Lets Scrap Child Benefit
splee
<jason....@saudibank.com> writes
>Lets Scrap Child Benefit,
>
>why o why are we encouraring people to breed,
>
>Its costing the country a fortune,
>
>people under the age of 18 - lets say about 10 million
>at about £12.50 a week
>
>10Million x £12.50 x 52 = 6.5 Billion pounds a year
>
>This is bloody ridiculus, let slay this sacred cow once and for all
OK, but make sure that the tax allowance which recognised the cost of
having children is restored.
sp...@droom.demon.co.uk
Remove the spam from address if replying by email
Paul Hyett
<jason....@saudibank.com> stated this considered view. To keep the
thread going, I replied -
>Lets Scrap Child Benefit,
>
>why o why are we encouraring people to breed,
>
>Its costing the country a fortune,
>
>people under the age of 18 - lets say about 10 million
>at about £12.50 a week
>
>10Million x £12.50 x 52 = 6.5 Billion pounds a year
>
>This is bloody ridiculus, let slay this sacred cow once and for all
>
>
From the above, it would appear that spending it on spelling and
punctuation lessons would be a good idea! :)
I also assume that Jason Shattu has no children! :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
JNugent231
><jason....@saudibank.com> stated
>>Lets Scrap Child Benefit,
Paul said:
>I also assume that Jason Shattu has no children! :)
(Welcome back Paul) You really must get some control over this habit of
attributing the worst of motives to people you disagree with!
When I wrote something complimentary about British Gas, you asked if I were a
shareholder in it I'm not). Now you imply that Jason (whose grammar and
spelling COULD be improved. as you said) only holds his view because he (as you
think) has no children.
Most of us know that *you* can be relied upon to put your own views with
clarity, fairness and principle, whether we agree with you or not. Why not
extend that reasonable assumption to other posters? At least until they prove
otherwise.....
As it happens, I do have a family, but I agree that Child Benefit is a waste of
resources - the same economic assistance can be rendered to families by not
taxing them as much (ie, by restoring tax allowances for children). For
families that don't pay enough tax to get the full effect, an enhancement to
Family Credit would do the trick. Just a quick, one-off adjustment, that would
free up the Child Benefit Centre to do something even more useful than
restoring money to those from whom the Inland Revenue has already extracted it.
What is the point of that?
J Robinson
Jason Shattu wrote in message <6qpop1$6dc$1...@bosanquet.saudibank.com>...
>Lets Scrap Child Benefit,
>
>why o why are we encouraring people to breed,
>
>Its costing the country a fortune,
>
>people under the age of 18 - lets say about 10 million
>at about £12.50 a week
>
>10Million x £12.50 x 52 = 6.5 Billion pounds a year
>
>This is bloody ridiculus, let slay this sacred cow once and for all
Whilst I partly understand what your saying (though I'd say your idea is
flawed). The birth rate in the UK is actually going down, according to the
CIA World Fact Book. (I can't remember the exact figures but I do think
it's been the trend since the early 90's).
Maria
<jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>Lets Scrap Child Benefit,
>
>why o why are we encouraring people to breed,
Scuse me but how the heck does £11.45 per week encourage people to
breed? Particularly since bringing up a child costs considerably more
than 11.45 per week. They'd have to be pretty desperate, and if they
are on such low incomes that they are entitled to Income Support,
Child Benefit is deducted from their benefit anyway.
>
>Its costing the country a fortune,
>
>people under the age of 18 - lets say about 10 million
>at about £12.50 a week
£11.45 for the first, £9.30 for subsequent
>
>10Million x £12.50 x 52 = 6.5 Billion pounds a year
>
>This is bloody ridiculus, let slay this sacred cow once and for all
Of course. Just watch that birth rate plummet....
Maria
Phillip James
<jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>
> Lets Scrap Child Benefit,
>
> why o why are we encouraring people to breed,
>
>
> people under the age of 18 - lets say about 10 million
> at about 12.50 a week
>
>
> This is bloody ridiculus, let slay this sacred cow once and for all
>
You forget that today's children will be tomorrow's taxpayers and hence
probably end up paying your pension, unless you lucky enough to have a
private one.
If there is not enough workers there will not be enough money to pay for
o.a.p's to have a decent retirement.
Phillip James
Imperial College Centre for Environmental Technology (ICCET)
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>><jason....@saudibank.com> stated
>
>>>Lets Scrap Child Benefit,
>
>Paul said:
>
>>I also assume that Jason Shattu has no children! :)
>
>(Welcome back Paul) You really must get some control over this habit of
>attributing the worst of motives to people you disagree with!
This ':)' is a smiley, and I use it when I'm not being entirely serious.
Does your newsreader NOT pick them up?
Gareth Jones
>You forget that today's children will be tomorrow's taxpayers and hence
>probably end up paying your pension, unless you lucky enough to have a
>private one.
What's luck got to do with it?
Gareth
JNugent231
>
>
>>You forget that today's children will be tomorrow's taxpayers and hence
>>probably end up paying your pension, unless you lucky enough to have a
>>private one.
But the scrapping of Child Benefit need not mean less support for children. By
eliminating a whole government process, the saving on administration *could* be
passed to families with children in the form of tax allowances more generous
than Child Benefit is. Or there could be a taxpayer saving, or a combination of
both (somewhere between).
J Robinson
>Scuse me but how the heck does £11.45 per week encourage people to
>breed? Particularly since bringing up a child costs considerably more
>than 11.45 per week. They'd have to be pretty desperate, and if they
>are on such low incomes that they are entitled to Income Support,
>Child Benefit is deducted from their benefit anyway.
