What Happens If You Tax Couples For Having Three Or More Children? Watch

locrian37
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
To filter out the dole scum in the system, you can either:

1.) The first two children you have are tax-free, and you get the usual benefits for them, for every child over, you receive no benefits and you pay some tax for them.

Or:

2.) You can have as many children as you like with a smaller amount of tax for each, but you receive no benefits for any of them.

This helps to reduce dole queens by essentially saying, "you can have a reasonable amount of children", any more and it becomes really a luxury to have what you don't really need, and you need to work to support them.

OR:
If you already worked hard and can support a family, we won't punish you by making you pay as much tax as the dole scum, but you're on your own when it comes to support.

What happen? Civil war? or just more QQ?

0
reply
locrian37
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#2
lal nobody knows?
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
It would deter people from having more kids.

The end result would be an ageing population and a fall in birth rates. That's bad for the economy and society. The gap would have to be filled by immigrants.
2
reply
locrian37
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
It would deter people from having more kids.

The end result would be an ageing population and a fall in birth rates. That's bad for the economy and society. The gap would have to be filled by immigrants.
First two children tax-free and you get usual benefits... Just sayin'
0
reply
Alfissti
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by locrian37)
lal nobody knows?
You should read up on Singapore's population control policy and it's impact on it's population today.

They did offer lots of benefits of stopping at 2 and also had lots of incentives for sterilization after 2 kids especially if the woman was lower-class or under-educated.
0
reply
nohomo
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
It would deter people from having more kids.

The end result would be an ageing population and a fall in birth rates. That's bad for the economy and society. The gap would have to be filled by immigrants.
I'm not sure if this is wrong, but wouldn't "dole-scum" kids probably go on to be "dole scum" i.e. contribute nothing but take a lot from the economy and society?

Obviously this isn't always the case.
0
reply
hslakaal
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by locrian37)
First two children tax-free and you get usual benefits... Just sayin'
Don't forget a lot of people don't ever reproduce.

By your suggestion, you'd end up with a decline in population.
0
reply
nohomo
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by hslakaal)
Don't forget a lot of people don't ever reproduce.

By your suggestion, you'd end up with a decline in population.
But probably a higher-quality population, no?
0
reply
hslakaal
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by nohomo)
But probably a higher-quality population, no?
Oh right. Totally forgot that the children of wealthy and well-educated families always strive for higher morale grounds, and never ever take drugs, abuse money, or have petty fights over who's wealthier than who. :rolleyes:
2
reply
Huskaris
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
Hopefully people stop having kids that I have to pay for
0
reply
nohomo
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by hslakaal)
Oh right. Totally forgot that the children of wealthy and well-educated families always strive for higher morale grounds, and never ever take drugs, abuse money, or have petty fights over who's wealthier than who. :rolleyes:
We're not talking about the difference between the children of a doctor and the children of two hard working parents in minimum wage jobs. We're talking about the difference between the children of parents who do literally nothing but claim benefits and the children of people who work and contribute something.

What's wrong with not always striving for higher grounds, taking drugs, abusing money and having petty fights anyway, if overall you actually contribute more than you take or break even?
0
reply
Malevolent
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
Well it means I probably wouldn't have been born then haha
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by nohomo)
But probably a higher-quality population, no?
That would need looking after in their old age and wouldn't be have people around to look after them. No nurses, carers, meals on wheels etc.
0
reply
nohomo
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
That would need looking after in their old age and wouldn't be have people around to look after them. No nurses, carers, meals on wheels etc.
Of course, we need these people, and they should be paid fairly. But we'd still have these people, and would just have fewer people needing them: the OP, I think, is talking about weeding out families of benefit loafers who contribute nothing and take a lot of resources. Not hard-working nurses, carers, etc.

I think it's the distinction between the willing poor and the unwilling poor.
0
reply
locrian37
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by hslakaal)
Don't forget a lot of people don't ever reproduce.

By your suggestion, you'd end up with a decline in population.
Well it depends what the present... "fertility" (?) rate... would be? But given that just about every other ****ing person is whining about overpopulation and also due immigration... It seems to me its fair.
0
reply
hslakaal
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by locrian37)
Well it depends what the present... "fertility" (?) rate... would be? But given that just about every other ****ing person is whining about overpopulation and also due immigration... It seems to me its fair.
The current fertility rate is as it stands, current.

That figure will not affect the growth of a population should there be any changes to your country's policies on encouraging/discouraging reproduction.

I shall remove myself from this thread, as I have no real interest, except to point out, neutrally, what would happen to your country in a strictly academic sense.
0
reply
andrew2209
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
Chavs will claim it's their "human right" to have as many children as they want, and then claim their being forced to live in poverty as nobody is helping them pay for their children's food and clothes. (And by food and clothes I mean 42' HD TV's and Sky+)

However, I do agree in principle to this idea, as it could discourage people from having children they can't afford.
1
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
de-population is going to have to happen anyway due to the fact that we will have robots to replace manual labour soon.
0
reply
Signal
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
de-population is going to have to happen anyway due to the fact that we will have robots to replace manual labour soon.
Just like when we brought in the spinny jenny? :rolleyes:
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
I'm not really sure why you'd want to tax people for having children given that we need a higher birth rate to fuel future economic growth. Your argument that the children of the underclass will likely follow in their parents footsteps while somewhat true (though not exclusively - i myself come from a benefits background) is exceptionally defeatist, one should tackle the issues surrounding a potential lack of social mobility, not just decide that only the upper classes should breed.

That being said i am somewhat a fiscal conservative so i'd stop child benefits at 3 children.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (145)
17.64%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (74)
9%
No I am happy with my course choice (485)
59%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (118)
14.36%

Watched Threads

View All