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

Should Childless couples be taxed more?

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Deenie123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭Deenie123


    People with children get a dependent child tax credit.

    People without children do not get this credit.

    People without children in otherwise identical circumstances pay more tax than people with children.


    It already happens. End of argument.


  • Options
    #123
    DazMarz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,493 ✭✭✭DazMarz


    looking_around wrote: »
    better idea, lets kill everyone when they reach the age of 70. They get a couple of years retirement, and we can use that saved pension money to lower the tax for everyone. :pac:

    win - win.....................eh well......

    Fúck that... let's go the whole hog and do a Logan's Run on it!

    Life stops at 35 and there's no pensions or old people to worry about! Plus, we all get to live in massive bio-domes, wear naff 70's-futuristic clothes, have passionless sex and have big carnivals where people explode into colourful confetti!!! :D


  • Options
    #124
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Deenie123 wrote: »
    People with children get a dependent child tax credit.

    People without children do not get this credit.

    People without children in otherwise identical circumstances pay more tax than people with children.


    It already happens. End of argument.

    No they don't:

    There is a tax credit for single parents, or those with incapacitated children, or stay at home mothers, they is NO General dependant children tax credit.


  • Options
    #125
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Tax people for NOT having children?

    I'm drunk as a skunk right now and even I can tell you that's a regressive tax! The State can only incentivise people to have children, it can't punish them for NOT having children.

    While you're right OP that we face an uncertain future with an ageing population that will be poorly serviced if the current lack of State resources already are anything to go by, this doesn't entitle the State to place undue hardship on people who either have chosen not to have children, or are unwilling or unable to have children, or simply lack the financial means to support children.

    Children for the most part (excluding unexpected and unfortunate circumstances) are a lifestyle choice for most people, and I don't believe in the State incentivising lifestyle choices for it's citizens. I also don't believe in expecting children should become their parents primary carers saving the State another fortune.

    Tbh OP I've come out with some hair brained notions even while sober, so I'm sitting here wondering what the hell is your excuse?


  • Options
    #126
    Deenie123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭Deenie123


    efb wrote: »
    No they don't:

    There is a tax credit for single parents, or those with incapacitated children, or stay at home mothers, they is NO General dependant children tax credit.

    My bad, obviously misread something somewhere.

    Doesn't matter anyway, they still get children's allowance so their overall contribution is that much less.

    I'm of the view that having children is a choice you make. If you can't afford them - dont have them. They're your choice to have, the state as a whole funds services only children avail of so why should the state go any further? Having dependent children also brings some people into medical card qualification who otherwise wouldnt qualify.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Deenie123 wrote: »
    My bad, obviously misread something somewhere.

    Doesn't matter anyway, they still get children's allowance so their overall contribution is that much less.

    I'm of the view that having children is a choice you make. If you can't afford them - dont have them. They're your choice to have, the state as a whole funds services only children avail of so why should the state go any further? Having dependent children also brings some people into medical card qualification who otherwise wouldnt qualify.

    What should the state pay for???
    That's a very individualisc way to look at things not looking at the bigger picture, or society's needs


  • Options
    #128
    Deenie123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭Deenie123


    efb wrote: »
    What should the state pay for???
    That's a very individualisc way to look at things not looking at the bigger picture, or society's needs

    The state is already as a whole paying for educating every child as well as giving parents a cash stipend for each and every child they have. How is it individualistic to say that if people choose to have kids they should cover the bulk of the cost associated with them?


  • Options
    #129
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    efb wrote: »
    What should the state pay for???
    That's a very individualisc way to look at things not looking at the bigger picture, or society's needs


    People aren't obliged to look at the bigger picture though, that's falls under Government's remit, one apparently they're not giving much attention to either, but thankfully I can't see them adopting the OP's ideas any time soon as they understand the idea behind individual taxation and progressive taxation.

    Expecting people to pay extra taxes for something they don't have, something they gain no benefit from? That's never going to fly.


  • Options
    #130
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,177 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    How about a tax on dumbass jawflapping that gives the fcukan Blueshirts even more ideas?


  • Options
    #131
    Merrion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,421 ✭✭✭Merrion


    Child benefit is not means tested which means it is a de-facto tax benefit (if you get money from the state it is functionally equivalent to a tax rebate) so in fact Deenie123 is correct.

    Should this be the case? I'd argue yes since we are going to rely on these children to both pay our pensions and take care of our incontinence diapers when the time comes. It's a fairly disgusting prospect for them so we'll need to monopolise the housing market so as to force them into eternal rent. Who's with me?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Jester252
    Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Why only childless couples? Why should childless singles get away with free monies?


  • Options
    #133
    SterlingArcher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,767 ✭✭✭SterlingArcher


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Why only childless couples? Why should childless singles get away with free monies?

    That's it Burn them all.


