"Pollux" wrote
Paid from the fund accumulated over our working lifetime? Is that too difficult??
"Pollux" wrote
HaHa. What about people who want kids even without any external incentives? What about all the "accidents", "we weren't trying", "it'll never happen to us"??
Tell me about it it, it happened to me! Still, these are a minority. Look at countries like Italy and Spain where the natality rate is truly dreadful and you'll see what I mean.
That's not true when you account for benefit/tax credit withdrawal rates. In fact the opposite is true, particularly for families.
People on very low incomes have a marginal rate of 100% (IS), reducing to 95.5% as they get above the applicable amount (HB & CTB), then 89.5% (HB only), then
70% (tax credit reduction, tax & NI), then 33% (tax and NI), then 23% (above the NI LEL), until finally there is an upward step (41%) - higher rate tax & NI.Duh, really?
I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of a system which treats everyone as an individual when it comes to income tax, but then treats people as a couple when it comes to tax credits and benefits. Also that a government which pretends to be "family friendly" with all its various complicated tax credits etc, still has a system whereby a couple with kids could be far better off if the system treated them as single childless people.
I've not so much got a problem with the system, but with the widespread perception that this government is really generous to all families, which is simply not true.
My point was that the unfairness to families in the tax system is partially recognised, through tax credits and benefits. If we had a decent tax system there'd be no need for benefits for most families, and people wouldn't whinge about families getting benefits.
Simple, you'd use the same rules for tax as you do for benefits. The trouble with the current system is that everyone is an individual for the purposes of income tax, but the benefits (and tax credits) system insists on treating some people as part of a couple (basically heterosexual couples living together "as man and wife").
So someone earning 2k a year would pay tax? Why? They'd only have it back in benefits. What's the point of taxing someone and then giving them their taxes back in benefits? Let people earn enough to provide the essentials of life, then tax any extra. Obviously "enough" will be different for a single person than a family of 4.
Government policy encourages exactly that. The tax credits/benefits and income tax system combine to penalise families on an average income, but reward families on low incomes. A couple both on average incomes who have a baby will see a big drop in their net income (either through childcare costs or one of them giving up work). A couple both on low incomes who have a child could well see a *rise* in their net income.
Which would then have to be taxed at a very high rate to pay for the NHS etc, as there won't be many working taxpayers to contribute. Although that may not be necessary as there'd be no-one to work in the NHS anyway.
"Andy Pandy" wrote in news:uMyRb.19382$ snipped-for-privacy@wards.force.net:
snip
But like most people you highlight the 'unfairness' from your perspective. Consider a single person doing the same job for the same salary as you, and they get a lesser take-home pay... hardly 'fair' from their perspective. No matter how the tax/benefit system is tweaked there will be examples which can be considered 'unfair' by certain groups. It gets even worse if you look at other taxes, such as the council tax, where single people pay disproportionately for services largely used by 'familes'.
snip
But this would just lead to a whole new set of perceived 'unfairness', from different groups.
Your proposal is not only equally unfair(to a different group) but also unworkable; as anyone choosing a large family would pay no tax, unless you choose to arbitrarily cut off at x children.
snip
I disagree that families on average income are 'penalised', they simply don't get as much assistance as your comparison family. An alternative way to resolve the unfairness you observe is to reduce the benefit given to your comparison family, a solution which would appeal to more tax payers!
Discussions about fairness in tax issues can never really be 'won', as we all have our own different vested interests. I can see your anger at the inequalities you see in the benefits system, and hopefully you can see my distaste for paying tax to support someone else's lifestyle choice, rather than need.
And you whinge about the benefits families get from your perspective.
Er, well I was there, I used to be single on about the same real terms salary and I was rolling in it. I didn't know what to do with my money. I have actually benefitted from several years as a single person which has set me up quite well for now. But some people have families earlier and don't have those years with money to burn/save/waste/whatever. It's those that really get screwed.
Well let them make their case.