Yes - that was what I was getting at too.
Maria
<jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>
>But would it not fall further if the state were not encouraging people to
>reproduce.
How far would you like it to fall?
Maria
Maria
<jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>
>Maria wrote in message <35d20871...@news.clara.net>...
>>On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:37:45 +0100, "Jason Shattu"
>><jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Lets Scrap Child Benefit,
>>>
>>>why o why are we encouraring people to breed,
>>
>>Scuse me but how the heck does £11.45 per week encourage people to
>>breed? Particularly since bringing up a child costs considerably more
>>than 11.45 per week. They'd have to be pretty desperate, and if they
>>are on such low incomes that they are entitled to Income Support,
>>Child Benefit is deducted from their benefit anyway.
>>
>A basic economic theory, and one that most people agree with, is that If
>you reduce the cost of something, then more people will consume that thing.
People consume children?
>>>
>>>Its costing the country a fortune,
>>>
>>>people under the age of 18 - lets say about 10 million
>>>at about £12.50 a week
>>
>>£11.45 for the first, £9.30 for subsequent
>>>
>
>It is my understanding the Child Benefit was increased by approx 25% at the
>last budget, courtesy, of our glorious labour government.
Those figures are correct. They are stamped inside the front cover of
my child benefit book.
>
>>>10Million x £12.50 x 52 = 6.5 Billion pounds a year
>>>
>>>This is bloody ridiculus, let slay this sacred cow once and for all
>>
>>Of course. Just watch that birth rate plummet....
>>
>The birth rate might not plummet, but it would still save 6.5 billions
>pounds a year which I guess could be used to cure the odd disease or two, or
>build a few hospitals or get the homeless of the streets.
True. Or maybe more people would then qualify for Income Support since
CB is taken into account when IS entitlement is calculated.
Maria
splee
<jason....@saudibank.com> writes
>
>splee wrote in message ...>><jason....@saudibank.com> writes
>>>Lets Scrap Child Benefit,
>>>
>>>why o why are we encouraring people to breed,
>>>
>>>
>>>people under the age of 18 - lets say about 10 million
>>>at about £12.50 a week
>>>
>>>
>>>This is bloody ridiculus, let slay this sacred cow once and for all
>>
>>having children is restored.
>>
>>sp...@droom.demon.co.uk
>>Remove the spam from address if replying by email
>
>
>Regards Jason
>
>
Nice idea but how would the country operate? See today's press for the
problems in Russia where hardly any tax has been collected.
Alternatively Pakistan is a good example of the chaos that comes when
only 15% of taxes are brought in. No schools, no hospitals, child
labour, 70% illiteracy rate, contaminated water supplies, severe
poverty....need I go on.
Rob
b
>>A basic economic theory, and one that most people agree with, is that If
>>you reduce the cost of something, then more people will consume that thing.
>
>People consume children?
>
I was wondering the same !!!!
Rob
uk.politics.misc :
>>You forget that today's children will be tomorrow's taxpayers and hence
>>probably end up paying your pension, unless you lucky enough to have a
>>private one.
>>
>>If there is not enough workers there will not be enough money to pay for
>>o.a.p's to have a decent retirement.
>>
>>Phillip James
>>Imperial College Centre for Environmental Technology (ICCET)
>
>What-a-load-of-rubbish,
>your statement is clearly based on an completey outdated concept of the
>economy.
As a concept perhaps it is outdated, but it is currently reality for a
great many people Jason.
>
>A more modern approach is to consider people being responsible for their own
>pension, this would mean that people would save for their own retirement,
>and would not lead to the problems you suggest.
>a.k.a "A Free Market".
>
Hold on Jason, Philip has a point as we have not yet got to the stage
where everyone is responsible for the provision of their own pension.
Perhaps if the government had not nobbled Frank Field and allowed him
to proceed along the lines he was proposing then we would have got to
the stage where everyonee are providing for their own pensions by
saving whilst they are working.
>Jason
>
JNugent231
>It is my understanding the Child Benefit was increased by approx 25% at the
>last budget, courtesy, of our glorious labour government.
I don't care from them any more than you obviously do, Jason, but that isn't
right.
The increase was more like 25 pence than 25 percent!
JNugent231
>>A basic economic theory, and one that most people agree with, is that If
>>you reduce the cost of something, then more people will consume that thing.
>
>People consume children?
People consume the_ utility_ of having children. These are economists' phrases
and concepts which Jason should have known would be misinterpreted, however
correct the phraseology is among economists!
J Robinson
>But would it not fall further if the state were not encouraging people to
>reproduce.
Nope - to scrap CB is a too simplistic solution - people still get other
benefits to make up for if they aren't getting CB - I would certainly not
want to change that.
What I do acknowledge is that CB needs reforming (or to be incorporated
completely into benefits such as Income Support, Family Credit etc.). I
don't like the idea of directly 'rewarding' those who have more children
(here I'm talking on >2), but they do need to be funded indirectly still,
for sure. At the same time - it's likely that the attraction of having
more children is more based on getting more Income Support etc. rather than
CB (they get more IS than CB) - it's a difficult problem. Maybe a change
to the benefit system is not what is needed but something far larger..?
