Re: ten pence tax band petition

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Do you give the entire benefits to your children, for them to spend as they wish?!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Exactly.

children.

Correct - overall. However....

I'm glad you finally admit you're thick...

Er - because the point was that the subsidy to children comes both from the state and their parents, whereas the subsidy to old people comes almost exclusively from the state.

subsidies via

What part of :

"However, those who had children subsidised the creation of that younger generation to a far greater extent than childless people, through the costs of bringing up their own children, in addition to the taxation paid by both groups.

Maybe you should learn to read more carefully.

Then they are not childless, dork-brain.

I think learn-direct have a course on English comprehension. You may find it useful.

higher...

What's that got to do with it? It's money earmarked for the children. The clues are in "CHILD benefit", CHILD tax credit".

So you admit you were wrong when you wrote 'the "net taxation" of childless couples is therefore higher'. Well done Timmy.

Or if they are able to downsize to a smaller home, which many are doing at present.

I'd say (1) is wrong. The "average" person is likely to receive less benefits than they have paid is taxation. Otherwise taxation would be neutral and the government would have no money to spend.

Since more people will pay more tax than receive benefits, children are a net financial benefit to society.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Yep; I know!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

But you need to remember that those old people were once children! You've already agreed that (on average and over their lifetime) everyone pays the state back as much as the state subsidises them...

So, your gripe appears to be solely that you'd like to whinge about your children not paying you back as much as you spend on them. The childless couples are *not* responsible for that!!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

What part of it does what?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

So what? The effect of those extra children on the state is (on average) *neutral*.

That means that childless couples create no extra burden on the state than parents do. So tell me again -- why should they pay higher taxes? ...

It appears all you want is for children to pay back their parents once they have grown up; that applies equally to people who end up being parents or people who end up being childless. If this were to happen via the state (extra taxation/benefits), rather than the payback happening directly, then *both* childless couples *and* parents need to be taxed extra -- and this passed on to their parents when they are old.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Maybe you should learn to think more clearly!

True - although the "downsizing" is often to bungalows, which are riduculously expensive and so often hardly release any capital at all!

"Mark" wrote

But taxation/spending (over time) is *necessarily* neutral.

"Mark" wrote

What do you think it "spends" the difference between taxation and direct benefits on? It "benefits" the people... [At least, it is meant to!]

"Mark" wrote

No - as described above, all spending from tax is used to pay for benefits for the people (including expenses/overheads, which are a necessary cost of providing those benefits). That doesn't mean that all those benefits are a handout of money...!

"Mark" wrote

No, they are neutral (on average).

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Well, we were comparing the net taxation of "families" against "childless couples". If you want to ignore the childrens benefits, then those benefits must have been "wasted", which made me think that you gave them to your children to throw down the drain or something...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

There you go whinging again, about having to spend money on your children...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, I don't admit that at all. The net taxation of a childless couple (that's two adults) *is* higher than that for a family (that's two adults plus one/more children).

Did you not understand (I had meant to write).

But people who were childless then wouldn't get the payback. Effectively, yes. It's more like expecting everyone to pay for their childhood subsidy, which can only really be done through taxation/benefits etc. See below.

Are you being deliberately thick, or do you really not understand the point?

Lets do it mathematically - because you like (and do understand) maths.

Consider an average person, who pays and average amount of tax over their life and spends an average amount of time as a pensioner. Assume approximately stable population (so the average person has 2 children).

As a child he will get a subsidy to pay for his education, food, housing etc.

Some of this subsidy comes from the state, let's call this C. Some comes from his parents, lets call this c.

As a working adult, he will pay a net subsidy to the state - ie his taxes, minus benefits (but NOT child related benefits for his offspring as these are included in C), minus taxes spent on him (eg NHS costs). Lets call this W. Say he has n children. He will subsidise them nc/2 assuming 2 parents.

As a pensioner, he will receive a net subsidy from the state to pay for his pension, healthcare etc. Call this P.

So we'd expect C+P = W (assume all taxation is for the benefit of the people, directly or indirectly). Therefore the net effect of the average person on government coffers is zero, as you point out.

Now consider the effect on various individuals, changing the number of children but assuming averages in everything else.

The net subsidy paid out is:

W + nc/2 - C - c - P.

