So you really don't think that the taxes of the working generation pay, in cashflow terms, the pensions of the next generation up? Or do you really think the state sets aside the taxes you personally pay to pay for your personal state pension and NHS costs when you retire??
Er, how do you think the current generation could retire if there were no generation down from them to do the work? Regardless of any theoretical overall cost/benefit to the state of an individual? Are you really that dense?
Duh, the state pension, NHS costs, etc incurred by a retired person will be paid for in the main by the taxes of the next generation down. If there's no money coming in from the next generation down, there's nothing coming in to pay state pensions etc.
WTF have wages got to do with labour supply? If there is no next generation, then at some stage society will consist of nobody under
That's not a benefit at all : without that part of the taxation/benefit system, everyone would be able to save those extra taxes that they're not paying while they're working, and then spend those savings after they retire.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
We both know that they don't. But do you think that is a good system? Wouldn't if be better if either the state
*did* set it aside, or didn't tax for it in the first place and so allowed the individual to do the saving themselves?
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Er - I refer to *your* own comment made at 9:20 on 7/5/08:-
"Andy Pandy" wrote > ... This is a financial discussion and > I'm only looking at the financial issues...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
No, I don't believe I am, but it appears that you are. If you really can't understand the logic, let's consider the maths some more...
Let's imagine a stable population consisting of the following three types of people:
(1) Childless people (L); (2) 'Standard' parents (S), who each have two children (who both later become 'standard' parents); (3) 'Xtra' parents (X), who each have three children (two of which later become 'xtra' parents and one who remains childless).
The population will have 25% 'L', 25% 'S' and 50% 'X'.
Your proposed idea is to reduce c to zero by setting C large enough. Then each and every (average income) person would pay C to the state as part of their taxes over their working lifetime. They *each* (parents and childless alike) receive a cashflow benefit when young, and then pay it back when working.
Type-'S' parents would actually be in the same position if either of c or C were zero:- if c is zero, then they pay C to the state which returns exactly that much back to them to pay for the upbringing of their children. But if C is zero, the parents just pay directly for their children without going through the state.
However, childless people will be totally subsidising the upbringing of the extra children of each type-'X' parent, if you have C large enough to make c zero. To be totally fair & equitable, as well as everyone paying C to the state, each 'X'-type parent would need to give away their extra children to a childless person (two children per childless couple). That's not just a bit of babysitting -- it's totally giving up the extra children, and giving them to the childless people. Do you really want to do that?
[Don't forget, that parents may directly benefit
*financially* from their own children (whether natural children or adopted) when they are older, so giving away the children is still on-topic even when "only looking at the financial issues".]
"Andy Pandy" wrote
See my comments above on this.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
The payment for labour, in return for that labour, is considered to be an "equal value" exchange. [The worker gives X-worth of labour in exchange for X-worth of currency.]
Where that labour comes from (its supply) is *already* factored into the cost of it (it is a 'gross' cost).
For instance, part of those wages are then paid to the state in the form of taxes ...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
I refer you to your own comment made at 9:20 on 7/5/08:-
"Andy Pandy" wrote > ... This is a financial discussion and > I'm only looking at the financial issues...
Then you understand the point about cashflow. Stop pretending to be stupid.
No.
The labour supply is a financial issue (supply and demand). The cost of labour would go up if there weren't many people to do the work.
Next.
You just pretend to be...
Oh goody.
Er, OK..
OK.
It's an idea. I can see reasons against it but I'll go along with the notion that I think it's a Very Good Idea.
Yes.
Yes.
Over a lifetime, yes, but cashflow wise not necessarily. It would depend when in their lives they had the children.
If they had the children young, a large C would help them out when the need the money for the children, which they'd pay back later. A small C would mean they'd be poorer with young kids to feed and richer when the kids have gone.
Yes.
Er, no. The original formula shows the subsidy is 0 when c is 0. It's simply that they won't be getting a subsidy *FROM THEIR PARENTS* as you keep pointing out.
The reason that some people are childless, believe it or not, is that
*they don't want* children!! Others want lots of children.
Your scheme would just piss everyone off.
Possibly, but it's more likely the benefit will be negative - ie parents of grown up children still tend to subsidise the children, in general, rather than vv.
And mine...
Er, who provides this labour if there are no children?
OK right, so we'll totally ignore the fact that there will be nobody to do the work.
Let's do it financially then, just to keep you happy. If the supply of labour tends to zero, what does the cost of labour tend to?
Hint - it's a financial issue if it costs 10,000 an hour to hire a nursing home assistant.
