12th September 2014
Taxation – Children and the “The three child rule”.
(This article, besides its specific point, illustrates the difference between duty to one’s self and family, and one’s ultimate duty to the nation: that is for a man to be a soldier in defence of the Nation and for a woman to be a mother and thus ensure the continuance of the Nation. This is in stark contrast to LibLabCon policy of encouraging people to just think of 'self' without regard to the effect on the Nation.)
For a nation, it’s axiomatic that over any period of time the number of newborn children must, at least, equal the number of deaths if the nation is to survive. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the UK and the strength of our Nation is rapidly decreasing.
It has been calculated that each married couple needs to have 2.4 children if the nation is to remain at its current size. In practice this gives rise to the “Three child rule”.
Each newborn child should automatically benefit from the infrastructure of the UK and the accumulated knowledge and skills of its ancestors. (The invading foreigners also benefit from this infrastructure but bring nothing). An important part of the infrastructure is housing. The sole reason for the housing shortage is that foreigners are inhabiting houses that should go to members of our Nation. Over the last 25 years, governments have sold off much of the publicly owned infrastructure into private hands and also taken on a huge public debt. Further under the current system of taxation, married couples pay tax on virtually an equal basis to the unmarried and the childless. The heavy burden of taxation on the young means that marriage and the ‘production’ of children are severely inhibited. In fact, it is probably only strong instinct rather than logic that today makes for marriage and children.
The current system is rapidly leading to a crisis. There are now too few children to support the massive number of retirees and the massive and growing public debt.
The following is an outline of a policy that could reverse this situation.
The weight of taxation will be moved from the young to the old and to the non-breeders.
Each newly married couple will receive a loan from the state that will enable them to buy a house. Note this is unlike the ‘Council House’ system as the couple would own their house and the scheme would be open to all citizens. The loan would be interest free and repayable on death of the couple.
Unmarried people and people in later life would be subject to increased taxation and death duties would increase markedly.
The above system allows couples to marry much younger than at present (our fathers and mothers married in their early twenties, now it is frequent for marriage to be postponed until the thirties). Couples would not have their life dominated by the need to save for, and then service, a mortgage. Money would be available to bring up children and for a decent social life.
Conversely, ‘unmarrieds’ would pay markedly increased taxes to compensate for their inability (or perhaps selfishness) that prevents them having children.
Return to Links