But C+P=W, so the net subsidy paid out is

nc/2 - c

Or

c(n/2 - 1)

Ie if you have more children than 2, you are subsiding those who have less children than 2.

Now, c comes from the parents, but the value of c is effectively set by the government, by determining the value of C (since C + c = total child subsidy, the higher C is the lower c is).

So current government policy results in a transfer of wealth from the average family to the average childless person.

However that's not quite the full story - since variations of income have not been taken into account. For those on low incomes, c approaches 0 or even goes negative (ie the state is *oversubsidising* very low income people though an overgenerous C). For those on higher incomes, c becomes higher than average since C reduces, resulting in a transfer of wealth from higher income families to lower income families, and NOT from childless people to lower income families (since their net subsidy is still negative).

Mr Pandy, I notice that you didn't answer the above question!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Of course. But as they wouldn't have spent out on the kids in the first place, they wouldn't be due any payback!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

It looks more like it's you being thick (see below)...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

...OK...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

OK so far...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

This is where you are mistaken. You are *not* "subsidising those who have less children than 2." You are subsidising your *own* children, who happen to number more than 2.

Those other people "who have less children than 2" were subsidised by *their* parents while young, *not* by you!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, that's wrong. The only "transfer of wealth" which you seem to be concerned about, is that from a parent to their children while they are young.

There is *no* transfer of wealth

*between* families, just *inside* them.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, the higher 'c' is just a greater transfer of wealth from richer parents to their children than from poorer parents to their children. It says *nothing* about any transfer from higher income families to lower income families.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

You think that there is no transfer of wealth from childless people earning (say) several million, and paying tax on that? Dream on!

I've answered it several times, including below...

Er, yes, that's the point.

Really? Let's see...

Right - so you agree that people with more than average children pay a subsidy, and people with less than average children benefit from a subsidy.

Er, directly, yes, but indirectly they have subsidied those who had less that 2 children. Their parents, if they had 2 children would have receievd no net subsidy.

The formula speaks for itself, and you agreed with it.

Yes - which ought to be "repaid" by the child transferring wealth to the next generation. If that doesn't happen then the "child" overall is being subsidised by the next generation.

Rubbish - can you really not see past one level of indirection?

approaches

children.

Er, yes it does. c is necessarily higher in higher income families due to the lower C. And as above, the net subsidy paid is proportional to c.

OK, what I meant was from childless people on an average income. People on very high incomes subsidise *everyone*, regardless of number of children etc.

"childless

Er, no. What if parents got money to pay for the kids' eduction, would that count against taxation in your odd little world?

What if working adults got paid their aged parents' state pension, would that count as the working adults' income?

Who's whinging? I'm pointing out the blatently obvious.

And the net taxation for 4 people is lower if all 4 are adults, than if they are a family of 4.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

So what's your problem here then? You don't like the fact that childless people aren't due a payback and don't get it?!!!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Yes, to *their* children.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Yes, from *their* parents.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Utter rubbish. The money was spent on their own children. It was not spent on those people who had less than 2 children!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Yes it does, it says that *parents* subsidise their *own* children.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Of course. Because children *are* "subsidised" by their *own* parents!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Eh? If person A owes a debt to person B then they should pay back person C instead? ROFLMAO!!

OK - I'll be person C, and you can be person A. Just make sure that you give me anything that you owe to anyone else...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, the next generation hasn't paid anything for them, so cannot be subsidising them. Everyone should simply pay back their own parents in their parent's old age.

[In passing - some of those next generation will be parents, and some will be childless. So even if you were right here (which you are obviously not), then you are saying that those people are subsidised by parents **and** childless people...]

"Andy Pandy" wrote

One level of rubbish you mean?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

I accepted that. But it only describes the subsidy between parents and their own children; *not* between family A and family B.

There is actually *no* transfer between family A and family B, except for state taxes/benefits, which you have already agreed are neutral overall and are therefore being ignored.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

But as you stated earlier, those childless couples pay just as much tax as the equivalent parent couple on the same average income. So the childless couples subsidise the lower income families **just as much** as the average income families do.

But they would have *to pay* a payback to their parents, wouldn't they Timmy, without getting one back from their children. Therefore they'd be down on the deal, relative to now, where they *don't* pay a payback.

