why is there no uproar over our civil liberties being infringed in relation to Child

System

bargainbetty wrote: »

since I do not have, nor do I wish to have children, why should my money be used to subsidise those that do?

Because one day you will be retired, or sick and unable to work, and you will be dependent on the efforts of others to support you. Most of those workers will be other people's children.
It is in your interests therefore that they have been fed, nurtured, educated, housed, and turned into productive citizens so that they in turn can subsidise you.

John_Pierpoint

bargainbetty wrote: »

With all due respect, since I do not have, nor do I wish to have children, why should my money be used to subsidise those that do?

Who is going to pay your pension, currently denominated in "funny money".

paulmapp8306

I actually completely agree with the OP from a tax/benefits POV - that we are either taxed/assessed as individuals OR as a household - not (as currently) whichever way suits the state.

i do NOT agree that a husband and wife shouldnt know each other finances - which as far as I see it is what most people have an issue with on the OP.

As said - my wife is looking for work (we need her to work) but is not entitled to either contribution based (as SHE didnt contribure enough despite us as a houshold doing so) OR income based (because WE as a household earn enough - even though she as an individual doesnt).

I completely agree it shoule be one way or the other. I have no issue with not getting benefits if we as a family dont need them, provided were always treated as a family (ie for tax perposes).

The_White_Horse

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

I actually completely agree with the OP from a tax/benefits POV - that we are either taxed/assessed as individuals OR as a household - not (as currently) whichever way suits the state.

i do NOT agree that a husband and wife shouldnt know each other finances - which as far as I see it is what most people have an issue with on the OP.

As said - my wife is looking for work (we need her to work) but is not entitled to either contribution based (as SHE didnt contribure enough despite us as a houshold doing so) OR income based (because WE as a household earn enough - even though she as an individual doesnt).

I completely agree it shoule be one way or the other. I have no issue with not getting benefits if we as a family dont need them, provided were always treated as a family (ie for tax perposes).

absolutely my point.

the govt does not know individuals circumstances, and whilst in the majority of cases most married couples will share these details, some inevitably will not for valid reasons.

just a ridiculous state of affairs.

MacMickster

The_White_Horse wrote: »

whilst in the majority of cases most married couples will share these details, some inevitably will not for valid reasons.

I don't think that anyone disagrees but if, for those valid reasons, they choose not to share these details then they can't claim any means tested benefits.

I really don't see what the problem is.

paulmapp8306

The problem is means tested benefits are on household incomes - which is perfectly fine BUT Tax is applied on a personal level NOT a household level.

Both money paid OUT and money paid IN to the governments coffers should be assessed in the same way - ie individual OR communal.

The_White_Horse

i think people are being deliberately thick

CLAPTON

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

The problem is means tested benefits are on household incomes - which is perfectly fine BUT Tax is applied on a personal level NOT a household level.

Both money paid OUT and money paid IN to the governments coffers should be assessed in the same way - ie individual OR communal.

there seems no divine principle here; just the normal messy pragmatic, political compromise


changes will have winners and losers

would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

paulmapp8306

If it ends up with a fair system - its a good thing.

Unfortunatley, one of the loosers will be the Chancellor (As it will lead to either more going out from OR less comming in to his coffers) so its not going to happen.

Derivative

MacMickster wrote: »

I don't think that anyone disagrees but if, for those valid reasons, they choose not to share these details then they can't claim any means tested benefits.

I really don't see what the problem is.

The Government is socially engineering relationships using money as a carrot on a stick, intentionally or unintentionally.

Whether or not you believe that's a problem I suppose is down to you.