Newborn tax?

Janesy B · 17 Mar 2009 at 22:11

This is what we need!

No kids and a shed load of old people.

Fantastic thinking there old chap.

Indy500 · 17 Mar 2009 at 22:15

Cryogenic said:
Good point, I propose the NHS should be reformed slightly to be free to taxpayers and those on benefits only if the proposal were to work effectively. If such a scenario would be possible, then you would not get a rebate for your £1500 as it would count towards the childs education and health costs even if you went private. Though I should point out, an NHS midwife would be provided free as you pay tax hence contribute to the NHS.

I think taxation in general is poorly justified, and for reasons which I won't go into, I wouldn't use the NHS unless I was absolutely broke with no alternative.

But back on topic, if you're trying to say you want a fairer tax, I would propose sorting out the loopholes used to avoid it in the first place. Make it a simple flat rate with a higher tax-free allowance. That way we won't have Russian oligarchs and other upper-class people indirectly leeching off the rest of us.

Cryogenic · 17 Mar 2009 at 22:18

sr4470 said:
I think taxation in general is poorly justified, and for reasons which I won't go into, I wouldn't use the NHS unless I was absolutely broke with no alternative.

But back on topic, if you're trying to say you want a fairer tax, I would propose sorting out the loopholes used to avoid it in the first place. Make it a simple flat rate with a higher tax-free allowance. That way we won't have Russian oligarchs and other upper-class people indirectly leeching off the rest of us.

LOL at the first paragraph

I believe the top rate of tax is soon to be 45% for those earning over 150K and tax havens have been targeted heavily since the recession

Cryogenic · 17 Mar 2009 at 22:20

Janesy B said:
No kids and a shed load of old people.

Fantastic thinking there old chap.

Who said anything about not having enough offspring?

My policy simply proposes that parents cover the cost of their child's future, and to reduce the tax bill of those without children

Indy500 · 17 Mar 2009 at 22:22

Cryogenic said:
LOL at the first paragraph

What? I've not been seriously ill in 5 years, and the only other thing I can think of that I require (intermittently) is contraception...which I leave up to the missus to decide on.

Cryogenic said:
I believe the top rate of tax is soon to be 45% for those earning over 150K and tax havens have been targeted heavily since the recession

I'm not really talking about people earning £150k, I'm thinking along the lines of multi-millionaires (about 2-3% of the population).

Cryogenic said:
Who said anything about not having enough offspring?

My policy simply proposes that parents cover the cost of their child's future, and to reduce the tax bill of those without children

That shift would discourage middle class couples from having children, to some extent. Money seems to be a good enough reason for some people anyway.

Janesy B · 17 Mar 2009 at 22:28

Cryogenic said:
Who said anything about not having enough offspring?

My policy simply proposes that parents cover the cost of their child's future, and to reduce the tax bill of those without children

Having a kid is expensive enough, we have the NHS which everyone who works pays into it. Why should we then pay to have a child?

The chav families will just rob houses/cars/people to get the money.

Vonhelmet · 17 Mar 2009 at 22:48

Right... So in a country in which we are taxed to the hilt for substandard public services and hugely expensive cost of living, you want to increase the tax burden on people.

How about no.

Steveh_monkey · 17 Mar 2009 at 22:58

I propose involuntary euthanasia for anyone who wears trackie bottoms.

Cryogenic · 17 Mar 2009 at 23:05

vonhelmet said:
Right... So in a country in which we are taxed to the hilt for substandard public services and hugely expensive cost of living, you want to increase the tax burden on people.

How about no.

Err no, my policy would increase the tax on parents with children and reduce the tax on people without children

Though if you are talking about substandard public services, the bin Nazis are the worst and getting worse. They expect us to recycle but most of the crap we buy is unrecycleable, talk about a dead end situation to fine us to the hilt :mad:

moogie · 17 Mar 2009 at 23:58

as a child educated without your assistance can i then charge you extra for any benefits you may derive from said education? im assuming you will want medical care etc etc

Cryogenic · 18 Mar 2009 at 00:24

moogie said:
as a child educated without your assistance can i then charge you extra for any benefits you may derive from said education? im assuming you will want medical care etc etc

A fair and just society is what everyone wants, also, any new future proposal would take effect at that time like with other laws. It would not simply be backdated

Chimerical · 18 Mar 2009 at 00:28

sr4470 said:
PS: Chimerical, did you get my email?

I haven't recieved anything. When did you send it?

snail1 · 18 Mar 2009 at 07:50

Cryogenic said:
.

"One issue which is often forgotten here is that it is not the child's fault it has been born and you cannot penalize it for this."

My policy does not penalise the child, just the parents. You would not buy a car from a showroom, and expect the taxpayer to put petrol in the car.

Well, in way it does - if you financially cripple the parents then it is the child who will lose. I think that it is worth remembering that currently parents get paid for having children through child benefit and child tax credits and this was my point about looking more closely at the benefits and education systems.

Cryogenic said:
.

" Unfortunately sex is a basic human drive and people will continue to have it."

Of course it is, most of the time it is casual. But if it (sex) leads to a little one, it should marry itself to the pocket of the parents.

but it already does marry itself to the pocket of the parents.

I am not sure we disagree too much in that a drive towards responsible parenting is what is needed. But I do not believe that your "dilation tax" is a fair or appropriate system.

arknor · 18 Mar 2009 at 08:04

platypus said:
Not a tax no, but I do believe licences should be required for having babies.

so what happens if you dont have a license forced abortions?

Vonhelmet · 18 Mar 2009 at 08:51

I think this idea could usher in a brave new world.

Vonhelmet · 18 Mar 2009 at 08:54

Cryogenic said:
Err no, my policy would increase the tax on parents with children and reduce the tax on people without children

So if you increase the tax burden for some and reduce it for others, how do you actually propose to raise any money? What about the additional admin overhead? You'll probably end up with less money in the treasury.