No, because HMRC will only take up the number of enquiries that it is able and this would be directed at what it perceived to be the highest risk cases. Loads of incorrect returns will slip through the net and..................
Actually, isnt that what happens now?
Oh, and I forot to mention that with another 12500 jobs gone by 2011, there will be even less enquiries
And London is now due to lose another building as my building is due to close by 31 March 2009.
Err? Why?
The family made a lifestyle choice knowing the consequences.
That's the same as buying a Ferrari & expecting to pay less IT.
I'm getting irritated, as a single person, at having to subsidise other people's children by way of food/clothing & further education. Especially when it's known that single people put more back in by working longer hours.
Dave F.
people's children by way of food/clothing & further education.
In reality the single person should pay less tax as he will not be using schools and additional healthcare. China will only give free assistance to the 1st child, the rest have to be paid for by the parents. Maybe if they introduced that here people would think twice.
Anyway, he is probably already getting an additional savings on tax through receiving children's allowance and tax credits.
people's children by way of food/clothing & further education.
longer hours.
Single people, like me, pay relatively more tax so that we can live in a civilized society.
Everyone uses schools. Even though the actual cashflow may not work like this, in theory you can view the tax system as a big long term pot, which pays for your education when you "consume" it, and you then pay back into the system once you earn. That way everyone pays for their own education retrospectively *instead of* for that of the children of the current generation (which individually one may or may not have).
In this context "single" presumably means "childless". How can you get children's allowance if you don't have any children?
As written, that doesn't make sense, since of course we all live in the same society, but I take your meaning. You're saying that freedom from the encumbrances of family life is a privilege worth paying for.
That's an interesting take, seeing parents as little more than slaves to their offspring, but others might take the opposite view, that the pleasures and rewards of family life are also privileges worth paying for.
No it isn't, moron. Is the Ferrari going to pay the taxes to keep the nation going in 30 years time?
people's children by way of food/clothing & further education.
longer hours.
And I'm irritated by clueless tossers who can't think beyond the present. The current generation of workers subsidises children because in 30 years time the children will be the taxpayers and will be subsidising the current workers in retirement.
You don't want to subsidise children, don't expect them to subside you.
Ronald Raygun wrote: > Everyone uses schools. Even though the actual cashflow may not work
To clarify - I did say further education. I'm willing to pay for others offspring to be educated upto the age of eighteen. After that they're on their own. Unfortunately I still appear to be being charged for it.
As a single I also pay for couples & families rubbish to be collected through the unfair Council Tax 'discount'.
Yup - if these clueless tossers want to whinge about supporting other peoples' kids then they can repay the state for their own education, and make sure they save enough for their retirement so they don't claim any state pension or benefits, or healthcare etc. Since these will be paid for in the main by the children they were whinging about having to support.
charged for it.
They'll get better jobs, so pay more taxes, so the government will have more money to waste bribing pensioners to vote for them.
the unfair Council Tax 'discount'.
Yeah, it should be abolished. If you buy a car you don't pay less road tax if you're the only user. If you buy a bottle of wine you don't pay less tax if you drink it all yourself. Why should you pay less property tax just cos you live alone? Especially since you don't need as big a property and so should be in a lower band anyway.
Neither are the children if they keeps getting rebates.
Remember everybody - "The children are our future" Ha,Ha,Ha
"nonsense to expect" are you own words. The answer is Yes, it is expected they pay. Don't decide to have children then complain "Ooh, it's sooo expensive, It's not fair" Pay your way in life.
Right, lets get this straight. The working *parents* subsides their children. Their children, when working, will be subsidising their parents. Single, childless people like me should (with caveats like NHS contributions) should enter into the equation. What we (on average) take out equals what we put in.
I pay my own way in life, I wish others would.
Err?? I don't, you pillock. See above.
Other things being the same, yep. But they won't be the same. Just as the parents choose to spend some of their 'hard-earned' having kids, the single person will spend that equivalent 'hard-earned' on something else -- something that
*they* want (just like the parents wanted the kids).Er - yes it is. In your own words (just changing those that need changing for the new example) : " ... it's obviously nonsense to expect [someone paying for a Ferrari] to be able to afford the same tax as [anyone else] on the same income".
