Should childless people be taxed to help families?

[the_bob_delusion]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/should-childless-people-be-taxed-to-help-families/story-f...

"ARE childless Australians community-spirited enough to pay more taxes to enable people with kids to be taxed less, to help support them as they raise the next generation of taxpayers to keep the country going?

It is a controversial proposal, floated today in the US by one childless columnist who was raised by two extremely hardworking middle class parents who battled—as many Australian families do—to cover family costs.

To foster a fairer society and give those who are producing kids a little less excruciating financial pressure, he suggests that child-free people earning more than the median household income (in Australia $57,400 in 2011) should be taxed more heavily, and families should pay around $5000 a year less."

Are you for or against?

[bluecat*dancing]

Or those who have more than a designated number of children could rehome the extras with those who have none.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Would this apply only to childless married couples or to all childless couples - imagine the ourcry in certain quarters if couples living in sin were taxed for NOT giving birth to children out of wedlock.

[lind9650]

When the Baby Bonus was introduced, there was in influx of teenage girls having babies out of wedlock. All they could see was the $5,000.- to go on a shopping spree. Nobody told them how much it would cost on money, time and effort to bing up a child.

Today there is still a Baby Bonus, but reduced and given in instalments over a period of three month, but still a Baby Bonus.

Like Lyndal and a few others here, we raised our children without Governemnts handouts. We got about 50cents a fortnight per child for the first three children, then 75cents for each consecutive one. That was all the child endowment we got from the Governement. I stayed at home to take care of the family and with only one income we even managed to buy a house and pay off a morgage. And no, my husband was not an executive, he was a foreman on the Shire. It was tough at times, but we made do with a lot of things, and besides the morgage we did not owe a penny to anyone. We saved for things we wanted and paid with cash.

Today people want to have everything NOW. Maxing out the credit cards before they even get married, having lavish weddings and overseas honeymoons, then getting over their ears into debt with a huge morgage, because a smaller, older place would not do. No wonder people can not manage even if they have good paying jobs. They have not learned to budget and live within their means. Not many young people know how to make do with what they can afford.

So why should other people work and pay extra taxes for people that can not manage their lifestyle to match their income?

End of sermon, Erica

[lloydslights]

What about we mature ones, who have already raised our own children, watched them leave home to go out into the big wide world independently.  We are then classed as childless?  Therefore have to pay more taxes?

DEB

[acacia_pycnantha]

Too many people on the planet already. It could be argued, Bob that those people who have children are selfishly contributing towards the degradation of our environment and therefore should be taxed heavily to discourage such an anti social practice.

[getting_of_wisdom]

We brought our children up on one income with a pittance from the government, too, in the small house we could afford the mortgage on.

However, when this kind of topic arises, I try to remember that we all need to pay taxes to ensure that we have well educated, well fed, healthy and hopefully well balanced young people to become the doctors, scientists, lawyers, tradies and workers of all types to help us manage our society in the future.  Or should we have people going to a hospital and being asked to wait while their ATO files are checked as to whether they paid their taxes or not before treatment?  As Costello said, we need people to have one child for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country, or else who will work and pay the taxes to keep our civilisation functioning as we expect?

[izabsmiling]

Re the Baby Bonus

I remember Peter Costello asking Australians to support the Country and have one for each of them and one for the Country .

In 2001 the rate fell to a low of 1.73 during what researchers called the ''fertility crisis'', before Mr Costello's call to go forth and multiply in 2004.

From the Bureau of statistics 2010 the number of children an average Australian woman would have in her lifetime,was 1.89 babies

Baby bonus knocks birth rate out of rut

March 1 2009

The former treasurer's call for Australian couples to have another child "for the country" appears to have paid off, with a spike in the birth rate.

The number of births in Australia every year has been knocked out of a rut which had continued since the mid 1990s, when between 255,000 and 260,000 babies were being born per year.

In 2005, the year after then treasurer Peter Costello introduced the $3,000 baby bonus along with a parental call to arms, the birth rate climbed to 272,000.

