Modern man consciously approaches the problem of creating a family and having a baby. At the same time, he is guided by his own system of values and the picture of the world that was offered to him by other people (meaning as he grows up and forms). But can someone decide instead of a man when he should take this step? As it turned out, maybe. Naturally, forcing millions to marry and have heirs would be very difficult. But the state has its own mechanism for solving this problem - taxes. Attempts to introduce a tax on childlessness have already been made repeatedly, moreover, in different countries and at different times. Many states do not mind repeating this experience now.
What is a childless tax?
This is a payment in favor of the state, which should be made by those people who, after reaching reproductive age, have no children. The purpose of such a tax is to reduce the difference in income between the category of citizens who have children and the one that does not. Depending on the country in which such a tax was introduced, it had some differences. But in any case, it should not be paid by those citizens who are diagnosed with infertility. In addition, people who have adopted children are also exempted from payment in favor of the state.
The tax on childlessness at one time existed in the USSR, Germany, Bulgaria, and even in Ancient Rome. An analogue of this tax is valid in modern Russia.
Tax on childlessness in the USSR
This type of tax appeared with the Soviet Union in 1941. What was the essence of the law? Single men between the ages of 20 and 50, as well as women from 20 to 45 who had no children, should have given the state 6% of their income.
Exempt from tax:
- Citizens whose monthly income was less than 70 rubles.
- Infertility sufferers.
- Citizens whose children died or went missing during the war.
- Families who have adopted a child.
- Single girls.
For some categories of citizens there were benefits. They had to pay tax, but its amount was much lower.
- Citizens whose salary was in the range of 70-91 rubles. per month.
- Students under the age of 25.
- Heroes of the USSR.
- Citizens who had three degrees of the Order of Glory.
- Military personnel and members of their families.
Features of the Soviet tax
For over 40 years, a childless tax has existed in the Soviet Union. When was it canceled? This happened in the 80s of the XX century. Until this time, taxes should have been paid by everyone who was not included in the category of beneficiaries. It sounds somewhat absurd, but the newlyweds did not enter this category. The fact that they did not have enough time to acquire offspring, the government did not take into account. Even during the pregnancy of the wife, the young family had to give part of their earnings in favor of the country. To stop paying tax was possible only with the birth of a child.
The tax on childlessness could be considered savagery, if only because there were certain ideas - quite patriarchal - about girl's honor, the first wedding night, etc.
I must say that the legislation governing the payment of this tax has been constantly changing. For example, already in the 80s, couples were allowed not to pay tax the first year after the wedding.
And what happened in Germany
It may be hard to believe, but the Soviet Union and Germany had much in common. Another proof of this is the childless tax in Germany.It was introduced just at the time when the party of fascists was at the head of the country. But the justification for this tax was radically different from the Soviet version. Each Aryan and Aryan had to "fulfill their duty to the popular community." Moreover, those who for some reason did not have children were equated with enemies of the state. Often one could hear about recognizing such people as desecrators of the race.
Like everything in Nazi Germany, the reproduction of the heirs was also taken under tight control. Thus, the leadership wanted to create a new race of "purified" Germans. Control began even before the marriage of the young. They were thoroughly checked both by officials and by doctors. The state had to be sure that there would be no “foreign impurities” in the blood of newborns. After the wedding, the young had a term for the birth of their first child, which was five years. If for some reason the child was not born, the family was forced not only to pay tax. Conversations were held with them, and this could happen both at home and in the workplace.
Tax situation in Russia
In Russia, there is a tax on personal income, which, in principle, has the same grounds as the income tax for childlessness. Its essence lies in the fact that for citizens who do not have children, the amount of payment is somewhat larger than for those who raise children. Since 2012, citizens who raise one or two babies pay 1400 rubles less to the treasury. If the family has three or more babies, then the deduction amount is 3,000 rubles.
Archpriest's offer
In 2013, Archpriest Dmitry Smirnov made a statement. In his opinion, the tax on childlessness in Russia must be returned. The clergyman is sure that childless families should pay a certain amount of their budget, but it will go not only in favor of the state, but to support those families that raise foster children. It must be said that Father Dmitry himself has been patronizing three orphanages for a long time.
This proposal caused a lot of feedback. Some called this law immoral. Others argued that it would not be possible to verify whether the money paid went as intended. In addition, many expressed the view that when charity becomes mandatory, it ceases to be charity.
Whatever it was, the surprise of the majority was that such a proposal was made by a minister of the Church, which should, first of all, put love rather than money at the forefront.
Moral
It's time to talk about the moral side of the issue. Does anyone, even the state, have the right to tell a person how old he should give birth to children and how many should be in the family? Is this contrary to human rights?
A. Wagner, who dealt with ethics of tax policy, wrote about this problem. He claims that the childless tax violates the principles of universality and uniformity of taxation. But to change this, simply rename it.
But if it will be introduced, but the question remains what kind of tax for childlessness should be. Who has the right to establish this framework and assess the absence of children in the family? The criteria themselves remain unknown according to which this issue will be resolved.
Is the immorality of the law confirmed?
Most citizens are convinced of the immorality of the childless law. As we see, the Russian authorities support them in this, otherwise the new law would have already begun to take effect.
But, on the other hand, it is common for people to call moral what is beneficial to them. Confirmation that such a law will be immoral is sought in Art. Constitution and Tax Code.In accordance with these documents, taxes cannot be discriminatory and calculated according to social, racial, religious or national criteria. If in the case of the last three criteria everything is clear, then social raises many questions, because this is a rather broad concept. Whether it is possible to consider the presence or absence of children in the family as a sign of discrimination, experts have yet to figure out. But before you fight for the adoption or rejection of this tax, you need to understand whether it will be effective.
Tax efficiency
This is probably one of the most important criteria on which to base your decision on the adoption of the law on the corresponding tax.
There may be several reasons for introducing this tax. This is a reduction in the difference in income between different categories of the population, and support for large families. But there are demographic reasons. Against the background of the phenomenon of "aging of the nation", which is observed in most European countries, and the annual decrease in the birth rate, the population of such countries, including ours, is constantly declining. One of the ways to solve this problem is precisely the childless tax.
However, many experts are sure that this problem cannot be solved by force. Moreover, most young people are in no hurry to marry and have children because of social insecurity. Many have not only funds for raising a child, but also their own housing. Therefore, to really solve the problem of fertility, you need to start with social reforms, not taxation. And let the tax on childlessness remain in history textbooks.