The Politics Thread

[Lord Kangana]

Land of the free, home of the brave.

[Bruce Rioja]

"supporting" marriage through the tax system ranks as one of the most ludicrous and stupidly ideological policies Cameron has strapped his knob to.... it's pathetic in every way.

I know that Worthy has me down as an I'm-alright-Jack sort of guy, but that's up to him. I couldn't agree more with you regarding married person's tax allowance, and couldn't understand why I should receive a preferential tax rate when we got married than when we simply lived together first. Where was the benefit to the country in our getting married?

or living together...

I just don't see it as a function of the govt. to favour one kind of life set-up over another.

you could be single, you could live with your mother, you could be married, you could live together with one or more partners of either gender, you could be in a civil partnership - all valid choices...

what business is it of the govt to promote one over the others though the tax system?

Well yes, I'm agreeing.

[Bruce Rioja]

So the argument "why should I have to pay for <something I don't see the benefit of>", is usually fairly one-way.

For feck's sake, I really can't make this anymore straightforward, so this is my last attempt. It's nothing to do with me personally, the whole point of taking money off of people to then give it back to them as 'Child Benefit' is a wholly unnecessary exercise. We're not talking about the whole taxation system, we're talking about Child Benefit payments and Child Benefit payments alone. They should be abolished. You (that's YOU) are perfectly capable and hold the responsibility of bringing up your own kids without the state taking your pocket money off you in order to give it back to you in a way that it sees that you should be spending it.

[Worthy4England]

So the argument "why should I have to pay for <something I don't see the benefit of>", is usually fairly one-way.

For feck's sake, I really can't make this anymore straightforward, so this is my last attempt. It's nothing to do with me personally, the whole point of taking money off of people to then give it back to them as 'Child Benefit' is a wholly unnecessary exercise. We're not talking about the whole taxation system, we're talking about Child Benefit payments and Child Benefit payments alone. They should be abolished. You (that's YOU) are perfectly capable and hold the responsibility of bringing up your own kids without the state taking your pocket money off you in order to give it back to you in a way that it sees that you should be spending it.

For fecks sake, they're going to take it off you anyway.

So out of preference, I'll have some of it back thanks.

[Bruce Rioja]

So the argument "why should I have to pay for <something I don't see the benefit of>", is usually fairly one-way.

For feck's sake, I really can't make this anymore straightforward, so this is my last attempt. It's nothing to do with me personally, the whole point of taking money off of people to then give it back to them as 'Child Benefit' is a wholly unnecessary exercise. We're not talking about the whole taxation system, we're talking about Child Benefit payments and Child Benefit payments alone. They should be abolished. You (that's YOU) are perfectly capable and hold the responsibility of bringing up your own kids without the state taking your pocket money off you in order to give it back to you in a way that it sees that you should be spending it.

For fecks sake, they're going to take it off you anyway.

So out of preference, I'll have some of it back thanks.

Which is an excercise in futility. I thought you'd have grasped that. hey ho.

[thebish]

"supporting" marriage through the tax system ranks as one of the most ludicrous and stupidly ideological policies Cameron has strapped his knob to.... it's pathetic in every way.

I know that Worthy has me down as an I'm-alright-Jack sort of guy, but that's up to him. I couldn't agree more with you regarding married person's tax allowance, and couldn't understand why I should receive a preferential tax rate when we got married than when we simply lived together first. Where was the benefit to the country in our getting married?

or living together...

I just don't see it as a function of the govt. to favour one kind of life set-up over another.

you could be single, you could live with your mother, you could be married, you could live together with one or more partners of either gender, you could be in a civil partnership - all valid choices...

what business is it of the govt to promote one over the others though the tax system?

Well yes, I'm agreeing.

I know... just continuing the rant I started!

[thebish]

FWIW over here people of the opposite sex who live common law (i.e without benefit of the bish) are equivalent to married for tax and other purposes after one year of cohabitation. Same sex couples who marry are, well, married. I'm not 100% sure of same sex unmarried couples, though the common law approach should apply. Menages a trois ou quatre etc probably do not get tax break beyond the prime couple but have our profound admiration (or sympathy depending). Living with a parent does not confer a benefit for tax purposes.

no such thing as "common law" over here - not in any legal sense anyway...

[Prufrock]

So the argument "why should I have to pay for <something I don't see the benefit of>", is usually fairly one-way.

For feck's sake, I really can't make this anymore straightforward, so this is my last attempt. It's nothing to do with me personally, the whole point of taking money off of people to then give it back to them as 'Child Benefit' is a wholly unnecessary exercise. We're not talking about the whole taxation system, we're talking about Child Benefit payments and Child Benefit payments alone. They should be abolished. You (that's YOU) are perfectly capable and hold the responsibility of bringing up your own kids without the state taking your pocket money off you in order to give it back to you in a way that it sees that you should be spending it.