Why are you suggesting that the supply of labour would reduce? ... As we're considering a **stable population**, with 25% 'L', 25% 'S' and 50% 'X', there is no reduction in the supply of labour.
The reason that some people are childless, believe it or not, is that *they can't have* children!! They'd very much like to take your excess children off you, especially if you want them to pay for their upbringing...
You're losing it now. Remember, childless people get NO NET SUBSIDY, in fact they are SUBSIDISED. Remember? The formula you agreed to proves that. Are you whining that your parents didn't subsidise you enough? How much more do you think they should have subsidised you?
Do you think there are sufficient numbers of people willing to give up their children for adoption? If there were, you wouldn't have long waiting lists for adoption...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Exactly. No net subsidy, but also no joy from bringing up children.
Everyone (on average income) would pay, during their working life, just enough to bring up one child (C). That's parents and childless alike.
During their working lives, childless people would pay just as much as parents do for the upbringing of the nation's children, but they wouldn't get to participate in the upbringing...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
No, you're wrong there. When c is zero (which is the case that we're considering, at your request), then everyone "receives" C when they are a child, and pays back C when they are working. Childless people included. So they are *NOT* subsidised.
...
I've tried to ask you a question a couple of times now, but you seem to be trying to evade answering it. Perhaps you think that your answer might hurt your case? ...
Well - *would* you be prepared to give up your 'extra' children, to be given to childless people to bring up? Yes or no? How do you think other 'X'-type parents would answer?
And if you wouldn't want to give them up, what is it that you think you'd be losing if you did?
...
Let's consider a population of 80m adults, 25% 'L', 25% 'S' and 50% 'X'. That's 20m childless people, 10m families of 2+2 and 20m families of
2+3. There are therefore 20m 'extra' children overall amongst the 40m 'X'-type parents.
Now let's suppose that, overall, half of the 'extra' children would be given up by 'X'-type parents, and that half of childless people would want to bring up a child (I'll discuss different proportions to a half below). That's 10m childless people receiving 10m children from half of the 20m 'extra' children. Everyone is happy - yes?
[There's nothing special about the population percentages used above that makes the equilibrium at a half -- for instance, if only 10% of the population were childless, then you'd need to have 20% 'X'-type parents and therefore 70% 'S'-type parents in order for stability, so half of the 8m 'extra' children would go to half of the 8m childless people.]
But what if the proportions willing to give up a child / wanting a child AREN'T a half? [Supply & demand!]
Well, if less than a half of the 'X'-type parents are willing to give up their 'extra' child, and more than a half of childless people want to be able to bring up a child (I understand that the adoption waiting lists are quite long!), then this shows that bringing up a child is "desireable". [Supply & demand!] That would mean that, on average, people place a *value* on being able to bring up children (more people value it than don't).
I think that people (childless and parents alike) probably
*do*, on average, put a value on bringing up children. [Otherwise people wouldn't be willing to pay large sums of money to "jump" the queue on adoption.]
You want everyone to "receive" the same amount while young (C), and pay the same amount while working (C), yet you want 'X'-type parents to receive *more* than their fair share of the "value" of bringing up children, and childless people to receive *none* of the value of bringing up children.
But those financial benefits are enjoyed by parents just as much as by the childless. In your proposed model (c=0), most things come out equal between parents & childless -- eg everyone "receives" C when young, everyone pays C when working, everyone benefits from having a next generation -- BUT (and you seem to be constantly forgetting this) parents receive benefits that the childless don't (see my other post a few moments ago).
"Andy Pandy" wrote
I can't agree with that at all. All you need to do is compare the costs and benefits that each group incur/receive.
The reason why *some* people only have small houses, believe it or not, is that they *don't want* the hassle of looking after a large house. Does that mean that they should help those that *do* want large houses to pay for them?
Well, I don't have any direct experience of having wanted an abortion and it being unavailable. But AIUI, many people who agree beforehand to give up their children often then change their minds when the baby is born and they see the little bundle of joy...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
That's your opinion. We could all already see that
*you* value bringing up children at nothing. But there are plenty other people who think otherwise.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Don't need to. When I say someone pays for something, I mean just that -- that they pay for it (all of it, unless specified otherwise).
When you say that someone paid for a loaf of bread, or paid for a service on a car, or anything, do you always include the words "in full" when they paid for all of it?
"Andy Pandy" wrote
OK, so you've actually properly answered the question this time.
You think that the average childless person would say "no" to having a child and the average 'X'-type parent would say "no" to giving up their 'extra' children.
