"No Children? Pay More Tax"...Debate Erupts Over Proposal for 'Low Birth Rate Tax' on Childless Households

Growing Calls for Childless Households to Share Social Costs
"We Already Bear Tax Burdens," Say Opponents

As the trend of ultra-low birth rates continues over the long term, there has been a growing online movement calling for the imposition of a so-called "low birth rate tax" on single or DINK households who choose not to marry or have children. The rationale is that households raising children bear substantial costs, time, and career opportunities to sustain the next generation, so childless households—who also benefit from the resulting social gains—should share in some of these costs. However, there is also strong opposition arguing that single or childless households already help fund various low birth rate policies through their taxes, and placing additional burdens based on childbirth choices could effectively punish individual decisions.

An image generated by artificial intelligence (AI) to aid in understanding the article. ChatGPT

"We Must Share the Costs of the Next Generation"

Recently, a post titled "We Must Collect a Low Birth Rate Tax from DINKs and Singles. Absolutely." sparked controversy on an office worker community board. Poster A, who said they are raising two elementary school-aged children, stated, "It is indeed an individual's freedom not to have children," but also argued, "The freedom not to have children and the question of who will bear the social costs resulting from that choice are entirely different issues."

They cited automobile taxes, insurance premiums, property taxes, and income taxes as examples, explaining, "We already make countless choices and live with the costs and responsibilities from those decisions." Their logic is that respecting personal choice and figuring out how the community shares the social costs that arise from those choices are separate matters.

The main issue raised by A was the gap between the personal costs input into childbirth and childrearing and the overall social benefit gained. They insisted, "Even now, someone is pouring their money, time, and career into raising a child," adding that after growing up, these children will participate in economic activities, pay taxes, health insurance premiums, and national pension contributions, and will help sustain the social system through military service and labor. "The children born today will, thirty years from now, be the ones who actually run the Republic of Korea," they emphasized.

A newborn nursery at a postpartum care center in downtown Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

A also pointed out that even those without children will ultimately use the social systems created by the next generation. "Whether you are a DINK or lifelong single, when you get older, you will be living in a nation maintained by the next generation and enjoying its social and medical infrastructure," they claimed. A continued, "Is there anyone who, upon reaching the age of 70, would refuse to use any infrastructure or the health insurance contributions paid by the younger generation just because they didn’t have children?"

Raising the Burden for Childless Households, Offering More Benefits to Those Raising Children

A argued that parents are responsible not only for childbirth, childcare, and education-related costs but also for increased housing expenses, lost career opportunities, and the time spent. On the other hand, the taxes, labor, and overall social benefits generated by grown-up children are not exclusively enjoyed by their parents, but rather shared by all members of society.

On this basis, they proposed partially increasing the social insurance burden of childless households and dramatically reducing income taxes based on the number of children. Introducing a child-rearing contribution factor in the calculation of National Pension, and reducing health insurance premiums, property taxes, and housing costs for large families, were also discussed.

A emphasized that their argument is not about forcing anyone to get married or have children. "Whether one is a DINK or single, they should simply pay an appropriate price for choosing and enjoying the lifestyle they want," they said. "If there is freedom not to have children, then in a society with ultralow birth rates, we must also discuss how to share the burden for not directly raising the next generation," A insisted.

"We Already Pay More Taxes", "We Cover Parental Leave Gaps", "How Would You Distinguish Infertility?"—Opposition Arguments

These arguments immediately triggered a fierce backlash. Opponents pointed out that single and DINK households also pay various taxes such as earned income tax and value-added tax, thereby helping fund child support, maternity and pregnancy support, medical expenses, childcare, free education and meal programs, and other child-related policies. Furthermore, not receiving tax deductions for dependents or family support benefits puts them in a relatively less advantageous position compared to households with children.

An image to help understand the article. Getty Images Bank

One concern raised was that singles and childless employees are often assigned extra work when staffing shortages result from parental leave. "DINKs and single workers are left to cover these workforce gaps caused by parental leave," one opinion stated.

Another practical concern was how the system could distinguish between those unable to have children due to health or infertility issues and those who voluntarily choose not to. Additionally, there was pushback that it cannot be assumed grown-up children will always create high economic value or contribute enough in taxes.

There were also arguments that the low birth rate issue cannot be viewed solely as a matter of individual choice. Considering the high costs involved in raising children, such as housing, education, childcare, and career interruption, current support is insufficient; hence, the government should take a more active role in sharing these burdens.

How Do Citizens Feel About Additional Burdens?

Another point of interest is whether citizens are willing to accept additional fiscal burdens to address low birth rates. According to the 2024 Marriage, Childbirth, and Childrearing Perception Survey by the Presidential Committee on Ageing Society and Population Policy, when asked about willingness to pay additional taxes or health insurance contributions for low birth rate policies, 31.4% answered "Not at all," and 36.8% said "Not really," totaling 68.2% negative responses to additional burdens.

By gender, 59.6% of men and 77.5% of women were opposed. Notably, opposition was highest among women aged 25–29 at 78.9%, followed by 77.4% among those aged 40–49, and 76.8% in the 30–39 group. On the other hand, 43.7% of men aged 30–39 and 42.3% of men aged 25–29 expressed support for added contributions.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.