A blog post by a woman proposing a “childless tax” to be paid by men and women between 30 and 65 who don’t have children has attracted the attention of netizens.
In the post, the woman proposes a 2% tax on monthly income to compensate for the fact that childless couples don’t contribute as much to society as couples with children do, particularly given Japan’s demographic issues.
But as many commenters point out, such a tax might lead to children being born into families who are simply looking to pay less tax, rather than families than genuinely want children. Others reminded the OP that there are already social security systems in place to east the burden of those who do have children, which ought to have a positive effect on the birthrate.
What do you think? Is a “childless tax” the way forward? Or does it ignore other important social issues around the reasons why couples are having fewer and fewer children?
From Girl’s Talk:
Chit-Chat > Opinion
I think they should make a “childless” tax.
Because people who have children contribute more to society that people who don’t.
Childless people don’t fulfill their natural obligation as biological entities, which is to leave descendents who pass on to the next generation.
When I’m old, who’s going to support me? — my children’s generation, and my grandchildren’s generation.
It’s a little bit too selfish to try to get support when you’re older if you haven’t done anything to create that support yourself when you’re younger.
So, I think that people who don’t have children should at least pay more money to the country than those who do.
Specifically, how about childless men and women between 30 and 65 pay 2% in tax on their monthly income, very month?
(Example: If your monthly income is 300000 yen [approx.$2519], then you’d pay 6000 yen [approx. $50]).
For those without income, they can fill in some documents at government offices, and if they pass a review, they will be exempt.
If people who are infertile submit a doctor’s note to government offices, then they will be exempt.
Something like that.
I know that people who are single will call me a jealous married woman, but actually I’m single and have no children.
And if a childless tax were to be established, of course I’d be paying it, too.
What do you think?
Posted by エジェリー (33 years old)
Comments from Girl’s Talk:
[NB: The number in brackets after the netizen’s name is their age]
This tax should only be for people who are in a situation and environment where they can have children but who still don’t have children.
Of course, it’s wrong to do nothing when we’re in a state where there’s not enough pension money to go around because there are so few children, but around me there are also lots of one-child families.
If they gave benefits from the second child onwards, wouldn’t this increase the number of children, I wonder?
I have friends who say they’ll only have one child. This excludes people who are ill or whatever. If we don’t think of somewhere to get more tax from, they the country is done for.
Among those who are self-employed there are people who file their tax returns properly, but there are also lots of people who are cooking the books! Can’t we work out something about that? >_<
エジェリー(33歳): [OP in response to above]
Yeah, I think at the same time they should give more money than they currently do to help families who do have children.
ココロ(28歳): [in response to above]
I know, right! Wouldn’t everyone have lots of children if you got more financial help for the second and third child?
I often hear people saying, oh, one is enough for us, children are expensive.
You’re right, I think this tax would at least make more sense than the current dole-out policies, it would be a source of income for society, and it would be a step toward curbing the falling birthrate.
For example, wouldn’t it be easy to understand if this tax was put on top of income tax?
エジェリー(33歳): [OP, in response to above]
It’s a good idea to add it on top of income tax.
I think if we don’t do something like this then the birthrate will just continue to fall.
With things as they are, the birthrate will fall below one million in no time.
Is this a tax that you’re not obliged to pay if you don’t make your relationship official? Ultimately, is this a tax that is for married couples who don’t have children?
Or would people who want to get married, who want to have children, but who aren’t lucky enough to have a partner also have to pay?
What about people who get pregnant, but who then miscarry?
And pregnant women? People who cannot have children?
This is a topic that is just looking for attention (´-ω-｀;)ゞ
エジェリー(33歳):[OP, in response to above]:
Even if you are single or in a relationship but not married, if you don’t have children, you pay.
People who are infertile take a doctor’s note to the local government offices, and if they pass a review they are exempt.
Regarding pregnant women, if they nurture that fetus past the point where it can be aborted, then at that point they will be exempt from childless tax.
ルル(36歳):[in response to above]
I see, so of people who don’t have children, people who can have children and their partners, singletons (no questions asked whether they want to get married but can’t) — these would all be objects of taxation.
Doesn’t take long to get pregnant naturally! Guess people also can’t try to plan the best time to have children because having them would make it difficult for them to support themselves, or because they’re still young and they have low incomes so they want to save..!
If we do something like this, then people would just be overwhelmed by tax.
Isn’t it possible that this tax would just mean that people who don’t want children would have them just to get out of paying tax…and then child abuse and neglect would rise?
I guess that this would put the birthrate up, right?
If the aim is to increase the number of children, then enhance the benefits and help given to families who want children — I think that it would be more effective to increase the number of children per household.
There are lots of families who want a second or third child but who can’t have them because of financial and childcare issues.
But I want men to pay the bigger percentage, and for women to pay zero.
Because there are a lot of women in a rush to get married, but men tend to back off.
I think that the reason the rate of unmarried people is on the rise, and late marriages are increasing, is because men have no powers of judgement and no desire to marry.
アリス(23歳):[in response to above]
Yeah but one of the reasons men are reluctant is because they have issues over how much they earn….
Of course it’s fine if they have enough to support a wife and child…
Sorry to butt in (;_;)
リリアーナ(99歳)[in response to above]
I’m sorry to butt in, too. But that’s what I thought as well. Plus, men who don’t particularly like children use the children as a reason for divorce once they’ve had them, and it seems that there are also cases where they don’t pay palimony or child support costs, so I think that increasing the birthrate is probably going to be really difficult if they don’t revise the law in this area.
Seems like a good idea, but I think it’s probably better to first of all make a society where people are able to have children without worrying about it.
ルナ(34歳):[in response to above]
Absolutely! I completely agree!
If they increase the number of nurseries and number of workplaces where it is easy for mothers with small children to work, I’d have another child too.
Comments from 2ch.net:
I beg to differ.
Pay the tax on your own, lady.
That’s why child benefits are as they are.
Is she stupid? They should just give tax credits to people who do have children.
This is exactly why households that have children get child benefits and tax credits.
What is this fool saying, not even thinking of things like this.
This is discrimination against singletons.
If they made a singleton tax, I bet the fake marriage arranging sites would make from it.
Local government, give me a beautiful lady.
Then I’ll make ya some kids.
Elderly tax first.
If the kid grows up to be a decent adult and starts paying tax, then the parents should get a tax discount.
But if they commit crimes and stuff, then they’re not contributing, those children were a needless expenditure.