Tax Credits

tara747

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.

I'm assuming this post is a joke! :eek:

zagfles wrote: »

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? But not children?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. Yes, including taxpayers who don't have children

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. Er, working adults without children also support your children!

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, I doubt that very much! 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. Are you kidding??? They're supporting other people's children and getting no such subsidy themselves. They're net contributors!

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.
I don't have children. I had my education, healthcare etc subsidised as a child, and now I'm paying tax to subsidise other people's children. Or 'lifestyle choices', as you might call them.

Incidentally, not having children isn't always a choice. Having children is always a choice.

My text in red above.

wotsthat

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. 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.

There might be more money for the frail and vulnerable if everyone else, after decades of hard work and thrift, didn't arrive in retirement and stick their hands out for a sub.

beecher2

I think that taxes should be used to support children through education, health and housing but I am not sure they should be used to shore up low wages or to encourage people to work a maximum of 16 hours. Paying for household expenses is surely the responsibility of the parent?

zagfles

Sapphire wrote: »

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?

Yeah right, how many people have 20 children :rotfl:Most have around 2 on average. For them, subsidy ends up pretty neutral.

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

Err... no I haven't. The only people I have "attacked" are those childless people who are stupid enough or hypocritical enough to whinge that they are getting a raw deal just because they have to pay taxes to support other peoples' children, forgetting about the taxpayers who supported them when a child, and forgetting the massive subsidy they got from their parents.

When 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.

Then, in the case of the childless, they should make good use of the massive opportunity to save money, which they've been provided with, by getting a good proportion of their life (ie their childhood) subsidised by their parents and not having to pay that subsidy back to anyone (because they haven't had children).

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.

Yes. But we're talking about those who don't have offspring.

zagfles

tara747 wrote: »

My text in red above.

This isn't rocket science.

As a child, you get subsidy from your parents and from the state.

When a working adult, whether or not you have childrenyou subside all children and pensioners through taxes. So parents and non parents both subside education etc through taxes. But in addition, parents subsidise their own children directly.

When a pensioner, you are subsidised by the state again. Whether you were a parent or not is generally irrelavent.

So someone who chooses not to have children, or can't, is getting far more net subsidy than someone who does, because the direct subsidy they got from their parents is not being paid back to anyone.

Unless of course they choose to reimburse their parents for the cost of their upbringing. Wonder how many do that?

zagfles

beecher2 wrote: »

I think that taxes should be used to support children through education, health and housing but I am not sure they should be used to shore up low wages or to encourage people to work a maximum of 16 hours. Paying for household expenses is surely the responsibility of the parent?

Perhaps there should be more equality in the parent-child relationship. If household expenses incurred by the child should be paid by the parent, then surely household expenses of the pensioner should be paid by their offspring, thus paying them back.

CLAPTON

I love my children and I paid what was necessary to bring them up and provide the best life I could


I didn't subsidise them

zagfles

CLAPTON wrote: »

I love my children and I paid what was necessary to bring them up and provide the best life I could

I didn't subsidise them

You can play semantic games, but whether you "paid" or "subsidised" the point was to illustrate the (generally) one way flow of subsidy, err I mean payment for "what is necessary to bring them up..." from parent to child.

For people who have children it generally cancels out, their parents subsidised them, err, sorry "paid what was necessary to bring them up and provide the best life they could", and they did the same for their children.

For people who don't have children, they received "what was necessary to bring them up and provide the best life they could" but didn't give it.

This isn't a criticism of them, or even something to feel guilty about. Especially as some would like to have children but can't. Just something to think about before whining that they're hard done by financially.

CLAPTON

zagfles wrote: »

You can play semantic games, but whether you "paid" or "subsidised" the point was to illustrate the (generally) one way flow of subsidy, err I mean payment for "what is necessary to bring them up..." from parent to child.

For people who have children it generally cancels out, their parents subsidised them, err, sorry "paid what was necessary to bring them up and provide the best life they could", and they did the same for their children.

For people who don't have children, they received "what was necessary to bring them up and provide the best life they could" but didn't give it.

This isn't a criticism of them, or even something to feel guilty about. Especially as some would like to have children but can't. Just something to think about before whining that they're hard done by financially.

whilst arguing about sematics is in general a waste of time, in the context of how and to whom benefits should be paid, there is a big diffeence between the taxpayer subsidising my children and me paying to bring them up

tara747

zagfles wrote: »

Yeah right, how many people have 20 children :rotfl:Most have around 2 on average. For them, subsidy ends up pretty neutral. Err... no I haven't. The only people I have "attacked" are those childless people who are stupid enough or hypocritical enough to whinge that they are getting a raw deal just because they have to pay taxes to support other peoples' children, forgetting about the taxpayers who supported them when a child, and forgetting the massive subsidy they got from their parents. Then, in the case of the childless, they should make good use of the massive opportunity to save money, which they've been provided with, by getting a good proportion of their life (ie their childhood) subsidised by their parents and not having to pay that subsidy back to anyone (because they haven't had children). Yes. But we're talking about those who don't have offspring.

Ye gods! Do childfree people get some kind of extra tax breaks? Why am I only hearing about this now??

zagfles wrote: »

This isn't rocket science.

As a child, you get subsidy from your parents and from the state.

When a working adult, whether or not you have childrenyou subside all children and pensioners through taxes. So parents and non parents both subside education etc through taxes. But in addition, parents subsidise their own children directly.

When a pensioner, you are subsidised by the state again. Whether you were a parent or not is generally irrelavent.

So someone who chooses not to have children, or can't, is getting far more net subsidy than someone who does, because the direct subsidy they got from their parents is not being paid back to anyone.

Unless of course they choose to reimburse their parents for the cost of their upbringing. Wonder how many do that?

What do you mean, you subsidise your children? Surely having children means that you pay the costs of bringing them up?

Having a child is a choice. Having a dog, a horse, an expensive car - these are all choices. You pay for the cost of your pet/car/hobby/children.

What about parents who have never paid any taxes? What are they contributing?