Regards
John Robinson
[jrob...@iname.com - http://www.jrobinson.home.ml.org - ICQ UIN: 3360599]
ray
JNugent231 <jnuge...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808141833...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >From: mar...@eclair.net (Maria)
>
> >>A basic economic theory, and one that most people agree with, is that
If
> >>you reduce the cost of something, then more people will consume that
thing.
> >
> >People consume children?
>
When you consider that Mr. & Mrs. Tony Blair @ 10/11 Downing Street are
reported to receive child benefit for ALL three of their children ....
who in this country would dare to steal their god given 30 quid a week from
them
Not Harriet Harmen or Frank Field
Rob
uk.politics.misc :
>
>Maria wrote in message <35d41422...@news.clara.net>...
>>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:32:47 +0100, "Jason Shattu"
>><jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>But would it not fall further if the state were not encouraging people to
>>>reproduce.
>>
>>How far would you like it to fall?
>>
>>Maria
>
>I don't believe in social engineering, so I don't think Governments should
>attempt to directly control the population level, and that includes
>subsidies for children.
>
Or Marriage ?
After all why should Married people have a higher tax allowancethan
single people.
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
><jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>But would it not fall further if the state were not encouraging people to
>>reproduce.
>
>How far would you like it to fall?
Do doubt he'd like reproduction restricted to those above a certain
income level?
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>>10Million x £12.50 x 52 = 6.5 Billion pounds a year
>>>>
>>>>This is bloody ridiculus, let slay this sacred cow once and for all
>>>
>>>Of course. Just watch that birth rate plummet....
>>>
>>The birth rate might not plummet, but it would still save 6.5 billions
>>pounds a year which I guess could be used to cure the odd disease or two, or
>>build a few hospitals or get the homeless of the streets.
I suspect what Jason REALLY means is 'gimme a few pence more off income
tax'? However, if a reduction in tax was made, then let it be off VAT,
then at least a little of it gets back to those on low income!
>
>True. Or maybe more people would then qualify for Income Support since
>CB is taken into account when IS entitlement is calculated.
So basically, the figure saved would not be anything like £6.5Bn! :)
Paul Hyett
<jason....@saudibank.com> stated this considered view. To keep the
thread going, I replied -
>pension, this would mean that people would save for their own retirement,
>and would not lead to the problems you suggest.
>a.k.a "A Free Market".
However, by the nature of the free market, there are always people with
lower incomes who simply CAN'T afford to provide a private pension for
themselves, what happens to them?
splee
<jason....@saudibank.com> writes
>
>splee wrote in message ...
>>In article <6qum6i$1nh$1...@bosanquet.saudibank.com>, Jason Shattu
>><jason....@saudibank.com> writes
>>>
>>>splee wrote in message ...
>>>>In article <6qpop1$6dc$1...@bosanquet.saudibank.com>, Jason Shattu
>>>><jason....@saudibank.com> writes
>>>>>Lets Scrap Child Benefit,
>>>>>
>>>>>why o why are we encouraring people to breed,
>>>>>
>>>>>Its costing the country a fortune,
>>>>>
>>>>>people under the age of 18 - lets say about 10 million
>>>>>at about £12.50 a week
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>This is bloody ridiculus, let slay this sacred cow once and for all
>>>>
>>>>having children is restored.
>>>>
>>>>sp...@droom.demon.co.uk
>>>>Remove the spam from address if replying by email
>>>
>>>If I had my way, I'd scrap tax (which is just legalised theft) altogether.
>>>
>>>Regards Jason
>>>
>>>
>>Nice idea but how would the country operate? See today's press for the
>>problems in Russia where hardly any tax has been collected.
>>Alternatively Pakistan is a good example of the chaos that comes when
>>only 15% of taxes are brought in. No schools, no hospitals, child
>>labour, 70% illiteracy rate, contaminated water supplies, severe
>>poverty....need I go on.
>>
>>sp...@droom.demon.co.uk
>>Remove the spam from address if replying by email
>
>
>The problems of Russia can be accounted for by it past way of structure
>which is reforming from.
But prior to reforms people had homes and despite the propaganda there
was enough food to eat, teachers were paid and generally things were not
actually falling apart as they are now.
>
>In England the water supply is not financed by taxes, child labour can be
>controlled by the Law,
What law, and who pays for it if there is zero taxation?
>Schools and Hospitals could be run by a mixture of independent 'people ran'
>charity groups, private organisations and insurance groups.
So who coordinates academic qualifications. Who licences medicines,
trains Dr, Teachers and other professionals?
>
>Any more?
>
Police, armed forces, transport, building regs, planning for growth,
bamking, currency, civil aviation, coastguards.....
>Jason
Todays Guardian has a piece on Pakistan which looks as if it is about to
default on loans as it owes 600million and only has reserves of
500million. The article quotes a wealthy man who pays no tax as it
'lines the pockets of politicians' and values his 1 million pound house
at a mere 80,000.
He sees the writing on the wall when at the end of the article he
acknowledges that it is likely that the poor will eventually rise up and
kill the rich.
splee
<jason....@saudibank.com> writes
>
>JNugent231 wrote in message
><199808132211...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>>p.g....@NOSPAMic.ac.uk (Phillip James) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You forget that today's children will be tomorrow's taxpayers and hence
>>>>probably end up paying your pension, unless you lucky enough to have a
>>>>private one.
>>
>By
>>eliminating a whole government process, the saving on administration
>*could* be
>>passed to families with children in the form of tax allowances more
>generous
>>than Child Benefit is. Or there could be a taxpayer saving, or a
>combination of
>>both (somewhere between).