It rose again in 2006, hitting 282,000 births taking in both babies naturally conceived and through in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).

University of Sydney researchers at Royal North Shore Hospital have been investigating the rising rate of births in NSW.

"Whether it has encouraged couples to increase their family size or just change the timing of a birth is yet to be seen," they write in the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA).

Women who showed a "significant increase in first births" after the baby bonus were teenagers of average socio-economic status, but also those in rural areas in their teens or early 20s, and "average or advantaged" women aged 30-44 who lived in city areas.

For women who already had one child but then had another the increase "occurred predominantly among younger women of low and average socio-economic status", the authors write.

The increase in third or subsequent births occurred across all ages.

Contrary to popular criticism of the baby bonus scheme, the authors "did not find ... the increase in births only occurred in low socio-economic or disadvantaged groups".

The overall rise in births in Australia takes in both naturally conceived children and those born as a result of IVF.

A second study also published in the MJA said it was IVF babies who represented better value, in terms of the cost to taxpayers of boosting the birth rate.

On combined 2005-2006 figures, the baby bonus cost government $1.7 billion and it resulted in 37,000 extra babies.

It means the total cost of every additional baby was $45,000.

"Medicare rebates for IVF births in the same period were $295,000, which works out at less than $20,000 for each baby," said Professor Robert Jansen, a director of Sydney IVF.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/baby-bonus-knocks-birth-rate-out-of-rut-20090301-8l9o.html#ixzz2xl...

[izabsmiling]

Erica wrote: Today people want to have everything NOW. Maxing out the credit cards before they even get married, having lavish weddings and overseas honeymoons, then getting over their ears into debt with a huge morgage, because a smaller, older place would not do. No wonder people can not manage even if they have good paying jobs. They have not learned to budget and live within their means. Not many young people know how to make do with what they can afford.

So why should other people work and pay extra taxes for people that can not manage their lifestyle to match their income?

Hello Erica 

Some of us live similar to how you did and still pay taxes which as taxes do go towards thing we may not use ourselves or use at this particular time in our lives.Fully owning our our old  12sq without mains power  is something we 'hope' to achieve by retirement...not something which we could have achieved before our marriage or soon after like many of my older friends and relations could and did (and often speak  to others of doing) . I just hope that my/our tax contributions are spent where and go to who is in need of them...now and/or in the future.

[izabsmiling]

---

@lind9650 wrote:

When the Baby Bonus was introduced, there was in influx of teenage girls having babies out of wedlock. All they could see was the $5,000.- to go on a shopping spree. Nobody told them how much it would cost on money, time and effort to bing up a child.

Today there is still a Baby Bonus, but reduced and given in instalments over a period of three month, but still a Baby Bonus.

Like Lyndal and a few others here, we raised our children without Governemnts handouts. We got about 50cents a fortnight per child for the first three children, then 75cents for each consecutive one. That was all the child endowment we got from the Governement. I stayed at home to take care of the family and with only one income we even managed to buy a house and pay off a morgage. And no, my husband was not an executive, he was a foreman on the Shire. It was tough at times, but we made do with a lot of things, and besides the morgage we did not owe a penny to anyone. We saved for things we wanted and paid with cash.

Today people want to have everything NOW. Maxing out the credit cards before they even get married, having lavish weddings and overseas honeymoons, then getting over their ears into debt with a huge morgage, because a smaller, older place would not do. No wonder people can not manage even if they have good paying jobs. They have not learned to budget and live within their means. Not many young people know how to make do with what they can afford.

So why should other people work and pay extra taxes for people that can not manage their lifestyle to match their income?

End of sermon, Erica

---

I had expanded even more on your post Erica, giving my own input on these things 

off topic for me to give my own personal accounts and expand on the OP and your comments apparently

so much for respecting us all as unique individuals and valuing our input as such

Community Spirit is in the hands of the not so CS minded

[polksaladallie]

---

@lyndal1838 wrote:

I bought my children up without any help from the government or other tax payers so why should I now have to contribute to anyone else's children. 

---

I don't think so.