Bullshit. When I was single I paid 75% of band B council tax. With a family, and obviously the requirement for a bigger house, I pay 100% of band E council tax. About double. I still get the same size wheelie bin.
Anyway taxes are supposed to levied more according to ability to pay than use of services, otherwise why tax, just charge people directly for the services they use. Healthy people subsidise sick people. Rich people subsidise poor people. That's how taxes work. But the council tax charges families, in general, a greater proportion of their income than single people or childless couples - since families obviously need a bigger house and are more likely to have a single earner or part time worker.
All I want is for tax and benefits to be assessed consistently. How the hell could that increase 'unfairness'? Do you have a clue?
What, unlike the current system? Did you watch that wife swap with the family with 8 kids? Basically the current system will pay out a fortune in benefits to a large family, and there is virtually no point in such people trying to get a job, because unless it is very highly paid, they'll hardly be any better off than on benefits. A family with 8 kids would need to earn close to 50,000 to be just 10% better off than on the dole. Is that better than what I'm proposing?
Yes, I don't want support other peoples' lifestyle choice either, and I am, such as single people. If 4 single people moved in next door, each earning one quarter of what I earn, they will have the same household gross salary, the same number of people in the household, the same council tax, similar bills etc. But they'll pay vastly less tax, since they'll get 4 personal allowances to our 1.
"Andy Pandy" wrote in news:s8CRb.28326$ snipped-for-privacy@stones.force.net:
No, I was 'whingeing' about paying benefits to support someone's lifestyle choice as opposed to need.
snip
But isn't that how the current system has reached its current state, with various groups making their representations to governments over many years. Undoubtedly it'll continue to change but there will always be a group(s) that feel the system is 'unfair'.
Not 'Bullshit' - fact. Yes, you may pay more but your payment provides services for 2 adults and a number of children, and is thus proportionately less. Most families will use rather more of the council provided services than single people.
snip
I didn't say it would increase unfairness, merely pass those feelings onto other groups.
snip
I've already stated that there are inequalities in any system of tax/benefits, including the current one, so selecting a rare case of 4 single working people sharing a house doesn't add anything. Like most people we both wish to see a 'fairer' system of tax and benefits, but like everyone else we have different priorities and perceptions of fairness. And of course even if we could agree a fairer system there would still be people who would take advantage.
... Playing "devils advocate" :-
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Isn't it just their *choice* to "stop being single earlier" ?
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Now there's an idea!! :-)
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Sounds like insurance to me.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Wasn't it actually the other way around, many years ago? Ie the "rich" lords remained rich by taxing all the poor people living on their land??
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Hmmmm. I wonder if the only true "consistent" way would be to have *zero* tax & *zero* benefits? How would you like that? :-((
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Perhaps an ideal solution would be for the *state* to rear all children?
Whenever a baby is born the parent(s) give it up immediately to the state to bring up. No change in number of children in a family (it is always zero!) means no change in net income (neither up nor down). Effectively no "families" ever exist, so there could be no "unfairness" between different types of families, nor between families and "non-families" ...
I guess this isn't going to happen in the near future, so we may be stuck with unfairness ...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Perhaps that just means that the benefits are too high at lower incomes? ;-)
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Granted - perhaps it would be much better to have a truly combined system of "taxation&benefits", rather than separate "tax" & "benefits" systems. There must surely still be a debate though, over whether this should be based on "individuals" or "family units" - and if the latter, how each "unit" is defined.
Possibly. A family with two children would get over twice as much IS/JSA as a couple with no children. The benefits system does tend to favour families whereas the tax system tends to favour single people/working couples.
There is at the moment, for instance gay couples wanting the advantages of marriage. Which I'm in favour of, provided I can have the advantages of being treated as a gay couple by the benefits system :-)
The point you fail to grasp is that lower taxes (eg through personal allowances) are just as much of a subsidy as tax credits and other payable benefits. You can't look at one or the other in isolation, you need to look at the whole package.
