Metropol

StuartPlymouth wrote: 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.

You might pay more, but are you actually worse off.

Lets look at the situation without Tax Credits:
Those low income parents currently on tax credits are currently paying some income tax (although less than the equivalent person without children). Remove the tax credits and they may decide that it isn't worth it any more; sit at home and claim benefits. You lose their income tax and have to pay them benefits. You are unoquivically worse off.

The only way you would be better off is if it deterred those on low incomes from having children in the first place (it could make you significantly better off, for a whole myriad of reasons*); however it isn't realistic to say that this would happen. If the would be parents is purely financial they would be better off not having the children anyway; the effect at the margin would be minimal.


* For example, your (well, not your, but just go with me on this) children would be better off (studies have shown that the greatest impact upon educational achievement is the parents income, closely followed by the peer group effect). Crime may be lower (based on Steven Levitt's findings that an increase in abortion rates was responsible for a large drop in crime levels in the early 90's in the US).

Mich wrote:You might pay more, but are you actually worse off.
....(well, not your, but just go with me on this) children would be better off (studies have shown that the greatest impact upon educational achievement is the parents income, closely followed by the peer group effect). Crime may be lower (based on Steven Levitt's findings that an increase in abortion rates was responsible for a large drop in crime levels in the early 90's in the US).

I'm not saying this is an easy debate to have as I can see the argument from both sides. But to essentialy discriminate against a section of the population on the moral basis of encouraging your own values is not an egalitartian or modern society.

What is to stop destitute, over-taxed single people becoming to next under-class that resorts to crime to make ends meet?

Tax should be fair, not morally based.

I think the current tax credit isn't so much morally based as it is practically based in order to give the kids a better home environment - the thinking presumably being that it'll make them into better people. The tory one certainly seems 'morally' based of course.

Sput wrote:The tory one certainly seems 'morally' based of course.

I am hoping that you are therefore a fellow non-Tory voter then on that basis Mr Sput

StuartPlymouth wrote:

Sput wrote:The tory one certainly seems 'morally' based of course.

I am hoping that you are therefore a fellow non-Tory voter then on that basis Mr Sput

You could say that! I'm following the 'No taxation without representation' thing at the moment

Sput wrote:You could say that! I'm following the 'No taxation without representation' thing at the moment

I believe some rogues and vagabonds tried that in the colonies some time ago. It didn't stop them becoming the most undemocratic "pseudo-democracy" in the world.

StuartPlymouth wrote:

Sput wrote:You could say that! I'm following the 'No taxation without representation' thing at the moment

I believe some rogues and vagabonds tried that in the colonies some time ago. It didn't stop them becoming the most undemocratic "pseudo-democracy" in the world.

Ah, but I'm taking it to mean no taxation = no, I can't be bothered to vote.

Cum is the word you are looking for, Mr Expensive Education.

Why did you rename the thread so? It's no longer off topic whilst still on topic - its just... on topic.