https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sunday-times-article-tax-childless_uk_62c2a896e4b00a9334ea7083

By Rachel Moss.

Excerpts:

...Journalist Harry Kind was among those pointing out the holes in the proposed policy. “Would the tax kick in at 18 or do you prefer to only tax the childless 30+? And does it stop post menopause? And if you get a divorce do you bring the tax benefit
with you or does that depend on custody of the kid? If you have a child then put it up for adoption does it count?” he asked.

“Do I get it if I adopt a child even though I’ve not helped boost the population? What about if I’m a sperm donor? Do you only tax married couples? What about single people? Just straight people? Can I offset my childless tax from 30-35 by having
two children after I turn 36?

“Was the tax a proportion of income or is it a poll tax? Meaning it either punishes the childless rich or the childless poor more. Do you need to start paying the tax again if you lose a child? Is the tax levied on everyone or just women? How do they
prove you’re childless?”

Others have pointed out that people without kids already pay towards the costs of childcare and education. It’s just called... tax?...

(snip)

That inspired a currently-short thread at Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/vrbpp8/a_plan_to_tax_women_for_being_childless_welcome/

Quote:

Mia999999:
It's so awkward for them even they have childfree people's tax money, they still don't have enough money to raise their kids because there are too many people with children and too few people being childfree.

And:

greasylotionfingers
Funny enough, even putting aside the argument about birth rates and population, etc... people who are "forced" to have kids will be terrible parents. The long-harm on society when kids are no longer called "children" but instead "Tax deductions" is F'd
up.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)