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Well, let's try another example. Suppose the single person, rather than "investing" in having children, instead "invests" the same amount of money in setting up a business. The business will pay taxes (and the state won't need to wait 15-20 years to get some!), and also provide employment for many people.
So - should the single entrepreneur be able to make their investment out of *gross* earnings?
Only in theory, Some of what I've seen of University Grads, they appear to be on step up from factory fodder. I work with one who has to think hard to work out the difference between Left & Right.
I don't think you understand the concept of CT.
It's not a case of paying less, just not paying more. The above examples are both choices, *not* compulsory & for individual use,
*not* shared services.I don't want to pay less, I just don't want to pay *more*
It shouldn't be a tax on property, it should be a local IT.
Right, simple equation for you:
A couple pay CT (100%). Each individual pays half (50%)
I however pay 75% because I only get a 25% discount, so I pay more for the same services. (in actuality, *less* services, because, as a singleton I don't use some of them).
And to anticipate your answer, *no*, many couples do not live in bigger properties & so pay more CT.
So who *is* it going to be then, dipstick?
Well don't expect a state pension or any NHS services when you're a pensioner. My kids' taxes aren't going to pay for spongers like you. Pay your own way.
And they'll be paying taxes to subsidise the spongers who didn't have children to contribute to the next generation of taxpayers.
should enter into the equation.
No you don't. I proved this mathematically with Tim a while ago. Childless people get subsidised. Even Tim agreed.
No you don't.
So when you're a pensioner, you will not rely on any services paid for by the taxpayer then, eh? Bearing in mind the taxpayers then will be predominantly the children you're now whinging about supporting.
So? The government makes decisions to support some activities because they're in the long term interest of the country. Buying a Ferrari isn't.
Oooh... top one! World class pedantry!
If it was an Olympic event we'd have a guaranteed gold this year!
Actually, yes. It sound reasonable that someone investing in setting up a business would be able to invest out of pre-tax earnings, after all if he reinvested the profits of his business back into the business he's do it out of pre-tax earnings.
I think that's extraordinarily generous of you, considering that the major problems facing the world are climate change and the massive increase in population worldwide. That's happening at the rate of 50% every 50 years, and if you think that the world can sustainably support that for long, given the recent food shortages caused by just one year's poor harvest, you're sadly mistaken. How are an extra 3 billion people going to be fed by the year 2050? What other scarce resources are they going to be consuming? How much more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are they going to cause?
The truth is, the greenest people on the planet are those who voluntarily forego the pleasures of parenthood and who don't put on earth multiple machines that will continue to pollute the environment for a further 80 years. It's time that was recognised by governments who clothe themselves in green. They should give massive tax benefits to those who are childless, and give proper effect to their mantra that the polluter should pay. Tax all parents heavily, and in direct proportion to the number of their kids. It's the only way the planet will survive.
on step up from factory fodder.
Personally I'd stop the subsidy for all the crap mickey mouse courses you get these days, and retain it for those that are actually of some use in the world.
It's a property tax.
So 75% is not less than 100%?
*not* shared services.So what? You can choose where to live and how many people to live with. Same as how many people you share your car or bottle of wine with.
Fair enough. At least children won't then get taxed (they do effectively with the council tax as a family obviously needs a bigger property).
What if one's not in work? Then the other will have to pay 100%.
If the single person is on the dole they'll probably get council tax benefit to pay it in full.
same services.
So what? You only need a property suitable for one person, so you should be a lower band.
properties & so pay more CT.
So? There're sharing and making good use of a scarce resource in this country, ie property. Why should those who waste property by not sharing be subsidised?
Next you'll be wanting a discount on your fuel tax because you drive alone.
Europe's population is predicted to *decline* over the next 50-150 years.
I think you're made a very sensible decision not to reproduce. The Darwin award beckons.
I do pay my way, you plonker. I'm annoyed at have to pay other peoples way as well.
I expect a state pension because *I've* paid for it! The same for NHS, I've paid for it!!.
I find it laughable that you turned the argument from me paying over the odds to being accused of "sponging". You're a divot who obviously hasn't read a single word.
We take nothing out that we haven't already put in. Why should we pay extra??
Bearing in mind the taxpayers then will be predominantly the
I am a taxpayer! I've paid, & still paying, for those services!
What part of that don't you understand?
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.