Well, I can agree with the second of those -- I believe that people, in general, value bringing up children and so wouldn't want to give up their child.
But the first seems to assume that most childless people (who remain childless throughout their lives) are childless through choice, not by circumstance. Can you back that up?
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Why do you think the former is greater than the latter? You are showing your lack of understanding again...
If there are x people wanting a child, on average willing to pay X,000 for one, and y people not wanting a child, willing to pay Y not to have one, then you need to compare (x times X,000) against (y times Y).
If X,000 is of the order of a thousand times Y, then you need to show that there are more than a thousand times as many people not wanting a child as wanting one.
Can you show that?
Only then would the average of those values drop below zero and become negative...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Yes it is. See above.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
No, of course not, but equally they shouldn't be asked to pay for the upkeep of other people's excess wives!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
That's OK. But don't say that the financial issues are neutral, when they are clearly not!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Er - no, they are not. As I've already established (see above & below).
"Andy Pandy" wrote
I don't think so. See below.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
I've never said that. I say that the neutral position is for everyone to receive C from the state when young, every (average income) person to pay the state C over their working lifetime, *AND* every person to enjoy the value of X,000 which is attributed to bringing up a child.
But if the 'X'-type parents keep the 'extra' children, then the state subsidy would need to be just (C - X,000), leaving c at X,000, to be financially neutral across groups:-
Each 'S'-type parent would have a net value made up from: (1) +(C-X,000), received from the state when young; (2) +X,000, received from their parents when young; (3) -(C-X,000), paid to the state when working; (4) -X,000 paid directly for their children's upkeep; plus (5) +X,000 value of children. Total : +X,000 overall, per 'S'-type parent.
Each 'X'-type parent would have a net value made up from: (1) +(C-X,000), received from the state when young; (2) +X,000, received from their parents when young; (3) -(C-X,000), paid to the state when working; (4) -1.5X,000 paid directly for their children's upkeep; plus (5) +1.5X,000 value of children. Total : X,000 overall, per 'X'-type parent.
Finally, each childless person would have a net value made up from: (1) +(C-X,000), received from the state when young; (2) +X,000, received from their parents when young; (3) -(C-X,000), paid to the state when working. Total : X,000 overall, per childless person.
I.e. : EVERYONE would have the SAME net value, and hence no subsidies exist between groups.
But your proposed idea (c=0, state subsidy C) would see childless people subsidising 'X'-type parents to the tune of X,000 per 'extra' child... See? :-
Each 'S'-type parent would have a net value made up from: (1) +C, received from the state when young; (2) -C, paid to the state when working; plus (3) +X,000 value of children. Total : X,000 overall, per 'S'-type parent.
Each 'X'-type parent would have a net value made up from: (1) +C, received from the state when young; (2) -C, paid to the state when working; plus (3) +1.5X,000 value of children. Total : 1.5X,000 overall, per 'X'-type parent.
Finally, each childless person would have a net value made up from: (1) +C, received from the state when young; (2) -C, paid to the state when working. Total : 0 overall, per childless person.
In other words, the childless people are subsidising the 'X'-type parents to the tune of X,000 per 'extra' child...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Are you suggesting that the cost of upkeeping girlfriends is spread over everyone, including those who "can't get a girlfriend"?
If not, the question has no bearing on the current discussion...
Yes, we can all see from your comments on this thread that you are trying to make us believe that you value your children at less than nothing. But I actually doubt that's true; if it were, you would be happy to *pay* a childless person to bring up your children instead, and even happier to let them for free.
I actually think that if someone said they'd give you 100 if you let them bring up your child, you'd say "no" (am I right?). If that is true, it already shows that you value having children at more than 100...
And if you say that having children is "priceless", then you are saying that whatever amount of money you were offered, you would still always say "no". That means you value having children very highly indeed, at more than anyone could ever offer you.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
You appear to. You were strongly putting forward the view that c should be reduced to zero, by increasing C. That means that the extra being paid to 'X'-type parents comes from the childless...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
I agree. Likewise, financial compensation for parents, at more than the net financial cost, is equally laughable.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
I already have. The long waiting lists for adoption prove that. The excess of demand over supply shows that the "price of zero" (set by law) is actually lower than the "market value" would be.