Duh, yes, directly.

Again, directly, yes.

Kin hell, you really are too dense to perceive more than one level of indirection, aren't you.

If I pay a tax, and that tax is spent on the millenium dome, am I subsidising the government (as I pay them the tax), or the millenium dome?

Er, yes, well done. It also says those without children receive a net subsidy and those with 4 children give a net subsidisy.

LOL!! Do you have equal difficulty with the concept that if you, person A, pays retailer B for something with your credit card from bank C, that C is asking you to pay the debt you owe for the purchase from B?

Hint - indirection in who owes what to whom happens all the time. Ask Mike Holmes for the sub-prime mortgage crisis explaination. As I remember it that went up to the second half of the alphabet. You seem to have difficulty getting to C.

That'd work too of course, and I'm sure it'd be easier for the slower members of society to understand, but would require mass co-ordination, ie everyone would have to do it, or it'd have to made compulsory. Then you have the problem of what happens if the parents don't make old age etc.

It's so much simpler to simply reduce c to 0, ie make C sufficient to support all children. The net result is exactly the same.

Eh? You've totally lost the plot here. I'm saying what the formula says.

Go away and try thinking about it. This time I reckon you are genuinely confused, rather than your usual trolling or being a pedant.

We don't know that they don't pay back their parents. They might! But it doesn't matter anyway - that is just between the parent and the (grown)child concerned, and doesn't affect other families.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Err - *where* do "those without children" get their subsidy from...? ;-)

"Andy Pandy" wrote

In that situation, A asks C to pay B, and A tells C that they'll pay C back later. Which is *exactly* the same situation as when:- A = child B = supermarket for child's food C = parent

So both in your credit card example, and for a parent paying for a child's food, it is as I described (C initially pays B for A, so A should pay back C later).

But now consider:- A = child B = parent C = next generation D = supermarket for child's food

B pays D for A, so A owes a debt to B. They don't owe C anything...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Agreed, the net result is the same.

But think about this for a bit. You're saying that you want the entire cost of bringing up your children to be spread over everyone (all parents and childless alike), through state taxes/benefits. But why? The only real reason that I've noticed you put forward so far, is that when the children grow up, their taxes pay for the childless people. But as we've shown, and you've agreed, that is a red herring because state taxes/benefits are neutral overall (for the average new child born, they will have a neutral effect on the state -- they don't pay any excess of taxes at all).

But I *can* see a case for reducing C to zero, so that the entire cost of bringing up children is paid for by their parents -- why should childless people help parents to pay for their children's upbringing, when they get no benefit from each extra child?

Why is it that you begrudge paying for the upkeep of your children, even when other (childless) people are *already* helping you to pay for it and not getting anything in return?

You also seem to begrudge the fact that a childless person might be financially better off than a parent with many children, because they receive a "subsidy" from their parents, but don't "subsidise" their own children (as they don't have any). But they also miss out on the joys of parenthood -- if you'd like them to help you pay for your kids, are you also going to share your kids with them ... ?

They don't generally because it makes no sense to. The cashflow involved in such an arrangement would mean they'd be heavily out of pocket while both supporting their own children and paying back their parents, and heavily in pocket when old. Mind - I suppose it's an alternative to pensions...

children.

Adam and Eve originally, I guess. Or maybe God. So you owe God.

Well done! You've got to D!

Well then.

Partly.

Er, yes, so?

They do from a cashflow point of view. And a labour supply point of view. As anyone with a clue about business will tell you, cashflow and supply of material/labour is as important as simple overall profit and loss.

But they are.

Why, do you fancy babysitting? Actually I think you'd get on with my daughter, she's going through an annoyingly pedantic phase at the moment.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Partly what? Your "reason" is *wholly* wrong.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

It's obvious. Your reason is wrong (your children don't pay excess taxes which subsidise childless people), so it is not a reason at all. Can you give any reason that is actually *valid* ? No?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

How do your children help a current childless person from a cashflow point of view?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Eh? Now you really are clutching at straws... Your children are going to work for them for no wage?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Of course. But your children don't help the childless people's cashflow, and any labour from your children will not be for free, will it?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Just what are they getting? ... Try explaining specifically how you think the childless person benefits from you having extra children. You seem to be having trouble describing anything in detail so far...