Tax Credits

setmefree2

michaels wrote: »

It seems to be a very old fashioned view (up there with homphobia and racism?) that paying to bring up children is a responsibility of the biological parents rather than the state. Having children is a right and it is for society to pay for them.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Speechless.

Is this a serious post?

If it is you have just summed up everything that is wrong with the UK.

zagfles

antrobus wrote: »

So why did you say that



if you neither know nor care about their policy?

Because I like the idea of a CI. But perhaps not in the way the Green want it implemented.

The problem you have is this, by definition a "Citizen's Income is an unconditional and nonwithdrawable income paid to every individual as a right of citizenship." Hence what you are describing is not Citizen's Income.

Oh really? So if it was, say, not available to prisoners, it wouldn't be a CI? Really? Is the definition that rigid? I described something similar. CI with some conditionality attached.

Potiticians redefine words all the time. Look at the definition of "poverty". Since when was it "60% of the median household income fiddled (equivilised) to account for household makeup"?

It's unclear to me what exactly it is, but I suspect you are just using the label of 'Citizen's Income' to promote this idea of a flat rate tax.

Flat rate "tax", or marginal deduction rate, is indeed my main desired outcome. Then maybe we wouldn't have the ridiculous situation where those who are most needy are those least likely to work, because those most needy have the highest MDRs.

The UK has low unemployment compared with other EU countries, but last time I checked, it has the highest proportion of children living in workless households. Even 2 parent families are more likely to be both out of work than couples with no children or single people.

CI is probably far too radical a step, but the rest of the EU tend to have less disparity in the MDRs faced by different groups, so incentives to work aren't vastly different for different groups, unemployment is more evenly spread between those with families and those without.

zagfles

Sapphire wrote: »

Of course it's the responsibility of the parents, and not that of the 'state', AKA taxpayers. Having children is not a right. You only have them if you can afford to support them, the number you have depending your means to support them – but don't expect hand-outs from taxpayers, many of whom have never had such hand-outs.

Or did you post this as a joke? In which case, well done. :T

Why do you think it's a joke? Do you think taxpayers should support pensioners? Or should they all get health insurance in case they're ill and get no state pension or benefits at all? Or should they be supported directly by their own children?

Taxpayers support children because in a generation's time, the children will be the taxpayers paying that support back, and paying the NHS and pension costs of those who once supported them.

There is a point concerning large families and taking the p out of the benefits system, but if you don't believe in cross generational subsidy through taxation, then you're a hypocrite if you believe pensioners should be subsidised.

Sapphire

zagfles wrote: »

Why do you think it's a joke? Do you think taxpayers should support pensioners? Or should they all get health insurance in case they're ill and get no state pension or benefits at all? Or should they be supported directly by their own children?

Yes, I do. A decent society should support its elderly and vulnerable, especially those who have worked for decades and paid in all their lives. It used to be the case that the elderly were looked after by their own families, but this is no longer something that happens in the UK. Personally, I would hate to see old and really vulnerable people, of the sort that I sometimes see, literally dying in their homes due to lack of help (they already receive far too little help as it is). A society should also support anyone else who is vulnerable, such as those who are incapacitated or truly deprived and struggling, like former soldiers.

However, having children is a lifestyle choice, not a right, and people should only have them if they can afford to raise them without relying on taxpayers. This is what used to happen when society was much poorer than it is now, and many people still grew up into decent human beings (rather than spoilt ones who expect everything to be handed to them with little effort on their own part). No wonder the whole world wants to come and live here. It's absurd, and totally unfair on hard-working taxpayers.

padington

zagfles wrote: »

Why do you think it's a joke? Do you think taxpayers should support pensioners? Or should they all get health insurance in case they're ill and get no state pension or benefits at all? Or should they be supported directly by their own children?

Taxpayers support children because in a generation's time, the children will be the taxpayers paying that support back, and paying the NHS and pension costs of those who once supported them.

There is a point concerning large families and taking the p out of the benefits system, but if you don't believe in cross generational subsidy through taxation, then you're a hypocrite if you believe pensioners should be subsidised.

Why heavily subsidise people to make and educate new people when we have an unlimited supply of already educated people seeking sanctuary from the horrors of elsewhere ?

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

Better is subjective, and that is a clear example of something I would consider worse. Cigarettes bring in £12 billion in tax revenue, and I'm not remotely persuaded that vastly dropping the tax on them, and increasing it on other products including things like fruit, vegetables, and medication is an improvement.

That's a different issue altogether.

