What level of taxation is "fair"?

[D.P.]

Children grow into taxpaying adults, so no it is not inherently fair to tax parents for effectively having children. In fact encouraging children would by default increase long term stability and, if the birth rate is such, increase tax revenue long term.....

So all those single people will have someone to continue to pay taxes so they can enjoy healthcare/pensions/bus travel/etc when they are no longer productive enough to finance themselves and need state subsidies.....

To be clear, I am not saying that parents should be heavily tax. I understand the value of future generations of well educated children.

i was merely supporting someone's assertion that in other countries children are effectively taxed to cover the increased costs, and that in general this makes sense.

And these child taxes are not to cover 100% of the cost of the children, the whole of society will pay taxes that will be used by children. just that taxing parents a little extra because they have children is done in other countries, it does make sense, and the results are positive.


Children are very expensive and it is sad that in the UK some people just do not care about the financial impacts of the child and let society pick up the pieces.

 

[Castiel]

Some people may argue it depends who the parents are as to whether that statement is factually correct

Very few people are actually lifelong non tax payers......but of course we could always disincentivise having children and create a kind of reverse baby boom.....then we can all drown in our own idiocy when we retire....wait, we won't be able to retire as there will not be enough people to subsidise all the services we recieve....

 

[Glaucus]

At least you have the honesty to admit it. Most people think the same, but then come out with phrases like "the fairest system is..." and propose a system which by sheer coincidence would mean that they pay less tax.



M

Any middle earners who are saying flat tax, are not saying it for that reason. We would more than likely be the losers. I also imagine that's most of us saying flat tax fall into that bracket.

 

[kwerk]

They should just have a flat 25% sales tax on all goods, and nothing else. Then whoever buys the most stuff pays the most tax. That's the fairest.

 

[Castiel]

To be clear, I am not saying that parents should be heavily tax. I understand the value of future generations of well educated children.

i was merely supporting someone's assertion that in other countries children are effectively taxed to cover the increased costs, and that in general this makes sense.

And these child taxes are not to cover 100% of the cost of the children, the whole of society will pay taxes that will be used by children. just that taxing parents a little extra because they have children is done in other countries, it does make sense, and the results are positive.


Children are very expensive and it is sad that in the UK some people just do not care about the financial impacts of the child and let society pick up the pieces.

So you want to tax children?

 

[mollymoo]

Children grow into taxpaying adults, so no it is not inherently fair to tax parents for effectively having children. In fact encouraging children would by default increase long term stability and, if the birth rate is such, increase tax revenue long term.....

So all those single people will have someone to continue to pay taxes so they can enjoy healthcare/pensions/bus travel/etc.....free at point of service.

Not all children grow into responsible taxpaying adults though, it takes a decent upbringing to nurture a child into a responsible and therefore taxpaying member of society (imo), and it seems parents without that ability are increasing in numbers fed by benefit gains. These are the people you would like to stop having children, decent well brought up people would have no qualms over having children regardless of increased costs, as they wouldbe doing it for different reasons, not just gaining from the state.

 

[wildman]

They should just have a flat 25% sales tax on all goods, and nothing else. Then whoever buys the most stuff pays the most tax. That's the fairest.

isn't that called VAT and don't we already pay 20% or are you suggesting we slap another 25% on top of that ?

 

[Glaucus]

Well only one way then, need a license and antidote to produce children.

*tounge in cheek*

 

[Castiel]

Not all children grow into responsible taxpaying adults though, it takes a decent upbringing to nurture a child into a responsible and therefore taxpaying member of society (imo), and it seems parents without that ability are increasing in numbers fed by benefit gains. These are the people you would like to stop having children, decent well brought up people would have no qualms over having children regardless of increased costs, as they wouldbe doing it for different reasons, not just gaining from the state.

Thats because you read the daily mail.

Change the benefit system....not tax the very parents who are the most likely to instil the very values you want and therefore disincentivise them from having children in the first place.

There seems something very distasteful about taxing children as if they are chattle.

 

[D.P.]

So you want to tax children?

No, just that I understand there are tax systems in the world that levy a small taxation on parents who can afford it and that in these countries standard of education is higher than the UK and as a whole such tax systems seem quite fair and robust.

 

[Castiel]

No, just that I understand there are tax systems in the world that levy a small taxation on parents who can afford it and that in these countries standard of education is higher than the UK and as a whole such tax systems seem quite fair and robust.

