The three non earners will be able to claim JSA, housing benefit, council tax benefit etc. Probably over 5000 *each* in benefits.
I'd be positively delighted if my family of 4 were treated in exactly the same way as 4 single people of which only one earns.
I think I'd stand a better chance than someone without kids. It's one of the reasons people used to have kids in the days before benefits.
"Andy Pandy" wrote in news:bv8g2a$ctv$ snipped-for-privacy@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
snip
I've never complained about anything other than the original poster's desire to have the taxpayer support his proposed lifestyle change, and on several occasions have said that I support the payment of benefit for those in need.
The points you don't answer are noted, how you attribute comments not made, jump to conclusions, state half-truths as fact, and particulalry your inability to understand what subsidy really means. As you continue to ignore the facts that you don't like, you might like to take your own advice and 'go away', and reflect on your own 'whinging'.
Welcome to my killfile!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
OK, so you've changed your mind - you're not now talking about being *taxed* more heavily, but you're talking about *benefits* instead.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
You should be comparing your family with a group of four single people *of the same ages*.
As an analogy - I have two dogs; should my household get a personal allowance for them too? I think not!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Exactly! So why aren't *you* ?!!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
... and also: c) same ages and number of earners?
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Surely the differences (comparing like-with-like) will only be due to
*benefits*, and not *taxes*?
Well, sort of, the "taxed more heavily" was really based on a family being far more likely to contain more non-earners than a group of childless people.
But as you can see, even where this is not true, the single people gain considerably through benefits rather than taxation.
Why? What about two 45 year olds with two 16 year old children at school - compared with 4 19 year old single people?
Only if they will go on to pay taxes in later life.
OK. A 45 year old couple with two 17 year old children at school. Compared with two 45 year old single people and two 17 year old single people no longer living with their parents.
If "like-for-like" also means the same number of earners, then yes, it's benefits which results in the single people taking home more.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Well, if you are going to change other aspects (such as ages above) as well as the "family" / "non-family" features of the households - then why not change income? or number of people? or ...
Obviously, if we want to compare the positions for "family" .vs. "non-family", we need to get everything else as close as possible - which surely includes members ages!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
So, do you mean that you shouldn't be counting your children if they end up on benefits or low enough incomes in future so that they never end up paying any taxes? If so, how will you know the future *now*??
Which I've done!
You know that a good proportion of them will. It's like an investment, some investments do well, others do badly. If none of todays kids end up paying taxes then the pensioners of tomorrow are in for a grim future. I don't think there's much prospect of the dogs of today supporting me in retirement.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
I don't think so!
You said: "families ... are getting more heavily taxed than eg childless couples and single people". I questioned this and you replied with simply "By not being able to use all the family members' personal allowances. Particularly the children's ...".
But if the ages are the same, and earners/non-earners are the same for both "family" and "non-family" - then the family is clearly *NOT* taxed any more heavily - they are indeed taxed the same!!
You even went on to say: "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." It's just unfortunate that you didn't heed your own words!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
You are assuming that all pensioners are dependent on benefits from others. I intend to support myself - from (a) the wealth that I amass before retirement, (b) continuing to work and (c) insurance against any problematic catastrophes which may occur to stop either/both of (a) & (b).
So - will I be dependent on the tax-paying effectiveness of future workers?
Overall, taxes and benefits considered, the single people will be better off.
Er, no I'm not. You completely miss the point. If there are less younger taxpayers in the future, then a) pensioners will have to pay much more tax to make up the difference, and b) there will be massive skill shortages resulting in either old people having to work till they're 80, or wages being sky high as demand for services is far higher than supply, or both.
Yes. In a word. Your wealth will be totally useless if there are no people to provide the services you require, or so few that everything is incredibly expensive.
"Andy Pandy" wrote in message news:XQWRb.28658$ snipped-for-privacy@stones.force.net...
I've just come back from 2 days away and this has moved on a bit.
An elderly population is extremely bad news for everyone- even those with their own pensions. First of all state pensions are paid by current taxpayers. I cannot remember the amount of tax payers per pensioner, but the figure is dropping rapidly. It will reach a point where even our relatively modest pensions will be unsustainable. This will cause a great deal of intergenerational conflict- as is already happening in America where states with a vocal elderly population have voted to cut back on education- to the point that schools are only opening 3 days per week.
Then those with private pensions. Private pensions are generally invested in gilts, that depend on someone paying interest on the debt. We have already seen the pain that is caused for those coming up to retirement age by low gilt/annuity rates. So people will get even less for their money than they do now, because there will be even less people able to pay the interest through their taxes. If the working/tax paying poulation drops far enough we may be unable to service our debt (the debt built up by previous generations who saddled us with debt rather than pay enough tax) and have to default.
Finally for those with cash rather than annuities, wage inflation will spiral. If you think it is difficult to get/afford a plumber now wait ten years. Everything we need from others will be so expensive. The only answer to this will be mass immigration. We are already seeing that with many low paying jobs such as fruit picking, social care and fish-processing. Unfortunately that only gives a short term fix, as the immigrants may work for low wages but their families will aspire to the same things as everyone else in this country does and will refuse to work under the same terms and conditions as everyone else does.
So older people very much need a vibrant young population to support them in the style they want. This has become such a worry for some European countries that they are paying people to have children. I think parts of Spain are paying over 2000. This country hasn't gone as far as that, and tax credits are a start, but as Andy has pointed out the inequalities in them, it probably still isn't enough. So tax credits are not so much a benefit as a necessary investment in our future.
Neb
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Look further back. At 11.17am on 28th, you actually said: "families ... are getting more heavily taxed than eg childless couples and single people". You did *not* mention benefits at this point!
And when queried why *tax* would be higher for a family unit compared to an otherwise similar "non-family" unit, you used the example of personal allowances, which of course does *not* compare "like-with-like".
True, after tax & *benefits* - 4 single people may be better off. But I stand by my statement refuting yours that "families ... are getting more heavily *taxed* than eg childless couples and single people".
------------
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Only if they have taxable earnings or some investments which aren't tax-free!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
What is wrong with that?
In days-gone-by, when the first companies began to pay pensions to their oldest "retiring" employees, and this occurred around ages 60/65 - average life expectancy was actually *below* "retirement age"!! Most people never got to retire. Retirement was just for those lucky few that lived much longer than others, as a "reward" for having worked such a long time ...
Why have things changed so much?? :-(
If "like-for-like" also means the same number of earners, then yes, it's benefits which results in the single people taking home more. "
My definition of "like-with-like" was the essential elements, such as number of people and income. A non-earner has very similar financial requirements to an earner, they still need to eat and have a roof above their head, so I can't really see the point in insisting on the same number of earners and non-earners in the groups, any more than the same shoe size or hair colour.
My reasoning behind that was that a family is far more likely to have more non-earners.
Anyway, I don't really care, the important issue is that tax *and* benefits considered, a group of 4 single people will nearly always be better off than a family of 4 on the same income.
Well someone has to pay the taxes - maybe the government will be forced into abolishing all tax free perks and introducing a wealth tax.
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.