Part of the problem is that many families don't actually understand the system and don't realise that they're getting more heavily taxed than eg childless couples and single people. I wouldn't have a problem if political parties put forth proposals in their manifesto to heavily tax average income single earner familes, like say they do with cigarettes. But they don't, they pretend to support such families and many seem to be thick enough to believe them.
You've really got a screwed up way of looking at things. Are you going to pay more taxes when you're old because you're more likely to use the NHS? No, because when you are working you subsidise the young (which you once were) and the old (which you will be in the future).
If you want to look at it another way, when you're working and paying tax you are repaying the state for your education etc, and paying in advance for your pension etc.
It was an *example* to illustrate that the tax system favours single people, which applies generally and not just to the specific example I gave. To put it simply, families subsidise single people through the tax system, and single people subsidise families through benefits. But there seem to be a lot of clueless single people moaning about the benefits side and ignoring the tax side of the coin.
Of course. Trouble is they believe the government spin that families get treated well by the tax/benefits system.
Well of course it already happens with some services.
Nope. People with private health insurance still pay the same taxes towards the NHS. People with chronic illnesses, or old people, don't have to pay a higher "insurance premium" despite them being more likely to "claim". Getting treatment is not dependant on paying the "premium" (tax dodgers aren't denied NHS treatment).
Yes, I'd probably be much better off. Even if I had to pay for my kids education, they'd have to pay my pension when I'm old.
"Andy Pandy" wrote in news:bv85p0$5ia$ snipped-for-privacy@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
The level at which taxation starts is hardly a 'subsidy'. What you fail to grasp is that others see things differently to you.
The government does support families, just not all to the same extent. How fair this is depends on indivual circumstances. Governments will always shout about the positive elements of their policies and leave it to other to point out their deficiencies.... it has always been that way.
No need to get abusive, you just missed the point. I was again suggesting that there are many other ways to view the system(s) which you consider unfair, not sharing my personal viewpoint.
And to think that you said I'd 'got a screwed up way of looking at things'! Working people pay taxes to enable benefits to be paid. A working person not in receipt of benefits 'subsidises' those in receipt of benefits through the tax system, regardless of marital status.
As I said before, we could eliminate the inequality you originally mentioned of your single wage earner at 17k versus a dual part-time working family with 2 x 6k by simply reducing their benefits so that their total net income was slightly lower than yours. Would you consider this fair?
"Andy Pandy" wrote
In what way are families getting taxed more than childless couples & single people?
Take the example of (A) a dual-income family first - compared to (B1) a dual-income couple or (B2) two separate working single people. Then take the example of (C) a single-income family - compared to (D1) a single-income couple or (D2) two separate single people, one working and the other not.
How is (A) taxed more heavily than either (B1) or (B2)? How is (C) taxed more heavily than either (D1) or (D2)?
"Andy Pandy" wrote
How so? (see above)
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Agreed.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
What if they decided not to? :-(
Yes it is. 4 single people get 4 personal allowances and 4 10% tax bands, worth about 7032 between them if they pay basic rate tax.. A family of 4 with a single earner gets one personal allowance and one 10% tax band worth 1758. They also get benefits worth about 1900. You seem to be whinging about the 1900 benefits but ignoring the 5274 they are missing out on through only being able to one of their personal allowances.
You haven't got a clue. Why do many couples pay a greater proportion of their income in tax after having children than before then? Go away and try understanding the system before whinging about it.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Why don't you compare like-with-like?
For your family, you have *one* earner and three *non-earners*. So - do the same for the 4 single people: let one be an earner, and the other 3 be non-earners (therefore comparing "like-with-like").
Now, where's the excess tax for the family??
By not being able to use all the family members' personal allowances. Particularly the children's, but also a family is more likely to have a non earning adult.
If you want to compare two sets of people you need to compare like with like, or as close as possible, otherwise the comparison is pretty meaningless. By which I mean at least: a) same number of people, and b) same income.
If you take any family and compare with a group of *the same number* of single/childless people on the *same total gross income*, you will nearly always find the family have a lower net income (after tax/tax credits/benefits).
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.