Income Tax: how does it work?

So what? You said the government's duty is to the *current* population. Now you're saying it's "tough" on them, but it'll be OK when they're dead.

You really are losing it....

You've contradicted yourself. Admit it and move on.

I am not reading your bullshit which included your X factor. I thought I'd made it clear that I think it's bullshit.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Now you're just making things up!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Don't be silly. It would only be neutral if *everyone* had exactly two children. But some people have more, and some people have less. Sometimes through choice, sometimes not.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Goody - when is the state going to start paying me "WIFE tax credits"? :-))

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Google can't find it either. I reckon you're just making it all up again!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, it'll be tough on that *future* population.

OK, so *some* of that population might be the same as *some* of the current population, but the two *populations* are actually different.

Yet you reckon they can ignore the current population's aspiration to a decent retirement.

You need to introduce another fiddle factor, how about Z - the "joy of being a pensioner with no pesky kids around".

Not too much actually about 150 years hence, but I do worry about the next

You think that nursing homes and hospitals are not already filled with immigrants doing just that for the folk who are already there? If you do, you want to visit one now and again.

It's highly unlikely because the time scale is one that you cannot comprehend. We will face severe food shortages worldwide in the next few years, not in the centuries that it would take the third world to catch up with European standards of living and prosperity.

Old people will die anyway. So will the young. So will those in between. That's the trouble with famine. It's a bit indiscriminate.

It will, of course, but rather horribly. And you're a bit naive if you think that you'll be immune from it. Britain produces only about 60% of the amount of food it actually consumes. When the importation of food ceases because it's needed in the countries where it is produced, and is retained there, what percentage of the British population do you think will die?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Where? I see no contradiction.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

I don't admit to things that I haven't done. Do you?

From the EU and commonwealth, mainly. We're struggling to keep people out now, under your plan we'd struggle to attract them.

Really? A few years? How many, 3 or 4?

No it isn't. It affects the oldest, youngest and weakest first.

Now substitute "actually consumes" with "needs". Most people could probably survive on 60% of the food they eat now. It'll solve the obesity epidemic, won't it?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

I know you're trying to make everyone think that you don't value your children, but as I said before, I actually reckon that you *do* value them. I reckon the reason you have never answered my question ("Would you give your child to a childless couple if they paid you 100 to be able to bring up your child?"), is that the answer is "no, you wouldn't".

If I'm right, then you *do* value them -- at over 100. If I'm wrong (and you *would* give up a child for 100), then you must be a very sad individual and I pity you.

It's all in black and white above, Timmy. Perhaps you need another fiddle factor. How about T, the Tim effect. You can add T to the "neutral" effect of tax/benefits when it suits your current argument.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

You're wrong. What did you think "C, received from the state" was?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, I don't -- but forcing them to pay tax/NI now, for the "hope" that they'll get back some pension after they retire (with no guarantees) -- *that* is ignoring their aspiration to a decent retirement.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Your suggestions are getting more and more idiotic.

That was included in the "neutral" effect of tax/benefits, which you agreed about but are now backtracking on.

Anyway, as usual with conversations with you, you start well but when you start losing the argument you introduce irrelavences (like your fiddle factor X), and you backtrack on things you'd already agreed on (like the neutral effect of tax/benefits), or simply resort to pedantry (actually you do that anyway whenever you can - it's in your nature).

So I'll wish you farewell, till the next time. I've got to tidy my sock drawer.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Exactly. No contradiction is shown...

Firstly I said that I don't agree with the statement that "The net tax/benefit effect is neutral", because if the state child "loan" was C, then the *effect* would be that childless people subsidise parents with excess children.

Next, I agreed that everyone (on average income) will pay the same into the state, and receive the same from the state.

See? Different statements, and no contradiction.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, I only need to include parameters that exist.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, I'm not backtracking. Try actually *reading* my previous analysis, and see if you can refute any of it. I'm still waiting for you to point to which bit you think is wrong!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Actually, when I'm *winning* the argument, then you decide to ignore an important part of it -- and then even refuse to answer a question which would show that it's wrong to ignore it!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

That's *not* irrelevant. [Will you let a childless couple bring up your child if they pay you 100?]

"Andy Pandy" wrote

I've never backtracked on that.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

That's what you do everytime, when you've lost the argument.

If you still refuse to answer the question, then we'll know that it's because you've realised the answer will show that you've lost the argument.

They used to, up until not that long ago. It was called the Married Couples Allowance.