>
>
>
Don't taxpayers have children then?
net
wrote in article <199808132211...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> But the scrapping of Child Benefit need not mean less support for children.
> By eliminating a whole government process, the saving on administration
> *could* be passed to families with children in the form of tax allowances
> more generous than Child Benefit is. Or there could be a taxpayer saving,
> or a combination of both (somewhere between).
While I agree this and many other DSS benefits have detrimental side effects,
the principle for continuing this benefit was to transfer the income of the family
to the keeper of the children, at a time when it was perceived, women (the
major keepers of the children) needed protection from abuses of the income
earner (generaly the man).
A weird effort in social engineering, that needs to be considered alongside the
arguments for the benefit removal or evlolution.
Maria
<jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>In England the water supply is not financed by taxes,
It's not?
What are water rates then? They were damn well referred to as taxes
when the water industry was state run. Like 'business rates'?
Household rates?
Why do people complain about their level of 'taxes' when they refer to
household rates and business rates? After all, they are getting
something for the money. A service.
Or it is only a 'service' when it is private, and a 'tax' when it is
public?
>child labour can be
>controlled by the Law,
From what some other right wingers have been saying, I should think
they would want that control stopped too.
>Schools and Hospitals could be run by a mixture of independent 'people ran'
>charity groups, private organisations and insurance groups.
Who will be prepared to pay the increased costs of such a system?
(The US spends a greater proportion of their GDP on their health
service than the UK)
Maria
Maria
<jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>
>Maria wrote in message <35d41422...@news.clara.net>...
>>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:32:47 +0100, "Jason Shattu"
>><jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>But would it not fall further if the state were not encouraging people to
>>>reproduce.
>>
>>How far would you like it to fall?
>>
>>Maria
>
>I don't believe in social engineering, so I don't think Governments should
>attempt to directly control the population level, and that includes
>subsidies for children.
Have you any evidence to suggest that Child Benefit was introduced
with the purposes of controlling the population level?
And how far would you like it to fall?
Maria
Maria
>>From: mar...@eclair.net (Maria)
>
>>>A basic economic theory, and one that most people agree with, is that If
>>>you reduce the cost of something, then more people will consume that thing.
>>
>>People consume children?
>
>People consume the_ utility_ of having children.
Why do I find it so difficult to understand economist-speak? Is it me?
Perhaps you can expand on what the 'utility' of having children is?
> These are economists' phrases
Quite.
Obviously designed to turn the enitre science of economics into a
complete mystery!
>and concepts which Jason should have known would be misinterpreted, however
>correct the phraseology is among economists!
Right. Perhaps for the benefit of non-economists among us, a suitable
explanation sould be furnished.
Thank you.
Maria
Maria
<jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>
>Maria wrote in message <35d41424...@news.clara.net>...
>>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:51:37 +0100, "Jason Shattu"
>><jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Maria wrote in message <35d20871...@news.clara.net>...
>>>>On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:37:45 +0100, "Jason Shattu"
>>>><jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Lets Scrap Child Benefit,
>>>>>
>>>>>why o why are we encouraring people to breed,
>>>>
>>>>Scuse me but how the heck does £11.45 per week encourage people to
>>>>breed? Particularly since bringing up a child costs considerably more
>>>>than 11.45 per week. They'd have to be pretty desperate, and if they
>>>>are on such low incomes that they are entitled to Income Support,
>>>>Child Benefit is deducted from their benefit anyway.
>>>>
>>>A basic economic theory, and one that most people agree with, is that If
>>>you reduce the cost of something, then more people will consume that
>thing.
>>
>>People consume children?
>>
>
>If the cost of raising children is reduced, then more people will raise
>children!
Children are not packets of fags, or potatoes. Apart from anything
else, you don't tend to buy a bag of spuds by accident.
There are other factors involved when people have children.
Do economists acknowledge that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Its costing the country a fortune,
>>>>>
>>>>>people under the age of 18 - lets say about 10 million
>>>>>at about £12.50 a week
>>>>
>>>>£11.45 for the first, £9.30 for subsequent
>>>>>
>>>
>>>It is my understanding the Child Benefit was increased by approx 25% at
>the
>>>last budget, courtesy, of our glorious labour government.
>>
>>Those figures are correct. They are stamped inside the front cover of
>>my child benefit book.
>>
>
>Then I think the 25% increase, will take effect next finiancial year.
I shall look forward to it, but I have seen nothing to suggest that
this increase will take place.
>
>I hope you spend my money well.
Don't forget to take my library books back will you?
And do make certain not to call the doctor out unless it is
necessary.
BTW did you to to private school?
>>>
>>>>>10Million x £12.50 x 52 = 6.5 Billion pounds a year
>>>>>
>>>>>This is bloody ridiculus, let slay this sacred cow once and for all
>>>>
>>>>Of course. Just watch that birth rate plummet....
>>>>
>>>The birth rate might not plummet, but it would still save 6.5 billions
>>>pounds a year which I guess could be used to cure the odd disease or two,
>or
>>>build a few hospitals or get the homeless of the streets.
>>
>>True. Or maybe more people would then qualify for Income Support since
>>CB is taken into account when IS entitlement is calculated.
>>
>>Maria
>
>Given the current welfare system that might be true, but I bet you would
>still save a hell of lot of money.
Sorry. 'A hell of a lot' is not good enough. The US has had problems
insituting its welfare program to get single parents back to work
because it turns out that it costs more to get then into work than to
pay them to care for their kids.
