Income Tax: how does it work?

My sentiment exactly, and frankly, the amount of tax I was or was not going to pay had absolutely no baring on my choice to have a family.

In that case the other is paying bugger all!

Either the other is a 'home technician' - a lifestyle choice of the couple/family or a work-shy fopp.

Err... What did I say below?

Again, that's a choice. Most people live in a property size related to their income,but if I decided to live in a mansion, I wouldn't be complaining about the amount, but the amount of difference single & couples/families.

Personally, I think the price (including tax) is still a bit too cheap. Bring on the two pence increase.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, we agreed that state taxation and benefits are *neutral* for all (those on average income). Don't you remember?

It's whether or not children pay back their parents that might be different.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Rubbish! I proved, mathematically, that childless people would be doing the subsidising, and it would be the people with more than

2 children that would get subsidised (under your preferred system). But you refused to comment on my analysis, even after several 'reminders' (I presume that you couldn't refute any of it).

I then showed the level of state benefit that would be required to be neutral overall for everyone (it was '(C-X,000)'); it was never decided on which side of this amount that the actual level of benefit lies. So we still don't know who *actually* subsidises who...

Quite right too, but as you state, it was your choice. I'm at a loss why I should subsides your lifestyle as a result of my choices in life.

Ooh, no answer, what a surprise.

So repay the state for the subsidy you received as a child, and save in advance for your pension and health costs in old age. Then you can whine about supporting others.

The tax system works like that. You get subsidised as a child, then when working you subsidise the current generation of children and adults, then when you're a pensioner you get subsided again.

No you haven't, you dipstick. Do you think the government sets aside your NI and taxes in a little pot to pay for your pension etc? They don't. They spend it on today's children amongst other things. Then in a generation's time they'll use the taxes from today's children to pay your pension etc.

single word.

You really are that dense, aren't you? You subside children now, they will subside you when you're a pensioner. Simple. Like you.

Ah yes, in terms of state taxation/benefits. So Dave's got no reason to whinge then, has he, as he's not subsidising anyone.

Yes, in terms of total subsidy, childless people are subsidised as we agreed.

You then made a big deal out of the fact that this subsidy actually comes directly from parent to child.

That's because you introduced bullshit like trying to assign a financial value on the 'joy of bringing up children' !!

Without this bullshit, you did agree that childless people get subsidised under the current system.

Yes we do. Unless you start trying to fiddle the answers from the maths by assigning financial value to non financial concepts.

See below. I was comparing to what happens if a single person did the same. The state then pays the CT.

I already said that (see the end) so no cigar.

Yeah, you choose not to share, don't expect a discount.

Only if they're stupid. And such stupid people who bought a property bigger than they need are currently getting deservedly shafted. Most sensible people live in a property of a size they need.

single & couples/families.

You seem to want a discount on taxation just because you don't share.

Hint - council tax is a tax on property just like car/fuel tax is a tax on driving. We ought to be encouraging sharing in both cases.

It won't happen, the government will chicken out.

So what? It's a global problem, so it's global population that matters.

You will, in time, see the wisdom in what I've said. You've seen the start already in food price increases, and it will only get worse. Britain produces just about 60% of the amount of food it consumes. If you think we're not vulnerable in times of food shortages worldwide, think again.

So you want mass immigration I take it?

I don't believe the predictions anyway. Europe's population has been declining as Europe has become more prosperous. The same will probably happen in "developing" countries as they develop.

European governments are worried about people having *too few* children. In time this may apply in Asia and Africa as well.

You are not, my life style is paid for by my efforts, and that of my wife. We both work, pay tax at the same rates as single persons, we get no family related handouts or allowances. I pay the same fuel tax and and extortionate expenses that everyone has to pay. its true that I get a reduction on council tax for multiple occupancy but I did that as a single person too as I always shared accommodation.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

But he's being forced to "subsidise himself" (pay to the state during working lifetime to repay the 'loan' of benefits provided when he was a child).

Maybe he'd prefer to have been subsidised fully by his parents, directly, so that they can then agree how he pays them back -- rather than having a particular method imposed on him?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, I never agreed that. Why do you keep trying to insist that I did? They *might* be, just the same as parents with children *might* be -- depending on whether they pay back their own parents or not.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

But it's not a *subsidy* if it's paid back, is it? It's then a

*loan*, just like the loan from the state (benefits while a child) is paid back (through taxes during working lifetime).

"Andy Pandy" wrote

You only call it "bullshit" because you'd prefer to forget about it, to aid your own opinions...

You never did answer the question - would you give up one of your children if a childless couple gave you 100 to let them bring up your child? If you wouldn't, you *are* putting a value of over 100 on it...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Can you show where I agreed to this? I don't remember!

I didn't assign any values -- but I noted that **other people** do.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Please define "non financial concepts".

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Why should the "long term interest of the country" matter, anyway? We all live in the present, not the future... [The government is meant to represent the *current* population, not the future population.]

Does someone living in the 21st Century, care about what happens to the country, or even the world, in a million year's time? Or a thousand year's time?

Then why care about what happens in 150 year's time?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Do those comments mean that you now concede you were wrong?

What is this future "nation" that you consider needs to be "kept going"? Isn't it made up from current children, who are then older and pay their taxes?