If you have a product such as tobacco where you have identified a significant negative externality, then you tax that externality. That is good economics.

Similarly if you are going to have a general consumption tax, it is good economics to have the same rate applied to everything. As they do in New Zealand, for exam

But these are two different things and they should not be confused.

zagfles

Sapphire wrote: »

Yes, I do. A decent society should support its elderly and vulnerable, especially those who have worked for decades and paid in all their lives. It used to be the case that the elderly were looked after by their own families, but this is no longer something that happens in the UK.

Why not? Why not enforce it, like they do to a certain extent in other countries like Germany?

If parents should support their children, then why shouldn't those children, when grown adults, pay back that support by supporting their elderly parents?

Personally, I would hate to see old and really vulnerable people, of the sort that I sometimes see, literally dying in their homes due to lack of help (they already receive far too little help as it is). A society should also support anyone else who is vulnerable, such as those who are incapacitated or truly deprived and struggling, like former soldiers.

But not children?

However, having children is a lifestyle choice, not a right, and people should only have them if they can afford to raise them without relying on taxpayers. This is what used to happen when society was much poorer than it is now, and many people still grew up into decent human beings (rather than spoilt ones who expect everything to be handed to them with little effort on their own part). No wonder the whole world wants to come and live here. It's absurd, and totally unfair on hard-working taxpayers.

Yes in the past when we were much poorer, there was no social security, there was no state pension. Children were your pension, your insurance policy. You supported them when young, and they supported you in old age or if you became ill/disabled. They were seen as an economic asset not a burden. People with no children had no "pension", they had no insurance.

The problem with the current system is the intergenerational subsidy is skewed.

When a child, you're subsidised by your parents and the state.

When you're a working adult you subiside your own children directly, and children in general (state education etc) through taxes, and pensioners in general.

When you're a pensioner, unless you're very rich you are subsidised by the state, but not usually directly by your children.

For people who have children it all works out neutral overall, although obviously there differences to do with individual levels of subsidy & taxation depending on income etc.

But for people who don't have children, they got the subsidy from their parents when they were a child, but they're not paying back that subsidy to anyone! They are a massive net recipient of subsidy from others.

Some even have the hypocrisy to complain that they're having to pay taxes to support other peoples children, after they had their education, healthcare etc paid for by other peoples' taxes when they were a child!

In other words, they want their lifestyle choice to be subsidised by others.

zagfles

padington wrote: »

Why heavily subsidise people to make and educate new people when we have an unlimited supply of already educated people seeking sanctuary from the horrors of elsewhere ?

Yeah, like that'll last forever. Suggest it to a few UKIP voters and see what they think :rotfl:Or why don't you suggest it to the Chinese, maybe that'll solve their problem of too few children? They might not have to reverse their one-child policy!

Sapphire

zagfles wrote: »

For people who have children it all works out neutral overall.

But for people who don't have children, they got the subsidy from their parents when they were a child, but they're not paying back that subsidy to anyone! They are a massive net recipient of subsidy from others.

Some even have the hypocrisy to complain that they're having to pay taxes to support other peoples children, after they had their education, healthcare etc paid for by other peoples' taxes when they were a child!

In other words, they want their lifestyle choice to be subsidised by others.

How can it 'work out neutral overall' for people who have children, when you have people producing 4, 10 or 20 offspring, all subsidised heavily by taxpayers?

Then you attack people who made the choice not to have children and be a burden on society, yet worked hard all their lives and paid heavy taxes while doing so (and still continuing to do so), only to often end up in terrible conditions in their old age, with a very small pension (the worst in Europe), when they are vulnerable and can no longer make choices to improve their lot.

Some these days appear to hate the elderly and vulnerable, perhaps wanting to gain all they have earned (often through very hard work) from them and favouring some type of a Soylent Green solution, but I still see elderly people as wise and interesting, with a wealth of experience behind them that they can pass to offspring. It shows how selfish our wealthy 'must-have' society has become – perhaps due to the break-up of families and everyone thinking it's their human right to own a property and live a celebrity lifestyle. Perhaps as a society becomes wealthier and stops having to fight extreme difficulties – whether it is war or poverty – it becomes more selfish and stops being able to work together and help others who are genuinely in need of help?

And why do you think the whole world wants to come here, if not to gain the types of benefit you are promoting?

I disagree with you profoundly. Let's just leave it at that.

lisyloo

Then you attack people who made the choice not to have children

No, they attacked people who didn't have children.
Some people don't have the choice.