Could we have some figures please?
Maria
JNugent231
>>>People consume children?
>>
>>People consume the_ utility_ of having children.
>
>Why do I find it so difficult to understand economist-speak? Is it me?
>Perhaps you can expand on what the 'utility' of having children is?
The utility of *anything* is the advantage one gains from it (economically
speaking).
>> These are economists' phrases
>
>Quite.
>Obviously designed to turn the enitre science of economics into a
>complete mystery!
No. Jargon is used in order to simplify the transmission of ideas between
practioners. It happens in every walk of life, from brain-surgery to
street-sweeping (so I undrstand!). Iagree that it is best to simplify for a
non-specialist audience, but then, I am not an economist either - but I take
note of what I was taught of the subject.
As it happens, "utility" is (or would be) a very useful concept in messages
such as Jason's original posting (despite the fact that he didn't use it). It
would have clearly demarcated "consumption" in the economic sense from
"consumption" in its everyday sense. Jason didn't help his own case by using
"consumption" in the context of "children", thereby inviting facetious replies.
Maria
>>From: mar...@eclair.net (Maria)
>
>>>>People consume children?
>>>
>>>People consume the_ utility_ of having children.
>>
>>Why do I find it so difficult to understand economist-speak? Is it me?
>>Perhaps you can expand on what the 'utility' of having children is?
>
>The utility of *anything* is the advantage one gains from it (economically
>speaking).
So how do economists measure the disadvantages of er...consumption. ?
I mean, children cost much more to raise than child benefit, and the
long term financial gains no longer exist for practical purposes (as
they do in the Developing World...), so can it be acknowledged that
economically speaking, people who become parents actually experience a
net loss?
>>> These are economists' phrases
>>
>>Quite.
>>Obviously designed to turn the enitre science of economics into a
>>complete mystery!
>
>No. Jargon is used in order to simplify the transmission of ideas between
>practioners. It happens in every walk of life, from brain-surgery to
>street-sweeping (so I undrstand!). Iagree that it is best to simplify for a
>non-specialist audience, but then, I am not an economist either - but I take
>note of what I was taught of the subject.
Ah. Maybe I should buy a book.
>As it happens, "utility" is (or would be) a very useful concept in messages
>such as Jason's original posting (despite the fact that he didn't use it). It
>would have clearly demarcated "consumption" in the economic sense from
>"consumption" in its everyday sense. Jason didn't help his own case by using
>"consumption" in the context of "children", thereby inviting facetious replies.
It was funny though. :-)
Maria
Maria
<jason....@saudibank.com> wrote:
>Then I think the 25% increase, will take effect next finiancial year.
>
I found out about the budget measures.
There is an increase of 20%, that is applicable from next April, only
to the first childs benefit, not any subsequent children.
I gather that this was done by decreasing the married couples tax
allowance from 15% to 10%.
(BTW why should married people be subsidised by the taxpayer?)
Maria
JNugent231
>>The utility of *anything* is the advantage one gains from it (economically
>>speaking).
>
>So how do economists measure the disadvantages of er...consumption. ?
Well.... there are no theoretical disadvantages from "consumption" - though
there are from non-consumption.
>I mean, children cost much more to raise than child benefit [snip]
>so can it be acknowledged that
>economically speaking, people who become parents actually experience a
>net loss?
Of course. What Jason's point was about was not that the state pays (entirely)
for the parent to have children, but that Child Benefit (and presumably tax
allowances) *reduces* the perceived/experienced cost for the parent.
>Ah. Maybe I should buy a book.
You will derive more marginal utility from the transaction if you borrow one
from the library.
JNugent231
[re: child benefit]
>There is an increase of 20%, that is applicable from next April, only
>to the first childs benefit, not any subsequent children.
>
>I gather that this was done by decreasing the married couples tax
>allowance from 15% to 10%.
>
>(BTW why should married people be subsidised by the taxpayer?)
They shouldn't be. But deigning not to tax something is not "subsidising" it.
Otherwise, as other posters have recently pointed out, the government can be
said to be subsidising air by not taxing it.
Cliff Morrison
jnuge...@aol.com (JNugent231) wrote:
> They shouldn't be. But deigning not to tax something is not "subsidising" it.
> Otherwise, as other posters have recently pointed out, the government can be
> said to be subsidising air by not taxing it.
<cynical mode>
but only as a loss-leader to get people dependent on it prior to privatization.
Maria
(Hugh Davies) wrote:
>In article <35d59311...@news.clara.net>, mar...@eclair.net (Maria) writes:
>
>>Children are not packets of fags, or potatoes. Apart from anything
>>else, you don't tend to buy a bag of spuds by accident.
>
>Why should the taxpayer subsidise your stupidity?
I am not stupid.
>Contraceptives are
>widely and freely available in the UK. Abortions are widley and cheaply
>available in the UK. Adoption agencies are crying out for white babies.
>If, after all this, you're still stupid enought to keep an unwanted
>child, fund it yourself.
Then take the money away. I don't care.
I was attempting to discuss the economists view of the process of
having children, consumption, utility etc.
I was not trying to invite a personal attack.
Quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck whether anybody gives me
money anymore or not.
The absence of derision and subsequent peace of mind will make up for
more than adequately for the loss of resources.
But that won't stop me from believing that society should support its
weaker members. Nothing will.
Maria
Maria
>>From: mar...@eclair.net (Maria)
>
>[re: child benefit]
>
>>There is an increase of 20%, that is applicable from next April, only
>>to the first childs benefit, not any subsequent children.