  • Options
    #134
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,188 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Fat Christy wrote: »
    The population is set to rise in the coming years to a point where it will no longer be sustainable. I, personally, don't think we should be encouraging people to have more children....

    What are you mental? :pac:
    Wait, I bet you are a student.


  • Options
    #135
    cruais
    Registered Users Posts: 1,559 ✭✭✭cruais


    Yes, lets penalise those that don't have children, because that would make a whole lot of sense....

    No way would that discriminatory tax work.
    I bet you're "inda kinny"


  • Options
    #136
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    Children are a luxury not a necessity. Means test child benefit or stop paying child benefit and abolish Rent Allowance and see how fast the birth rate falls. If people can't afford kids they shouldn't have them. Those of us who chose not to have kids shouldn't have to pay for anyone else's kids. There's no shortage of immigrant workers so we don't need to continue to encourage people to breed.


  • Options
    #137
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    There's no shortage of immigrant workers so we don't need to continue to encourage people to breed.

    Dear lord.


  • Options
    #138
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    We have a problem with human over population in the world right now. We need to be rewarding people for having less kids.


  • Options
    #139
    K.Flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    DazMarz wrote: »
    Fúck that... let's go the whole hog and do a Logan's Run on it!

    Life stops at 35 and there's no pensions or old people to worry about! Plus, we all get to live in massive bio-domes, wear naff 70's-futuristic clothes, have passionless sex and have big carnivals where people explode into colourful confetti!!! :D

    Nah..

    Lets be the first country to introduce the Soylent Green system.


  • Options
    #140
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    We have a problem with human over population in the world right now. We need to be rewarding people for having less kids.

    That's debatable really. Lots of scientific opinion pushes against that.


  • Options
    #141
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Tarzana2 wrote: »
    That's debatable really. Lots of scientific opinion pushes against that.

    Lots of scientific literature says we don't have huge increases in human population or that it's not a problem?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    ChillMhantain
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭ChillMhantain


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Still going down, thus this supports that right across Europe people cant afford to have children. So should we give out more in benefits or tax those without kids more?

    Cant afford to start a family, lets tax them even more. At this stage I really think you are trolling.


  • Options
    #143
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    We have a problem with human over population in the world right now. We need to be rewarding people for having less kids.


    Isn't that like, rewarding people for doing nothing?


  • Options
    #144
    Chocolate Lions
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Chocolate Lions


    Some cretin decides they'd like a group of people they are clearly jealous of (ridiculously) taxed in order to supplement themselves, and everybody jumps in? Seriously guys, rise above..


  • Options
    #145
    SMJSF
    Registered Users Posts: 600 ✭✭✭SMJSF


    right I need to correct this:

    "childless" people CAN'T have kids.

    "Childfree" people choose not to have kids.

    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #146
    rainemac
    Registered Users Posts: 170 ✭✭rainemac


    Deleted User wrote:
    Everybody pays for that if they are working, the point I am raising is that when it comes to retirement those who choose not to have kids enjoy the same rights and privileges as those who did have kids, yet those with kids paid far more to have them despite the kids of the future paying for everything in their taxes.


    Didnt read the replies but Some people have no choice in whether they can have kids or not and the only way they make it through that is by using that extra money to get away from their happy family friends now and again. It could also be said that childless couples contribute more throughout their lives in their taxes and take less from social welfare by not taking maternity leave or having child benefit.


  • Options
    #147
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Lots of scientific literature says we don't have huge increases in human population or that it's not a problem?

    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.


  • Options
    #148
    wexfordman2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,546 ✭✭✭wexfordman2


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    We have a problem with human over population in the world right now. We need to be rewarding people for having less kids.


    Not in this country we don't


  • Options
    #149
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    What a ridiculous suggestion.

    If that were introduced, I would emigrate.

    Ireland's already been down the route of socially engineering enormous families by banning contraception for decades making us deservedly look like she kind of crazy theocracy for all that time.

    Maybe put some effort into reducing the cost and improving the quality of childcare, deal with the vast waste of money going on as the theoretical National Children's Hospital fights with itself over its location while pouring 10s of millions of the health budget down the toilet etc etc etc etc etc

    Ireland's population is also growing. There's no impending population shrinkage going on.

    Ensuring the economy is functioning and most importantly predictably stable will ensure population growth.

    The post Tiger crisis drove and continues to drive a lot of Irish people abroad.


  • Options
    #150
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    SMJSF wrote: »
    right I need to correct this:

    "childless" people CAN'T have kids.

    "Childfree" people choose not to have kids.

    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.

    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.

    You don't get to pick and choose where your taxes go. It's not charity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Chocolate Lions wrote: »
    Some cretin decides they'd like a group of people they are clearly jealous of (ridiculously) taxed in order to supplement themselves, and everybody jumps in? Seriously guys, rise above..

    And then you get the inevitable responses from those without children who look down their noses at those who do. Can we not just respect one another's choices?


Advertisement