Bachelor tax

[guy]

Although possibly apocryphal, this quote by Oscar Wilde is both witty and cautionary:

Quote

"Rich bachelors should be heavily taxed. It is not fair that some men should be happier than others."

 

The use of a tax to shape social policy is nothing new. A Bachelor tax was enacted in Mussolini's Italy, for example:

Quote

Benito Mussolini enacted a bachelor tax in Italy in 1927. The taxes twin objectives were to raise 50 million lira of revenue per year, and increase the Italian population. Mussolini was concerned that there were only 40 million Italians compared to 90 million Germans and 200 million Slavs. By 1936, Italian bachelors paid nearly double the normal income tax rate.

To avoid the bachelor tax, the solution was simple, just get married. Italy’s bachelor tax was repealed in 1943.

Today there are many that feel a tax break on joint marriage income also represents a bachelor tax.

 

An early precedent for the Bachelor tax was imposed by Augustus:

 

Quote

The Lex Papia Poppaea was introduced by emperor Augustus to encourage marriage. In particular, penalties were imposed on those who were celibate, with an exception granted to Vestal Virgins (Ulp. Frag. xvii.1). The law also imposed penalties on married persons who had no children (qui liberos non habent, Gaius, ii.111) from the age of twenty-five to sixty in a man, and from the age of twenty to fifty in a woman. (Tacit. Ann. xv.19)

Ancient Rome was a source of unusual taxes, indeed. The famous "urine tax" of Nero and Vespasian is remembered even today:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecunia_non_olet

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_tax

 

https://taxfitness.com.au/Blog/bachelor-tax

[caldrail]

It's an interesting facet of Roman politics that taxation came to serve policy as much as finance, especially given that greed was fundamental to Romans as much as status. Augustus was of course hardly a saint where money was concerned, but that was quite routine in elite circles so the Romans saw nothing unusual in it. When they do mention greed adversely, you have to wonder of the scale of it, with Varus reported as leaving Syria very much the poorer and then chosen by Augustus to oversee taxation of occupied Germania without official annexation.

Edited May 6, 2022 by caldrail

[caesar novus]

On 5/5/2022 at 3:21 PM, guy said:

Today there are many that feel a tax break on joint marriage income also represents a bachelor tax.

It seems reasonable for a society to incentivize population growth or at least maintain, if that is what they really want and not just what their elites want. Societies who greatly under utilize the ag/industrial  potential of their lands fall victim over the centuries to more densely populated neighbors. However, voters shouldn't be hoodwinked into consenting to higher taxes for the childless simply by it being framed as disconnected subsidies for parents.

There are a few negative growth examples that seem worth thinking about. Japan, Russia, and even China seem on the cusp of an unrecoverable population cliff, and may need to further turbocharge existing growth policies to avoid partial collapse. They really should address their sometimes weird root problems rather than only throw money at it though.

Barbuda is an interesting example after a hurricane dislocated the tiny population from this paradise. Now they want to return without rebuilding their tiny tourism economy. But that means associated Antigua taxpayers will evermore be burdened with bailing them out for hurricanes and defending against intrusions, etc just so a handful of anti-growth residents and rich yachts at anchor can freeload in eden.

Spain has been shamed for some of the lowest fertility and parent subsidies in Europe. It's humongous interior is empty except for 2 cities. The interior was partly emptied by fleeing Franco for abroad, and when lured back by Franco's later pro-growth policies the folks resettled near the alluring coast. So what do the smartypants critics expect? Must the coastals increase childless taxes to further overcrowd the coast?

Maybe leaving the interior and it's vacant villages empty will come in useful, like in a massive dislocation from war. Neighboring Morocco once had a war, and umpteen million might find a familiar ecosystem to temporarily live and farm in Spain's empty hills vs being unemployed in the fringes of Spain's urbanized coast. On the other hand the interior could be a rare suitable place for normally space wasting and unreliable green energy to flourish, overcoming concerns below:

 

 

 

[nax_gt]

Hey there!

Interesting thoughts you've got on population growth and societal incentives. I totally agree that societies need to carefully consider the long-term implications of their population policies. It's not just about throwing money at the problem, but addressing the root causes and finding sustainable solutions.

The example of Barbuda is particularly intriguing - it's a delicate balance between rebuilding and preserving the environment. And Spain's situation is a reminder that there's often a complex history behind these population shifts.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your perspective! It's always good to hear different viewpoints and have a thought-provoking discussion.