>>
>>I gather that this was done by decreasing the married couples tax
>>allowance from 15% to 10%.
>>
>>(BTW why should married people be subsidised by the taxpayer?)
>
>They shouldn't be. But deigning not to tax something is not "subsidising" it.
>Otherwise, as other posters have recently pointed out, the government can be
>said to be subsidising air by not taxing it.
Ok, I understand that.
Let me rephrase the question.
Why should married people pay less tax than unmarried ones?
Maria
Maria
>>From: mar...@eclair.net (Maria)
>
>>>The utility of *anything* is the advantage one gains from it (economically
>>>speaking).
>>
>>So how do economists measure the disadvantages of er...consumption. ?
>
>Well.... there are no theoretical disadvantages from "consumption" - though
>there are from non-consumption.
An example of such a disadvantage being...? (just to illustrate...)
>>I mean, children cost much more to raise than child benefit [snip]
>>so can it be acknowledged that
>>economically speaking, people who become parents actually experience a
>>net loss?
>
>Of course. What Jason's point was about was not that the state pays (entirely)
>for the parent to have children, but that Child Benefit (and presumably tax
>allowances) *reduces* the perceived/experienced cost for the parent.
I see. Do we know whether people (apart from those who don't agree
with these tax allowances/benefits) actually reduce the perceived
cost, IOW do we know whether people in practice take those things into
consideration?
(I never did but then I knew very little about the tax/benefits system
at the time. I didn't know what Child Benefit was until I had a
child!)
>>Ah. Maybe I should buy a book.
>
>You will derive more marginal utility from the transaction if you borrow one
>from the library.
Not my library; that's only useful if you are a short-sighted
romantic.
Maria
JNugent231
>I was attempting to discuss the economists view of the process of
>having children, consumption, utility etc.
>I was not trying to invite a personal attack.
Quite right.
>Quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck whether anybody gives me
>money anymore or not.
>But that won't stop me from believing that society should support its
>weaker members. Nothing will.
>
>Maria
I certainly agree in principle. The method is a legitimate area for discussion.
JNugent231
>But deigning not to tax something is not "subsidising" it.
>>Otherwise, as other posters have recently pointed out, the government can be
>>said to be subsidising air by not taxing it.
>
>Ok, I understand that.
>Let me rephrase the question.
>Why should married people pay less tax than unmarried ones?
>
>Maria
Tax is paid on "taxable income" only. "taxable income" is arrived at by making
allowance for "non-taxable income" (NTI). NTI is a minimal amount of money that
the tax system recognises the taxpayer needs before he/she can afford to pay
tax.
A married couple need to have their joint needs recognised in NTI, especially
if they have to live on one income. We used (pre-child benefit) to treat NTI in
the same way wrt children.
JNugent231
>>>So how do economists measure the disadvantages of er...consumption. ?
>>
>>Well.... there are no theoretical disadvantages from "consumption" - though
>>there are from non-consumption.
>
>An example of such a disadvantage being...? (just to illustrate...)
A lack of food, for instance, wouild lead to lack of consumption of it, which
would be a disadvantage. But that over-simplifies to some extent. In economics,
assumptions have to be made, and one is that consumption (being discrtetionary)
is "advantageous" and that the only reason for lack of consumption would be
lack of resources. Economics is an abstraction from reality of course - and is
not intended as an analog.....
>What Jason's point was about was not that the state pays (entirely)
>>for the parent to have children, but that Child Benefit (and presumably tax
>>allowances) *reduces* the perceived/experienced cost for the parent.
>
>I see. Do we know whether people (apart from those who don't agree
>with these tax allowances/benefits) actually reduce the perceived
>cost, IOW do we know whether people in practice take those things into
>consideration?
Some do, some don't. That doesn't affect the generality of the economic
proposition that (other things being equal), a measure which reduces the costs
of a commodity (and, yes - children are a commodity within economic theory,
just like computers and minidisc players) will tend to promote the consumption
of (ie, demand for) that commodity.
Rob
>On 15 Aug 1998 15:15:20 GMT, jnuge...@aol.com (JNugent231) wrote:
>
>>>From: mar...@eclair.net (Maria)
>>
>>[re: child benefit]
>>
>>>There is an increase of 20%, that is applicable from next April, only
>>>to the first childs benefit, not any subsequent children.
>>>
>>>I gather that this was done by decreasing the married couples tax
>>>allowance from 15% to 10%.
>>>
>>>(BTW why should married people be subsidised by the taxpayer?)
>>
>>They shouldn't be. But deigning not to tax something is not "subsidising" it.
>>Otherwise, as other posters have recently pointed out, the government can be
>>said to be subsidising air by not taxing it.
>
>Ok, I understand that.
>Let me rephrase the question.
>Why should married people pay less tax than unmarried ones?
Easy, they shouldn't.
Bppjules
<jason....@saudibank.com> writes:
>A basic economic theory, and one that most people agree with, is >that If you
reduce the cost of something, then more people will >consume that thing.
With economic goods and services, that is usually true. Children are not
usually considered by economists to be standard economic goods, which parents
only have if they become cheaper. Are you suggesting parents wait for the price
to be at the lowest possible level before they go out and produce their
children quickly?
>The birth rate might not plummet, but it would still save 6.5 billions
>pounds a year which I guess could be used to cure the odd disease or >two, or
build a few hospitals or get the homeless of the streets.
Simplistic rubbish.
