"Single and DINK Households Should Pay More Tax"... Debate Intensifies Over Proposal for a 'Low Birthrate Tax'

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

As the ultra-low birthrate persists, a growing movement online is calling for imposing a so-called "low birthrate tax" on single and DINK (Dual Income, No Kids) households who choose not to marry or have children. The argument is that, since families raising children bear significant costs, time, and career opportunity losses to nurture the next generation, childless households—who also benefit from the resulting social gains—should share part of that burden. However, there is strong opposition, noting that single or childless households already contribute to the funding for various low-birthrate policies through taxes, and that any additional financial burden based on childbirth could effectively penalize personal choices.

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

"The Next Generation's Costs Should Be Shared"

Recently, a post titled "We absolutely have to collect a low birthrate tax from DINK and single-person households" sparked fierce debate in a workplace community. User A, who identified as a parent of two elementary school children, said, “Not having children is certainly a personal freedom," but also argued, "Who bears the societal cost created by such choices is a completely different matter from having the freedom not to have children.”

They cited automobile taxes, insurance premiums, property taxes, and income tax as examples, explaining, “We already make countless choices in life and live with the costs and responsibilities those choices entail.” The logic presented is that respecting personal choices and determining how a community should divide the associated social costs are entirely separate issues.

What A highlighted was the gap between the personal expenses invested in childbirth and childcare and the social benefits accrued by society at large. “Even now, there are people sacrificing their own money, time, and career to raise children,” A insisted, claiming that, as these children grow and begin working, their payment of taxes, health insurance, and national pension contributions, as well as their military service and labor, will help sustain the social system. They emphasized, “The children born today will, in 30 years, be the ones actually running the Republic of Korea.”

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

A also pointed out that people without children will eventually benefit from the social systems sustained by the next generation. “Whether you are part of the DINK group or remain single for life, when you grow older, you will inevitably live relying on the social and medical infrastructures maintained by the next generation,” they argued. “Will there be anyone at age 70 who says, ‘I didn’t have children, so I won’t use the health insurance that the younger generation is paying for, or any social infrastructure’?” they asked rhetorically.

Raise Burden for Childless Households, Provide Benefits for Those Raising Children

A claimed that, beyond costs for childbirth, childcare, and education, parents also shoulder increased housing expenses, career setbacks, and time costs. Conversely, the taxes, labor, and social benefits produced by children as they grow are not monopolized by parents, but enjoyed collectively by all members of society.

Based on this, A proposed slightly increasing social insurance contributions for childless households, while significantly reducing income taxes based on the number of children. Other suggestions included reflecting childcare contributions in national pension calculations, and lowering health insurance premiums, property taxes, and housing costs for households with multiple children.

A emphasized that their proposal is not about coercing anyone into marriage or childbirth. "Whether you’re DINK or single, you should be able to freely choose your lifestyle and simply pay an appropriate cost for that freedom," they stated. They further argued, “If there is a right not to have children, then in a society with ultra-low birthrates, we must also discuss how to share the burden that arises when one chooses not to directly nurture the next generation.”

"We Already Pay More Tax," "We Take on Work During Parental Leave," "How Do You Distinguish Infertility?" and Other Objections

This proposal immediately triggered strong backlash. Opponents argued that single and DINK households already contribute to the financing of child-related policies—such as childbirth grants, pregnancy and maternity support, medical expenses, childcare, free education, and meal subsidies—by paying earned income tax, value-added tax, and various other taxes. They also noted that since they do not benefit from tax deductions or certain family support benefits available to families with dependents, these households are already at a relative disadvantage.

An image to help understand the article. Getty Images Bank

The reality that single or childless employees often bear the extra work load when coworkers take parental leave was also raised. “In workplaces, when parental leave creates staffing gaps, single and DINK employees are the ones covering those duties,” one opinion stated.

How to systemically distinguish between people who are childless due to health or infertility issues, and those who choose not to have children, was also cited as a practical problem. There was also a counterpoint that it is hard to assume children will inevitably generate substantial economic value or pay sufficient taxes as adults.

Others argued that the low birthrate problem cannot be attributed solely to individual choices. The high costs of raising children—because of housing, education, care responsibilities, and career interruptions—render current support insufficient, and the state should play a more proactive role in sharing the burden of childcare.

Public Perception of Additional Burden

There is also the question of whether the public would accept additional fiscal burdens to address the low birthrate. According to the 2024 Marriage, Childbirth, and Parenting Perception Survey by the Presidential Committee on Low Fertility and Aging Society, 31.4% of respondents said they were “not at all” willing, and 36.8% said “not very willing,” when asked if they would pay an extra tax or higher health insurance premiums for low birthrate policies. Thus, a combined 68.2% gave negative responses to additional financial burdens.

By gender, 59.6% of men and 77.5% of women expressed opposition. Opposition was highest among women aged 25–29 at 78.9%, followed by 77.4% for women aged 40–49, and 76.8% for those 30–39. In contrast, 43.7% of men aged 30–39 and 42.3% of men aged 25–29 supported additional contributions.

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