If the "market value" were negative, that is to say that people would pay for others to take their children off them, then they would surely give them up for free. Equally, people wouldn't want to take them without the corresponding payment, and so there would be "stockpiles" of children waiting for adoption. In other words, at the artificially-set price of zero, supply would exceed demand. But in fact, the reverse is true, showing that actually the "market value" *DOES* exceed zero.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
No, you're wrong there -- I do agree that there are no subsidies **between childless people and the state**, under all proposals. BUT I don't agree that there are no subsidies with c=0. In fact, I proved in my last post, mathematically, that there *is* a subsidy with c=0: childless people would be subsidising 'X'-type parents. But you snipped that part of my post without commenting on it...
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Yep. It's the 'X'-type parents that would be subsidised, not the childless people. It would be the childless people doing the subsidising!
"Andy Pandy" wrote
Well, you previously said: "And I was prepared to discuss such issues. You, it seems are not since you deleted my reply."
But when I showed you, mathematically, how childless people would be subsidising 'X'-type parents if C were increased so that c=0, you simply snipped it and didn't comment... "Here, I'll put it back in for you. Feel free to discuss, or stop whining..."
---
If the 'X'-type parents keep the 'extra' children, then the state subsidy would need to be just (C - X,000), leaving c at X,000, to be financially neutral across groups:-
Each 'S'-type parent would have a net value made up from: (1) +(C-X,000), received from the state when young; (2) +X,000, received from their parents when young; (3) -(C-X,000), paid to the state when working; (4) -X,000 paid directly for their children's upkeep; plus (5) +X,000 value of children. Total : +X,000 overall, per 'S'-type parent.
Each 'X'-type parent would have a net value made up from: (1) +(C-X,000), received from the state when young; (2) +X,000, received from their parents when young; (3) -(C-X,000), paid to the state when working; (4) -1.5X,000 paid directly for their children's upkeep; plus (5) +1.5X,000 value of children. Total : X,000 overall, per 'X'-type parent.
Finally, each childless person would have a net value made up from: (1) +(C-X,000), received from the state when young; (2) +X,000, received from their parents when young; (3) -(C-X,000), paid to the state when working. Total : X,000 overall, per childless person.
I.e. : EVERYONE would have the SAME net value, and hence no subsidies exist between groups.
But your proposed idea (c=0, state subsidy C) would see childless people subsidising 'X'-type parents to the tune of X,000 per 'extra' child... See? :-
Each 'S'-type parent would have a net value made up from: (1) +C, received from the state when young; (2) -C, paid to the state when working; plus (3) +X,000 value of children. Total : X,000 overall, per 'S'-type parent.
Each 'X'-type parent would have a net value made up from: (1) +C, received from the state when young; (2) -C, paid to the state when working; plus (3) +1.5X,000 value of children. Total : 1.5X,000 overall, per 'X'-type parent.
Finally, each childless person would have a net value made up from: (1) +C, received from the state when young; (2) -C, paid to the state when working. Total : 0 overall, per childless person.
In other words, the childless people are subsidising the 'X'-type parents to the tune of X,000 per 'extra' child...
The point is that there are overheads associated with downsizing, namely the costs of selling and of buying. There is a selling overhead in legal and estate agency fees which could be perhaps 3-5% of the proceeds. Then there's survey fees, legal fees, and stamp duty when buying, which could add up to 3-5% of the purchase price. Let's call them both 4%.
Suppose you downsize from £400k to £300k. Far from liberating 25% of the value of the £400k house, you'd lose 4% of £700k, which is equivalent to 7% of £400k or 28% of the hoped for £100k. Then you still have the cost of actually moving, and of redecorating, not to mention the intangibles - the stress of moving and the emotional issues of tearing yourself away from where you've lived for (in many cases) several decades.
Exactly - which is why so many people never do downsize, and so never see the benefit of rising house prices.
Their heirs might - but if they spend the money on buying a property then there is no net benefit (the more house prices have risen, the higher the inhertitance, but the more thay have to pay for a house).
Of course that's assuming the government doesn't claim it all to pay nursing home bills, or some of it in inheritance tax, in which case they get the negative effect of house price inflation but not the positive one.
One day people in this country may start to realise that house price inflation is NOT a good thing for the average person in the street. It can of course be good for specific people in specific circumstances, but on average, house price inflation is a Bad Thing for the average person.
It is good for estate agents, lenders, and the government since they all take a cut of increased property values.
With your lack of an answer, Mr Pandy, we'll have to assume that I was correct there.
"Tim" wrote
Mr Pandy, I see that you've decided to stop whining rather than commenting on my analysis.
We'll have to assume that you can't refute the analysis, then, and that you've now realised that your idea of reducing c to zero by increasing C has no merit.
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.