Julian.
Bppjules
<jason....@saudibank.com> writes:
>In England the water supply is not financed by taxes, child labour can >be
controlled by the Law,
Which is funded by what? Peanuts? Law needs a Parliament, Parliament needs a
civil service. Law needs police and courts.
>Schools and Hospitals could be run by a mixture of independent >'people ran'
charity groups, private organisations and insurance >groups.
Patchy coverage. A Gvt might get away with privatising health, but only if it
regulated it. You can't have it unregulated, I fail to see how it would
function for all members of society.
Julian.
Bppjules
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>I suspect what Jason REALLY means is 'gimme a few pence more off >income tax'?
However, if a reduction in tax was made, then let it be off >VAT, then at least
a little of it gets back to those on low income!
Rubbish, there is nothing wrong with VAT. The more you spend, the more you pay.
Totally fair.
Julian.
Friso Buker
Paul Hyett wrote:
Well, what we CAN try and do is sweep the payments that people pay to the
government for their pension, and actually INVEST that money in the free market
(rather than depending on the next generation and the beaurocrats to pay for the
elderly). These investment companies could be regulated by the government, and
maybe there should also be some type of guaranteed (by the government) level of
pension for those who eventually retire.
While this may not be what libertarians (such as myself) consider to be the best
way, at least this would mean reductions in the amount of taxes (et al) being
paid to the government, thereby spurring more growth (as disposable incomes
increase) and giving the elderly REAL returns on the money that they worked hard
to earn, rather than leaving the level of payments solely in the hands of the
beaurocrats.
And in case you require an example of this, you might want to look into the
Social Security reforms that Chile underwent. The payments that the workers made
(according to the statistics) garnered interest rates of 12% above inflation (per
annum average since inception).
Just a thought............
--
Giving money and power to government is like giving
whiskey and car keys to teenagers
-- PJ O'Rourke
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal
sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism
is the equal sharing of miseries.
-- Winston Churchill
The function of socialism is to raise suffering to a
higher level.
-- Norman Mailer
When I was a child,
I spoke as a socialist,
I understood as a socialist,
I thought as a socialist;
but when I became a man,
I put away all that shit
and got a FUCKING LIFE !!!!!
-- Part Corinthians, Part Me
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's 17.5%, whatever you earn! Besides if the above is true, what's
wrong with it applying to income too?
>Totally fair.
VAT is totally unjustifiable on necessities though!
Bppjules
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> The more you spend, the more you pay.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>It's 17.5%, whatever you earn! Besides if the above is true, what's
>wrong with it applying to income too?
One would assume that the richer you are, the more you spend, and so the more
tax you pay.
>>Totally fair.
>
>VAT is totally unjustifiable on necessities though!
It's not on food and books. What else do you want in life?
Oh, you might want to do that thing that Mummys and Daddys do. But the Gvt
doesn't tax that either (but you wait until Ann gets in).
So what's your problem? :)
Julian.
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> The more you spend, the more you pay.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>It's 17.5%, whatever you earn! Besides if the above is true, what's
>>wrong with it applying to income too?
>
>One would assume that the richer you are, the more you spend, and so the more
>tax you pay.
In absolute terms yes, but I was talking in relative terms.
If you're on £50K pa, then VAT is less of a concern than on £5K ap!
>
>>>Totally fair.
>>
>>VAT is totally unjustifiable on necessities though!
>
>It's not on food and books. What else do you want in life?
Not now, but the EU is gonna force that on us in a few years time! :(
Not to mention what that'll do to inflation!
>
>
>Oh, you might want to do that thing that Mummys and Daddys do. But the Gvt
>doesn't tax that either (but you wait until Ann gets in).
Just thinking of AW is far cheaper and more effective than any
contraceptive! :)
John R Martin
>Tax is paid on "taxable income" only. "taxable income" is arrived at by making
>allowance for "non-taxable income" (NTI). NTI is a minimal amount of money that
>the tax system recognises the taxpayer needs before he/she can afford to pay
>tax.
>A married couple need to have their joint needs recognised in NTI, especially
>if they have to live on one income. We used (pre-child benefit) to treat NTI in
>the same way wrt children.
A married couple doesn't need to have their needs recognised anymore
than an unmarried couple. Unmarried couples living off one income also
have higher need than couples living off two. There is NO logical
reason why married couples should pay less tax than other couples.
Sheena
---
"The Information contained in this e-mail and any
subsequent correspondence is private and is intended
solely for the intended recipient(s). For those
other than the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on such information
is prohibited and may be unlawful."
---
Sheena MacKenzie
Rm 2, Bldg 166
DERA Pyestock
Farnborough
GU14 0LS
tel 01252 37 4259
fax 01252 37 2477
Bppjules
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>One would assume that the richer you are, the more you spend, and so >>the
more tax you pay.
>
>In absolute terms yes, but I was talking in relative terms.
>
>If you're on £50K pa, then VAT is less of a concern than on £5K ap!
The same applies with income tax.
>>It's not on food and books. What else do you want in life?
>
>Not now, but the EU is gonna force that on us in a few years time! :(
That is true. The bastards.
I can claim VAT back on business stuff, I don't see how I'm going to explain
away Cornflakes on my VAT return though :)
>Not to mention what that'll do to inflation!
Quite. Bloody European Union.
>>Oh, you might want to do that thing that Mummys and Daddys do. But the >>Gvt
doesn't tax that either (but you wait until Ann gets in).
