Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Should there be a tax on having Children?

  • 06-07-2010 01:03AM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 685 ✭✭✭


    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!


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 645 ✭✭✭rockmongrel


    No. Absolutely unequivocally no.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 685 ✭✭✭jock101


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 645 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    jock101 wrote: »
    Why not, there are an future asset,

    Soylent green?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 685 ✭✭✭jock101


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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 645 ✭✭✭rockmongrel


    jock101 wrote: »
    Whats illogical about taxing young or future Consumers. How does it affect childrens human rights?

    In before lock.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 685 ✭✭✭jock101


    In before lock.


    Come again???

    It may cost you though?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 645 ✭✭✭rockmongrel


    jock101 wrote: »
    Come again???

    It may cost you though?

    What may cost me?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 685 ✭✭✭jock101


    In before lock.

    What?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 645 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 685 ✭✭✭jock101


    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:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 645 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭lmimmfn


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

    Ignoring idiots who comment "far right" because they don't even know what it means



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 685 ✭✭✭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!:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 645 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 685 ✭✭✭jock101


    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!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 645 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 685 ✭✭✭jock101


    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!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭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.[


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 645 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭lmimmfn


    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

    Ignoring idiots who comment "far right" because they don't even know what it means



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 685 ✭✭✭jock101


    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!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 685 ✭✭✭jock101


    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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,053 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 685 ✭✭✭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!;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,819 ✭✭✭dan_d


    No.
    Why would you tax people for existing?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,053 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Don't tax them, but don't subsidise them either.

    i didnt think you were a free marketer :p


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement