And what about families with additional children? Should all couple's be treated the same?
Also, show me what you believe to be a NIT schedule.
edit:
I want the exact schedule. One axis is after tax income and the other is before tax income.
live off £37,000-a-year benefits !
- Thread starter bulldog147
- Start date
And what about families with additional children? Should all couple's be treated the same?
Also, show me what you believe to be a NIT schedule.
edit:
I want the exact schedule. One axis is after tax income and the other is before tax income.
Yes, personal choices are not the responsibility of anyone other than those who make those choices. The sooner we start remembering this as a society, the sooner things will improve.
There is a worked example on the page I linked to, I don't see what the benefit of copying it here would be.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Dolph; and what happens when people need more benefits to support a larger family but cannot due to losing a partner, a physical disability, a long term illness or prolonged period of unemployment due to economic conditions out of their control?
The question was rhetorical - I know the answer; provide more additional 'if/then/when' benefits. Then we're almost back to square one. Not only that, but we have an added incentive to defraud the system, with arguable greater risk/return then what we have now.
To quote the Wikipedia article, by 'square one' I mean we would be back to offering:
"the perverse incentives created by these overlapping aid programs."
Rather than eliminating, which is the second biggest benefit of NITS.
The question was rhetorical - I know the answer; provide more additional 'if/then/when' benefits. Then we're almost back to square one. Not only that, but we have an added incentive to defraud the system, with arguable greater risk/return then what we have now.
To quote the Wikipedia article, by 'square one' I mean we would be back to offering:
"the perverse incentives created by these overlapping aid programs."
Rather than eliminating, which is the second biggest benefit of NITS.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
So, just to clarify, is your system of 'everyone gets the same money' either
A) Everyone gets the same amount of money, which is enough to in theory support 16 children whether they have that many or not (massively expensive)
or
B) Everyone gets the same amount of money, and if they have 16 children some of the (innocent) children shall either starve to death, or be taken into full time care for 16 years at massive expense to the taxpayer (costing more than just giving extra benefits would cost - and giving the innocent child a horrible, horrible life being bounced round dodgy 'care' homes).
??
I notice you want work to ALWAYS pay -- which by definition means that someone working on minimum wage should earn more than someone with 16 kids to look after. Which means again the '16 kids' person is back to - literally - having her (completely innocent) kids starve to death. Or prostituting them, perhaps?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
To quote the Wikipedia article, by 'square one' I mean we would be back to offering:
"the perverse incentives created by these overlapping aid programs."
Rather than eliminating, which is the second biggest benefit of NITS.
"the perverse incentives created by these overlapping aid programs."
Rather than eliminating, which is the second biggest benefit of NITS.
The idea is that you set a basic income level where that is achievable, and that you can always take precautions to control the impact of all those events you have listed (indeed, I already have, for all those potential issues).
It is not the job of the state to maintain lifestyles in the event of change however, nor to ensure that lifestyle is luxurious. The removal of the benefit trap will help a lot of people in those above situations though, there will never be a point where working makes less economic sense than not working, or working less makes more sense than working more.
Except that's not the answer I would provide.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
The solution would be to bite the bullet on the current generation with N+Kids and pay for them, and enforce the new rules after a particular X (where X could be child birth, marriage, age of parent, or something)
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Then you negate a big chunk of the advantages of the NITS system, as the Wikipedia article says (I quoted above).
What about option C)?
C) Those who feel that the decisions of others are having a negative impact on children are free to voluntarily assist them in a variety of ways.
Before you claim charity is demeaning, I'd argue that enforced charity (as per the benefit system) is far more demeaning that freely given charity.
It is the responsibility of the individual to take those precuations, not the state, and those safety nets aren't provided by the state, but by saving for or insuring against a rainy day.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
So if someone doesn't volunteer to help me (no-one does - after all, they all hate me)-- my children starve to death?
Am I allowed to beg for their help? Am I allowed to prostitute my children to them to try and persuade them to help? After all, it is literally LIFE or DEATH whether they choose to help or not. If they don't help me -- my kids starve to death. Prostituting them isn't as bad as that. Simples. Is that your system?
What happens to the kids if no-one chooses to help?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
A 'rainy day' != bereavement or physical disability. Do you expect everyone to take out life insurance?
cant believe people on here are actually defending them!
I have NO sympathy whatsoever for them, has he never thought of just jumping off and offering a face load!!!!
No wonder so many of us get so cheesed off having to work 60+ hours every week to earn a decent living!
In my eyes nothing but parasites feeding from society for their own gain!
I have NO sympathy whatsoever for them, has he never thought of just jumping off and offering a face load!!!!
No wonder so many of us get so cheesed off having to work 60+ hours every week to earn a decent living!
In my eyes nothing but parasites feeding from society for their own gain!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Who has defended them? I haven't read any posts of anyone defending them ...?
maybe you should re-read the whole thread, can you not feel the sympathy in some of the posts?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
No, perhaps I'm just missing something.
Or perhaps not participating in the Daily Mail reading, mouth frothing 'Torture them then Hang em high and kill the kids' crowd makes me a sympathizer?
So these people earning this flat rate die. Not gonna find any supporters of this beyond die hard libertarians.
Note that the more kids you have, the higher the fixed cost. Here the eitc schedule is steeper to counteract this effect.
Result? We have a lot of people bunched at zero hours worked because the wage they command is rubbish. Ideally this graph should be like the one below showing hours worked, and the gradient determining the wage rate.
*Correction to incomplete sentence in picture : People at the zero discontinuity due to the low effective rate of taxation increase supply as long as it compensates for fixed cost and disutlity of work. More people move from here to the points shown by the green arrows. Similarly in order to optimise preferences people above the schedule fall into the schedule reducing hours worked. (This is all explained by simple optimisation theory). We have this participation benefit, but this hours worked problem for people just above the schedule. This trade off has been shown to be positively in favour of eitc.
Not exactly sure what date this refers to, but this is the principle of additional children. (Note different axes to above).
Last edited:
Why do you keep having kids if you cannot afford to feed them? If there was a cap on benefits would this family have kept having kids knowing they would not get any more money?
That is the cycle you need to break, which means bringing in any new system in a staggered manner rather than replacing what we have straight off. Very few people are going to keep having kids if there is no one there to pick up the bills.
Housing benefit is a problem because it destroys this carefully constructed schedule in the UK. It certainly needs a reform, but as I said in my previous posts, this is difficult.
NIT would result in increased poverty as people are stuck in unemployment. This isn't even a debatable result. This will happen.
However, it obviously has the positive labour supply benefits of a flat tax schedule (although this isn't necessarily equitable).
NIT would result in increased poverty as people are stuck in unemployment. This isn't even a debatable result. This will happen.
However, it obviously has the positive labour supply benefits of a flat tax schedule (although this isn't necessarily equitable).