What do you use?

[Sput]

*Stu avoids the valid point in another post*

[Nick Harvey]

Anyone else noticed the interesting metamorphosis of the thread title that's taking place?

We're still dead on topic, talking about things you use, but we've gently moved on from computer software to services which are taxed.

It's most unusual for a thread to go so far off topic, without going off topic at all. I like it!

[Mich]

SCHOOL
Isn't that something I am forced to pay for that other people's offspring attend?

Because it makes sense... even if you don't have children.

Why? Would you think it reasonable to pay road tax if you didn't have a car?

No, for the same reason that I would object to paying income tax if I didn't have an income; or the tax of cigarettes when I don't buy them.

Don't think for one second that road tax funds all of the spending on roads, because it doesn't. There are several purposes of road tax, primarily to raise revenue and maintain a register of cars. The tax raised is no longer hypothecated so goes into the general taxation pot.

If you don't like the argument that you are repaying your own education, how about this...

I have nothing to repay. I was fortunate enough to go to a private school which my parents paid for, over and above contributing towards the education of my contemporaries in the public sector through their taxes.

Well, it is a good job that I provided a couple of other examples of how you benefit from paying for schools.

In similar ways I also benefit from paying for roads despite not currently owning a car. Having a [vaguely] efficient road network helps the economy to grow, get goods into shops and means there are fewer people on public transport - all of which I benefit from.

[cdd]

I find your points very difficult to understand, Stuart. Since all economic arguments have failed, let me ask you this question: if you (or your parents) weren't fortunate enough to have the money to fund private schooling, would you still want to be educated?

I don't object to paying for education - what I do object to is the huge waste of money that is contributing to the education of those who abuse that privilege. The other thing I wouldn't argue is that schooling shouldn't be compulsory - I think educaiton is vital for everyone - but I think the government needs better strategies to deal with people who do not want to be educated. Streamed schooling would be one fairly good alternative in my view, because I think a severe problem is students who fall behind and then become demoralised and cynical about education because the class can't wait for them. The other thing schools need to try and do is find ways to make education fun for children.

[Stuart*]

I find your points very difficult to understand, Stuart. Since all economic arguments have failed, let me ask you this question: if you (or your parents) weren't fortunate enough to have the money to fund private schooling, would you still want to be educated?

Well, my thoughts are not at their most lucid at 5am after a night out Of course if I hadn't been very fortunate and privately educated I would have still wanted to go through the publicly funded school system.

The point I was making really centred on the similar situation we have with Council Tax. Because I live alone I get a rebate of 25%. Why can't a similar situation exist with Income Tax if you don't have children. I appreciate that spending on education is a long term investment because of the economic benefits. My argument is therefore somewhat circular in that without that investment there won't be a successful enough economy to pay for my pension and care when I am sat dribbling in the corner of a retirement home.

[Sput]

The point I was making really centred on the similar situation we have with Council Tax. Because I live alone I get a rebate of 25%. Why can't a similar situation exist with Income Tax if you don't have children.

Thinking about it, it'd be enormously difficult to do that with any consistency. Essentially you're proposing a tax on having children, so would a family with 1 child pay less than a family with 5? Then you'd have to work out exactly what the rebate would be, which would have to take into account the average spend per schoolchild (which depends on their age and if they get into the 6th form, when it increases), how long a rebate would last because kids aren't educated their entire lives (with the exception of me, apparently) and the net contribution to the economy having an educated child brings that might theoretically come back to you in you autumn years.

The list goes on, and then you could argue "well, if we can do this with education, why not charge people who have freak accidents more tax because they use the hospital more than people who don't?". With the council tax it's much easier to scale because the number of householders actually does (to a limited degree anyway) translate directly to a lower usage of services.

So to answer your question, plenty of reasons why not

[Stuart*]

Thinking about it, it'd be enormously difficult to do that with any consistency. Essentially you're proposing a tax on having children, so would a family with 1 child pay less than a family with 5? Then you'd have to work out exactly what the rebate would be, which would have to take into account the average spend per schoolchild (which depends on their age and if they get into the 6th form, when it increases), how long a rebate would last because kids aren't educated their entire lives (with the exception of me, apparently) and the net contribution to the economy having an educated child brings that might theoretically come back to you in you autumn years.

So to answer your question, plenty of reasons why not

Agreed that it would be a nightmare situation to administer. Rather than proposing a tax on having children why not simply remove what is essentially the tax on not having them (ie remove Child Tax Credits). I pay more income tax than a single parent with a child on an equivalent income.

[Sput]

Thinking about it, it'd be enormously difficult to do that with any consistency. Essentially you're proposing a tax on having children, so would a family with 1 child pay less than a family with 5? Then you'd have to work out exactly what the rebate would be, which would have to take into account the average spend per schoolchild (which depends on their age and if they get into the 6th form, when it increases), how long a rebate would last because kids aren't educated their entire lives (with the exception of me, apparently) and the net contribution to the economy having an educated child brings that might theoretically come back to you in you autumn years.

So to answer your question, plenty of reasons why not

Agreed that it would be a nightmare situation to administer. Rather than proposing a tax on having children why not simply remove what is essentially the tax on not having them (ie remove Child Tax Credits). I pay more income tax than a single parent with a child on an equivalent income.

After all the stuff they have to buy for the child?

[Stuart*]

After all the stuff they have to buy for the child?

At the end of the day it is their choice to have children, not mine. I don't get a tax break for having a dog or wanting a conservatory - they are my lifestyle choices. I don't expect someone else to pay for them.

EDIT:
Even if the case can be made that all members of society pay an equivalent amount regardless of the services they use, then I will agree to that on the basis of the contribution they will make to society later on. But the reality is that after tax credits et al, I actually pay a disproportionatly larger amount than someone who decides to have children. That is inherently unfair. I am financially penalised for my choice.

[Sput]

After all the stuff they have to buy for the child?

At the end of the day it is their choice to have children, not mine. I don't get a tax break for having a dog or wanting a conservatory - they are my lifestyle choices. I don't expect someone else to pay for them.

EDIT:
Even if the case can be made that all members of society pay an equivalent amount regardless of the services they use, then I will agree to that on the basis of the contribution they will make to society later on. But the reality is that after tax credits et al, I actually pay a disproportionatly larger amount than someone who decides to have children. That is inherently unfair. I am financially penalised for my choice.

At least they're penalised by having a little bastard to look after, shitting all over the place and keeping them awake at night. I see where you're coming from principle-wise, but I'm inclined to think that even after tax credits, parents are still going to be worse off financially.

Now for something similar: I saw that Dave was promising to give two-parent families more benefits than single-parent families last night. That makes no sense to me. Anyone, anyone? Bueller?

[Stuart*]

Now for something similar: I saw that Dave was promising to give two-parent families more benefits than single-parent families last night. That makes no sense to me. Anyone, anyone? Bueller?

I watched "Dave's" interview on Andrew Marr's show this morning and what got my goat there was that he was planning to use "Green Taxes" as a supplement to families in general. He actually stated that any couple (whether married or not) would receive benefits or tax breaks under his morally dictatorial Tory regime.

Yet another Single Person Surcharge. Well that lost his deranged party my vote (not that they have had me seriously considering such a move for some time).

Why not simply remove the tax allowance for single people altogether - force everyone to get married (whether they want to or not) and claim that they have overturned the moral decline and returned us all to correct family values. Life on "Planet Dave" sounds worse than under the Taliban or Hitler's Nazis.