NEWTON'S OPTIC:OF ALL the myriad recommendations in the Commission on Taxation report, it is the proposal to introduce child charging that should prove the most effective.
Irish households currently receive children free at the point of delivery and most people are simply not aware of the scale of the public costs involved.
This provides no incentive for conservation, with the result that Irish families pump out 30 per cent more children than those in other jurisdictions. There is also no price signal for innovation, such as home-schooling or just getting another dog.
It should be noted that businesses already pay for children through local rates of shoplifting. Under the European Child Directive, member states are meant to charge for children in a manner that discourages domestic waste, commonly referred to as the “parent pays principle”. However, Ireland negotiated an opt-out clause, probably over some mad Catholic thing. This has led to an unsustainable situation where those who control themselves are subsidising those who will not control themselves.
Of course, it is widely felt that children are a basic right and even a public good, but none of this alters the fact that they still have to be paid for. Child-related costs are rising above inflation as society demands ever-improving standards of quality and hygiene.
There is also the horrendous environmental impact of children to consider. Why should these costs be met out of general taxation, regardless of individual taxpayer fecundity? It is only fair we join our European partners in moving towards a more progressive and efficient system.
Such a system will not be introduced overnight. There will have to be an initial flat-rate charge, probably about €500, for all those with children, or who have children running through the house. This could be followed by a move to so-called “volumetric billing”, with families charged by general loudness.
Widespread child metering would then be phased in, so that all mention of incentives and price signals no longer looks like an excuse.
Families could be incentivised to install a meter by threats to take their children into care or return their children from care, as appropriate. Newly built houses should be fitted with a meter by law, although none of this would be necessary if new houses were still being built.
As the commission observes, a wide selection of child-metering technologies already exists, ranging from simple turnstile counters to sophisticated motion detectors. So charges can be based on family size, sibling order, weight or just activities that society disapproves of.
The creative billing opportunities are truly endless.
That just leaves the tricky question of those who cannot afford to pay. The commission seriously considered a quota, permitting every household a free child before charges kicked in. However, this was eventually rejected as “too Chinese”.
Instead, the commission proposes waiving a proportion of the charge, where household income is below a threshold determined by the local authority.
Presumably those who do not pay the balance will have their children disconnected, as there is otherwise no incentive to pay any of the charge at all. But we must be very careful not to send a signal that the poor should simply have fewer children. That kind of thinking really won’t wash.