a member of the Green Party?