>
>Just thinking of AW is far cheaper and more effective than any
>contraceptive! :)
Oh, I agree. Once you see her, no-one will else will do will they? Hundreds of
marriages nationwide have broken down because men see Ann and realise their
wife can't match up.
Julian.
Gareth Jones
>In article <waauobBR...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>One would assume that the richer you are, the more you spend, and so >>the
>more tax you pay.
>>
>>In absolute terms yes, but I was talking in relative terms.
>>
>>If you're on £50K pa, then VAT is less of a concern than on £5K ap!
>
>The same applies with income tax.
Except that income tax takes a greater proportion of your income as
you earn more (under the present rules), whereas VAT takes a smaller
proportion of your income (because those on lower incomes spend more
of their income).
Gareth
David Cantrell
huge@axalotl_nospam.demon_nospam.co.uk (Hugh Davies) said:
>In article <35d5b23e...@news.clara.net>, mar...@eclair.net (Maria) writes:
>
>>But that won't stop me from believing that society should support its
>>weaker members. Nothing will.
>
>Me neither. But those who make lifestyle choices such as having children
>they cannot afford do not qualify as "weaker members".
But their children do.
--
David Cantrell, part-time NT/java/SQL techie
full-time chef/musician/homebrewer
http://www.ThePentagon.com/NukeEmUp
David Cantrell
bppj...@aol.com (Bppjules) enlightened us thusly:
>In article <5PJ8dnAQ...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>
>>I suspect what Jason REALLY means is 'gimme a few pence more off >income tax'?
>However, if a reduction in tax was made, then let it be off >VAT, then at least
>a little of it gets back to those on low income!
>
>Rubbish, there is nothing wrong with VAT. The more you spend, the more you pay.
>Totally fair.
VAT used to be a tax on luxury goods, and thus was payable only by
those who bought luxuries, thus only by those who could afford it.
Now, VAT is applied to a great deal of goods which most definitely
aren't luxuries, and not to one hell of a lot of goods which _are_.
For instance, I pay VAT on the energy which I need to prevent myself
from freezing over the winter. I don't pay VAT on a jar of curry
sauce which is obviously a luxury.
Even more absurd, I pay VAT on my taxes! When you buy a pint of beer,
you pay for the beer, plus duty (a tax on alcohol), plus VAT on both
the beer _and_ the duty!
VAT should be either abolished or changed back to what it used to be -
a tax on luxury items.
Bppjules
>you pay for the beer, plus duty (a tax on alcohol), plus VAT on both
>the beer _and_ the duty!
Beer is a luxury.
>VAT should be either abolished or changed back to what it used to be -
>a tax on luxury items.
I'd rather have VAT on everything. The rich buy more, and so pay more, whilst
paying VAT is not compulsory. You choose what you buy, and so you choose how
much tax to pay. Groovy huh?
It'd also get us round this unfair double tax on savings we have.
Incidentally, when Kaldor first thought of VAT many decades ago, it was brought
in because it was more equitable.
Julian.
Leo
>Maria wrote in message <35d5930c...@news.clara.net>...
>>Have you any evidence to suggest that Child Benefit was introduced
>>with the purposes of controlling the population level?
>I have know proof that child benefit was introduced as a means by the
>Government to control population, infact I don't if this was their intent.
The first country to introduce child benefit was France, following its
military defeat in 1871, and it was done with the express aim of catching
up with the population of newly unified Germany. The same policy, with the
same declared aim, was followed by both France and Poland between the wars.
In Poland the level of benefit was such that larger families could live off
that alone, at least in rural areas where they could grow much of their own
food. (I have a friend who was a child of such a Polish family.)
As Jason says, if you subsidise the cost of something, you will inevitably
increase its incidence.
I don't know what reason was given for introducing child benefit in this
country -- but I suspect the deep reason was the state staking its claim to
a say in children's upbringing. 'They're not just your children, they're
ours too -- look, we even help pay for them.'
--
Leo left-libertarian humanist boy-lover
"To mistrust science and deny the validity of the scientific method is to
resign your job as a human. You'd better go look for work as a plant or
wild animal." --P.J. O'Rourke
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>you pay for the beer, plus duty (a tax on alcohol), plus VAT on both
>>the beer _and_ the duty!
>
>Beer is a luxury.
>
>>VAT should be either abolished or changed back to what it used to be -
>>a tax on luxury items.
>
>I'd rather have VAT on everything. The rich buy more, and so pay more, whilst
>paying VAT is not compulsory. You choose what you buy, and so you choose how
>much tax to pay. Groovy huh?
It MIGHT be, if individuals could reclaim it as companies can.
R. Knauer
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>VAT should be either abolished or changed back to what it used to be -
>>>a tax on luxury items.
>>I'd rather have VAT on everything. The rich buy more, and so pay more, whilst
>>paying VAT is not compulsory. You choose what you buy, and so you choose how
>>much tax to pay. Groovy huh?
>It MIGHT be, if individuals could reclaim it as companies can.
I got a great idea - why not make the govt offer services for pay and
use the profits to fund things it cannot charge for, like the
military, etc. No need for any taxes then.
Why shouldn't govt be made to be fiscally responsible like the rest of
us? If I came robbed you at gunpoint and tried to justify it by
claiming I was gonna use the money for someone else's benefit, you
would have me put in jail.
So why aren't politicians all in jail when they do that to you?
Bob Knauer
"Since the politician never believes what he says, he is surprised
when others believe him."
-- Charles De Gaulle