Should childless people be forced to pay more taxes to support families with kids? Would that ever work in Australia?
That’s the question we’re asking today after American journalist and political commentator Reihan Salamn wrote an article suggesting that civilized society should start taxing people without kids more and people with kids less. Naturally, that suggestion has caused controversy the world over.
Salamn wrote for Slate Magazine: “We should slash taxes on parents by jacking them up for nonparents. As a childless professional in my mid-30s, I often reflect on the sacrifices working parents make to better the lives of their children. And I have come to the reluctant conclusion that I ought to pay much higher taxes so that working parents can pay much lower taxes.”
So how would that even work here in Australia? Could it, and should it?
Basically, any child-free household with an income above the median annual salary (that was $57,400 in 2011) would be required to pay additional tax, giving families with children relief of $5000 a year. The idea being that parents are doing a social service by raising the tax-payers of the future, and that they need extra support from everyone else as they do it.
As any parent will know, raising a child is extremely expensive. Having a family in Australia is an enormous financial strain over many years – but should childless people be responsible for helping them out?
According to the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, since the global economy has become more volatile, it costs about $400,000 to raise a child until the age of 21. Middle-income families have been hit particularly hard by the financial crisis – but does that really mean other families must step in to relieve them?
Salamn argues that, yes, that’s exactly what should happen:
“I believe this even though I also believe a not inconsiderable share of my tax dollars are essentially being set on fire by our frighteningly incompetent government. Leviathan is here to stay, whether I like it or not, and someone has to pay for it. That someone should be me, and people like me.
By shifting the tax burden from parents to nonparents, we will help give America’s children a better start in life, and we will help correct a simple injustice. We all benefit from the work of parents. Each new generation reinvigorates our society with its youthful vim and vigor. As my childless friends and I grow crankier and more decrepit, a steady stream of barely postpubescent brainiacs writes catchy tunes and invents breakthrough technologies that keep us entertained and make us more productive. The willingness of parents to bear and nurture children saves us from becoming an economically moribund nation of hateful curmudgeons. The least we can do is offer them a bigger tax break.”
Obviously, this is a deeply controversial topic – for families with children and couples who’ve decided not to reproduce.
Do you think childless families should pay more tax? Or is having a family a personal decision?
Top Comments
This is an abhorant idea. As someone why unfortunately can't have children, it's a slap in the face to want to take more from me. Between us, my husband and I pay tens of thousands of dollars in tax a year, while many families pay no net tax. And still they want more! How is this fair? We don't live extravagantly, don't drink or smoke or have overseas holidays. We have top cover health insurance and life insurance as well as paying more into superannuation so we don't need to rely on a tax-payer funded pension in retirement. People need to take responsibility for their own families instead of always having their hand out.
I think you'll find people without children already do pay more tax to support parents... They certainly have access to next to no government benefits/welfare. Can I have a Family Tax Benefit A or B to help me support my aging parents, who struggle on a pension? How about that for tax reform!