Which countries are these that tax having children?

Because however you rationalise it, a tax that applies to only parents is a tax on children.

 

[D.P.]

Thats because you read the daily mail.

Change the benefit system....not tax the very parents who are the most likely to instil the very values you want and therefore disincentivise them from having children in the first place.

There seems something very distasteful about taxing children as if they are chattle.

No one is saying tax children, merely tax parents.

It is like if you want to buy a car, you have to expect to pay the road taxes, insurance costs and fuel tax. Why should other people pay your share of these taxes?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Very few people are actually lifelong non tax payers......but of course we could always disincentivise having children and create a kind of reverse baby boom.....then we can all drown in our own idiocy when we retire....wait, we won't be able to retire as there will not be enough people to subsidise all the services we recieve....

Sod your services, i would be more worried there would be no one capable of growing food / livestock

I agree by the way, the future of the human race requires some level of younger people to support each generation. One of the issues we face is an ever increasing life expectancy and hence possibly a much higher dependancy ratio.

One the factors we argued gave Germany a comparative advantage in taxation during the 80s was that they had a very low dependancy rate due to the sheer level of deaths they suffered in WW2. That (whether or not it was true) has stopped now where they have a silimar dependancy rate to the rest of Western Europe

 

[Sukh]

Again it does not allways work out like that,i know tons of people who have had good jobs thrown the scrap heap including myself because of the greed of this country,i look at my tax over the years that i have paid and what do i get in return when times are tuff,jack *****

Was your job in the public sector?

 

[D.P.]

Which countries are these that tax having children?

Because however you rationalise it, a tax that applies to only parents is a tax on children.

Someone earlier mentioned Canada. I know in Switzerland you pay more income tax if you are married under the expectation you are likely to have children and there are other charges you must pay if you are a parent, including health and accident insurance.

 

[mollymoo]

Thats because you read the daily mail.

Change the benefit system....not tax the very parents who are the most likely to instil the very values you want and therefore disincentivise them from having children in the first place.

There seems something very distasteful about taxing children as if they are chattle.

Ive never even seen a copy of the Daily Mail, It's more to do with what I see around me, and to be fair to you my description did come out a bit wrong, it should have read a bit more along the lines of people thinking about whether they can make a good job of bringing up kids before actually having them, rather like a good few round my way seem to do, have quite a lot and see what happens, increasing tax for parents might make people re-jig their thinking, it also seems fair. Maybe a tax increase when you have children that is refundable if you do a good job of their up-bringing.

 

[Castiel]

No one is saying tax children, merely tax parents.

It is like if you want to buy a car, you have to expect to pay the road taxes, insurance costs and fuel tax. Why should other people pay your share of these taxes?

So by your analogy of taxation for owning a car, you are actually saying that it is a tax on children.....

You are effectively treating children as chattle....like a house, or in your example, a car.

If Parents are indeed taxed for having children, is it therefore unfair when those children grow up and pay taxes themselves that the single people who did not pay those taxes then benefit from the taxes those children then pay.

Why should the Parents children pay their share of these taxes......

 

[Alex_6n2]

Again it does not allways work out like that,i know tons of people who have had good jobs thrown the scrap heap including myself because of the greed of this country,i look at my tax over the years that i have paid and what do i get in return when times are tuff,jack *****

Probably because you can't spell tough.

#Shouldhavestayedinschool

 

[PermaBanned]

Children grow into taxpaying adults, so no it is not inherently fair to tax parents for effectively having children. In fact encouraging children would by default increase long term stability and, if the birth rate is such, increase tax revenue long term.....

So all those single people will have someone to continue to pay taxes so they can enjoy healthcare/pensions/bus travel/etc when they are no longer productive enough to finance themselves and need state subsidies.....

Assuming that there is an infinite pool of jobs to dip into. There isn't.

 

[Castiel]

Someone earlier mentioned Canada. I know in Switzerland you pay more income tax if you are married under the expectation you are likely to have children and there are other charges you must pay if you are a parent, including health and accident insurance.

There is no tax on having children in Canada......

Does not everyone pay health and accident insurance in Switzerland, in fact the 'family allowance' (NTCP) portion of compulsory private health insurance is paid by Employers, not their employees.

You don't pay more income tax, and the NTCP is not a tax anyway and married people have their incomes combined when assessing tax, I can't find any evidence that they pay an increased rate, in fact it seems that their contribution as a percentage of income falls, rather than increases.