People Begging for a House Price Crash

The unfair advantage being the huge financial difference between different people who decide to have kids.

For instance compare a couple both earning an average salary with a young single unemployed woman. The former would face massive costs in having kids, either the loss of an income and a personal allowance, or high childcare costs, plus the cost of bringing up a child, and very little in benefits to offset them. The latter would get a very large increase in benefit entitlement, far more than the cost of bringing up a child.

The CI would make things more equal, the former would get more in "benefits" (ie CI) and not lose a personal allowance (cos there aren't any), and the latter would get a lesser increase in benefits (about the min cost of bringing up a child and no more).

The point of the CI is to abolish means testing while ensure nobody starves. So you need a CI for children.

£5826 actually, but near enough. [(25000-6475)*0.2 + (25000-52*110)*0.11]

Agreed.

Yes, but only by about £276.

Yes, the break-even income is just under £22k (£21970).

Well, if both are BR taxpayers, then yes, they'd be better off if earning less than about £22k each (hence £44k combined).

But if only one of them is earning, the couple would obviously be £5k better off than a single person. So the break-even point would be that at which the single person would be £5k worse off, and (unless my calculations have gone totally to pot, and I'm sure Tim will set me straight if they have) that doesn't happen until the earning member of the couple earns £92240! I attribute this apparent anomaly mainly to the fact that at present the personal allowance is of no benefit to the non-earner.

Wouldn't those who don't work be £5k better off? Perhaps you're assuming they'd have been on benefits which under the new system they would not get, but is it not the case that many who don't work are simply non-earning halves of a couple, and who therefore do not qualify for benefits?

My system doesn't discriminate on grounds of age.

Yes.

Highly likely. As you don't pay NI on pensions the break-even point is quite low, about 15k.

No, I really will make you worse off. Trust me.

Shows the hypocrisy of independant taxation but joint benefits assessment!

Yes, sorry should have specified "those on benefits who aren't working".

At the moment people start paying tax when their income reaches £6500.

Under the proposal (£5000 citizen's income, and 45% tax on all earnings), the figures I think would look something like this, comparing income level, current net pay, and net pay under the new scheme. NI is not included (as I don't understand it), so should be allowed for in the Net column:

Income Net New

£0 £0 £5000 £1000 £1000 £5550 £2000 £2000 £6100 £3000 £3000 £6650 £4000 £4000 £7200 £5000 £5000 £7750 £6000 £6000 £8300 £7000 £6900 £8850 £8000 £7700 £9400 £9000 £8500 £9950 £10000 £9300 £10500 £11000 £10100 £11050 £12000 £10900 £11600 £13000 £11700 £12150 £14000 £12500 £12700 £15000 £13300 £13250 £16000 £14100 £13800 £17000 £14900 £14350 £18000 £15700 £14900 £19000 £16500 £15450 £20000 £17300 £16000

In message , Andy Pandy writes

I knew that. :-)

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, I'm talking about the unfair advantage of people having many kids but not spending the full CI on each...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Unfortunately, that's where your system breaks down... Having a CI for children will mean that "selfish" / "evil" people will have children just to obtain more CI, and not spend all the extra on the children. How will you "change the system" to avoid *that* "unfair advantage"?

In message , Tim writes

This is Daily Mail/Tory talk.

It is worrying that neither understand why people have children. It's because they like sex!