If there were no children now, then there wouldn't *be* a nation in the future, and so it wouldn't need to be "kept going". But if it *does* need to be "kept going", then that means that it will exist, and it can jolly well pay its own way -- the future nation can pay for itself.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

How would you then tax the sale of the business?

Suppose someone earns 10,000 (gross), receiving (say)

8,000 net of tax, and invests that 8,000 in a business which then doubles in value before he sells at 16,000. There's a gain of 8,000, which is taxed at sale.

But if someone earns 10,000 (gross), and invests that full 10,000 in a business which then doubles in value before he sells it (at 20,000), then there's a gain of

10,000 which is taxed -- but they'd get back the full original 10,000 without ever being taxed on it!

I don't see how that comes into it. It doesn't matter where in the world you live. If the world can't feed itself, the world goes hungry.

Er, right. So you direct me to an article that supports your view that European population is in decline, but ignore anything it says with the same authority about world population, without any reason. Nice.

Most unlikely. Hide your head in the sand if you like; many others are stupidly doing exactly the same. World food shortages are on their way, and sooner than you think. They'll impact much quicker than global warming, believe me, and the time scale, ie the next few years, will surprise you. We've seen the start with rapidly increasing food prices. That will continue, and escalate.

I don't think you have any concept of the time scales we're talking about here. By 2050 the population of the world will undoubtedly have increased by getting on for another 50%, or over 3 billion. There's no chance whatsoever that the poorer continents will or can curtail their growth. The inevitable consequence of this is widespread hunger and famine.

If you disagree, do please tell us where the world is going to find 50% more arable land by 2050.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

But that's just because of their stupid self-imposed system of "pay-as-you-go" pensions, isn't it?

If they scrapped state pensions, and let people save their money (that they would otherwise have paid into the state when working, only to be paid back when a pensioner) themselves, then what problem would there be with "too few children"?

He doesn't seem to mind the same principle being applied to the subsidy he'll get when he's a pensioner. He reckons he should be entitled to a state pension, NHS etc because he PAID for it. So he's happy to subsidise himself. When it suits him, in the usual hypocritical manner of his type.

Oh I see, he wants to sponge off his parents.

Because you did. You agreed with my formula for the net subsidy, which shows that those with less than 2 children receive a subsidy and those with more than

2 pay a subsidy.

Without wanting to bring that thread up again, and just to make the point about your agreement, here's an extract:

We then disagreed on who was subsidising whom. You claimed that it was the parents that were subsidising their own children, which of course is true directly. But I argued that indirectly the effect is that those with less children are being subsidised by those with more.

So have you set a repayment plan to your parents?

LOL!

IIRC I took the piss out of such bullshit, which was a ridiculous attempt at trying to justify the subsidy the childless get (as proved by my formula which you agreed with), by putting a financial value on children. Like perhaps those with no wife/girlfriend should also get a subsidy then, if they're not prepared to sell them to the likes of Dave?

See above.

Really? Where's this trade in children then? I can't find any on ebay.

Tough shit. They do, and so they should.

Anyway, the current population will need children to grow up and do the work so they can retire and sponge off them.

Ask Norman. He seems to care.

As usual, in a purely literal, pedantic sense, you are quite correct. Well done Timmy! Have yet another gold star.

Duh, what about the working age adults who will be pensioners in 30 years time? Do they not count either in your masterplan?

As earnings.

No. The same rule would need to apply both ends, obviously.

Pretty obvious really. The population of Europe is set to decline anyway. You seem to want it to decline even more, just because the population in Africa and Asia is expanding. So if Europeans are having hardly and children we'll need immigrants to wipe your arse in the nursing home when you're 95.

Er, I explained below.

Why? Why do you think the factors that have led to the decline in Europe's population will not start affecting the rest of the world, as they become more like Europe?

We could just start killing off old people. It's disgraceful that people's life expectancy is increasing so much. It's a problem that needs urgently addressing.

Then that will be a problem that solves itself.

No, not "just". You still need workers, even if you don't need to rely on their taxes to support the old.

Kin hell, how many times do you need telling?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Eh? Where does he say that he *prefers* to be forced to pay to the state while working, to be re-paid later while a pensioner -- instead of simply saving the money

*himself* while working and use it himself later?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

After he *has* been forced to pay for it, of course he should expect to be entitled to it. But he might much prefer *not* being forced to pay for it to the state now, and instead being able to save it himself, so he can use his own "pot" later, instead of receiving anything from the state later.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Which bit of "he pays them back" means he'd be a sponger?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

That's not really a subsidy, it's just the "amount paid out". What has the *net* "amount paid out", got to do with the "total subsidy" (if any)?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Yep, that's the *net* amount paid by parents of n children to their children, over the amount received by them from their own parents.

Now show me where I agreed that the "TOTAL subsidy" is different for parents or childless...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, it's only true if the children don't pay their parents back.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

And I proved, mathematically, that that was not true. In fact everyone is neutral if c is X,000, and the

*opposite* is true if c=0 (your preferred option).

I see you still didn't answer the question. What do you have to hide?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

See my reply above. You're making things up!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Never heard of adoption? Never heard of people paying large sums to adopt, on the "black market"?