Income Tax: how does it work?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

He's already doing that, just like everyone else, during his working lifetime.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

If he does that, then he should be given a reduction in his taxes that currently go towards "pension and health costs in old age".

"Andy Pandy" wrote

You keep using the word "subsidy", but what you're talking about isn't really a subsidy at all. It's simply a "loan"...

You receive a loan from the state when you are a child, and you pay that loan back during your working lifetime.

You also loan the state some more money during your working lifetime, which the state pays you back after you retire.

How the state funds the "child loans" and "pensions" is an entirely different matter.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

That's just the mechanism that's used, not the scale...

Consider that, during an average working lifetime, an average worker pays (C + W + P) in tax.

C of that pays the benefits for children at that time; P of that pays the pensions to pensioners at that time; W is for other, general, stuff.

Each person (on average) will have received C benefits while young, and will receive P benefits when older.

If you decide to scrap the state pensions, then the average person should pay only (C + W) in tax over their working lifetime.

In other words, when they pay (C + W + P) in tax, they

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No. You give a loan to the state now, the state pays it back when you're a pensioner. Simple. [Like you.]

I didn't say "prefer", dipstick.

And after the state has subsided him as a child, he should pay them back, if he wants it that way.

Because he won't. His type want to keep the subsidy and then whinge about subsiding others (which he isn't).

Duh... it's exactly what the subsidy is.

OK we can agree on that. So people with no children who don't pay their parents back for the costs their parents incurred in their upbringing are spongers. They take more than the give overall.

What is X? Is this to do with your bullshit about putting a value on the "joy of bringing up children"??

I answered it. It was bullshit question.

OK, I'll repeat it.

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?

Come on - if you think this sort of thing isn't bullshit. If Dave wants to buy your wife for 100, would you sell her?

If not then Dave is subsidising you, using your warped logic.

Er, yes Tim, that was my point. You call it a loan, I call it a subsidy, but the end result is the same. Overall childless people are *not* subsidising children through their taxes. They are simply paying back the subsidy they received while paying in advance for their pension. The net tax/benefit effect is neutral. And we *do* agree on this.

Dave however seems to think he is paying more to the state than he gets back.

And what do they spend it on, dipstick? What will happen to prices if the supply of labour dries up?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

OK, well where does he say that "he doesn't seem to mind" that?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

But he doesn't say that he doesn't want to pay that back!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

How do you know that - are you psychic?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

NO! Assuming no-one ever pays back their own parents, then:-

(1) If c is X,000, then there are NO subsidies.

(2) If c is below this (and C is therefore higher than before), then people with more than 2 children are subsidised by the state, and those with fewer than 2 children subsidise the state. [Net effect: "Excess parents are subsidised by childless.]

(3) If c is above this (and C is therefore lower than before), then people with fewer than 2 children are subsidised by the state, and those with more than 2 children subsidise the state. ["Childless are subsidised by excess parents.]

Yep, but only in the same way that parents with children, who don't pay their parents back for the costs their parents incurred in their upbringing, are also spongers.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Exactly.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

You didn't say whether you would, or would not.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

There's really no need. We know now that you are trying to hide the true answer.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Of course I wouldn't! I have no trouble answering that question - but why do *you* have trouble answering my equivalent question above?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Heh, you really are looking stupid now. Just how do you think we are receiving this subsidy?

This may be true for you, but there are many who play the system to get as much out as possible for as little effort as possible. I feel sure that the earlier comments are aimed at these people.

tim

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Er, no, Mr Pandy, I do not agree with that. I say it depends on the level of the state taxation/benefit, which you call "C".

If this is too high then childless people *are* subsidising parents with excess children. On the other hand, if C is too low, *then* parents with excess children are subsidising childless people.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

He might be. Then again he might not. We need to know which side of the threshold the level of state child benefit lies...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Do you think that calling people names helps your argument? You just end up looking like the "dipstick" yourself...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

And what will happen to the *demand*, if the population reduces?

Supply and demand ... they work together.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Is it just houses that you feel that way about? Why?

If you have a higher income, is it stupid to spend more on nicer food, or should you only spend what you "need" to?

Is it stupid to pay more on a nicer car (if that's what you want), or should you only spend what you "need" to?

Is it stupid to pay more for a bigger TV, or should you only spend what you "need" to?

etc etc

Why do you think it is stupid to spend more on a nicer (bigger) house?

And - if someone only ever spent as much as they "need" to, and yet still has a large excess of income, what do you think they should do with it? Why?

No, because (in theory, and on average) those who attend college will earn more during their working lives than those who don't, and thus not only pay back more into the pot in taxes than those who don't, but probably more than enough to cover the cost of college.

That's odd. Apart from the fact that when one uses a pronoun like "he", it is usually taken to refer back to the likeliest candidate which precedes it in recent context, and in *your* context "the single person" was not only the likeliest but the only candidate, you would not be making sense if "he" were to refer to a previously unmentioned married person, because what you said ("... X should pay less tax ... anyway Y is probably already [paying less tax] ..." (paraphrased)) makes more sense when X and Y are the same than when they are opposites, since the two statements would then reinforce rather than detract from each other.

As things stand, therefore, I'm at a loss in trying to understand what on Earth you were trying to say.

Yu persist with this X bullshit I see.

But then if *their* children don't pay them back at least they are sponging as much as being sponged.

IOW, a bullshit fiddle factor.

And how do think the childless are paying your X, dipstick? You've already agreed taxes/benefits are neutral, so where does this X come from?

They aren't paying X, any more than Dave is paying you X for you having a wife. X is a complete irrelevance and you only introduced it because you lost the argument.

Yawn. Are you trying to resurrect every discussion we've had in the past? Refer to the archives if you're that bored.

Hint - the point is in a generation's time having:

a) a lot of pensioners, because of the *current* population.

and

b) not many working age adults, because of a lack of children born now.

Then you have high demand, from the pensioners, and low supply, from the working age adults.

I quote from this very thread:

Tim wrote:

"Andy Pandy" wrote

I persist? Of course. Bullshit? Hell no.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Does that make it OK? Do two 'wrongs' make a 'right' now?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No. Just part of the equation.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

I refer you to my analysis first posted at 13:02 on 11/05/08, and re-posted at 08:48 on 12/5/08.

Now can you construct a similar analysis that shows Dave is subsidising me?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Nope - you are ignoring it because it loses you your argument!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

I don't remember you ever discussing it before. Care to give me a pointer?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Well, that's just tough. After a short while, the excess pensioners will all be dead and then you'll be back to a more stable ( & smaller) population, so prices will recover somewhat.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Oh dear. You keep quoting comments which don't back up your arguments!

Go back and read my analysis from May, and you might begin to understand...

There's an unwritten understanding amongst most normal people that the subsidy you get as a child is returned to the next generation when you become a parent. That way everything is neutral.

How have you agreed to pay your parents back then?

Exactly the same. Simply substitute "wife" for "child".