But they don't take your money to give you your money back. It isn't a savings account. I don't remember there being a 'having a child' tax.

[Lord Kangana]

FWIW over here people of the opposite sex who live common law (i.e without benefit of the bish) are equivalent to married for tax and other purposes after one year of cohabitation. Same sex couples who marry are, well, married. I'm not 100% sure of same sex unmarried couples, though the common law approach should apply. Menages a trois ou quatre etc probably do not get tax break beyond the prime couple but have our profound admiration (or sympathy depending). Living with a parent does not confer a benefit for tax purposes.

no such thing as "common law" over here - not in any legal sense anyway...

Just purely out of interest bish, are you absolutely sure of this? Only someone advised me (a long while ago now) that indeed we did have common law here.

[Verbal]

FWIW over here people of the opposite sex who live common law (i.e without benefit of the bish) are equivalent to married for tax and other purposes after one year of cohabitation. Same sex couples who marry are, well, married. I'm not 100% sure of same sex unmarried couples, though the common law approach should apply. Menages a trois ou quatre etc probably do not get tax break beyond the prime couple but have our profound admiration (or sympathy depending). Living with a parent does not confer a benefit for tax purposes.

no such thing as "common law" over here - not in any legal sense anyway...

there is...

[Worthy4England]

So the argument "why should I have to pay for <something I don't see the benefit of>", is usually fairly one-way.

For feck's sake, I really can't make this anymore straightforward, so this is my last attempt. It's nothing to do with me personally, the whole point of taking money off of people to then give it back to them as 'Child Benefit' is a wholly unnecessary exercise. We're not talking about the whole taxation system, we're talking about Child Benefit payments and Child Benefit payments alone. They should be abolished. You (that's YOU) are perfectly capable and hold the responsibility of bringing up your own kids without the state taking your pocket money off you in order to give it back to you in a way that it sees that you should be spending it.

For fecks sake, they're going to take it off you anyway.

So out of preference, I'll have some of it back thanks.

Which is an excercise in futility. I thought you'd have grasped that. hey ho.

I have grasped that, what you appear to have missed it that all tax paid by the people (collective), goes back to the people (collective) in some form of another - less "administration" costs.

So extending your exercise in futility argument, we wouldn't pay any tax for anything?

Why should I pay tax that goes towards education for example, for them to give it back to me in the form of free schooling - I could pay my own schooling fees if I didn't pay tax?

[Worthy4England]

So the argument "why should I have to pay for <something I don't see the benefit of>", is usually fairly one-way.

For feck's sake, I really can't make this anymore straightforward, so this is my last attempt. It's nothing to do with me personally, the whole point of taking money off of people to then give it back to them as 'Child Benefit' is a wholly unnecessary exercise. We're not talking about the whole taxation system, we're talking about Child Benefit payments and Child Benefit payments alone. They should be abolished. You (that's YOU) are perfectly capable and hold the responsibility of bringing up your own kids without the state taking your pocket money off you in order to give it back to you in a way that it sees that you should be spending it.

But they don't take your money to give you your money back. It isn't a savings account. I don't remember there being a 'having a child' tax.

They do take your money to give it back, otherwise there's not a lot of point in them taking it in the first place. That's not to say they take an individual's money to give the same amount back to the same individual.

When they take your money, some of it does head back to the same individuals in a roundabout way (i.e. if they were redundant, or sick, or borrow a book from the library or send their kids to a state run school).

So in that sense it is a savings account, although without conferring the right for people to take out what they've put in, and at the same time allowing people to take out, what they haven't put in.

Child Benefit is part of that overall system, so the arguments against it are fairly spurious, unless you happen not to have kids.

As I've said all along, it should be means tested, rather than just given to everyone.

For those earning over the 40% marginal rate, it'll just be effectively a tax hike.

[Bruce Rioja]

So the argument "why should I have to pay for <something I don't see the benefit of>", is usually fairly one-way.

For feck's sake, I really can't make this anymore straightforward, so this is my last attempt. It's nothing to do with me personally, the whole point of taking money off of people to then give it back to them as 'Child Benefit' is a wholly unnecessary exercise. We're not talking about the whole taxation system, we're talking about Child Benefit payments and Child Benefit payments alone. They should be abolished. You (that's YOU) are perfectly capable and hold the responsibility of bringing up your own kids without the state taking your pocket money off you in order to give it back to you in a way that it sees that you should be spending it.

But they don't take your money to give you your money back. It isn't a savings account. I don't remember there being a 'having a child' tax.

No that's right. They magic it up out of the ether.

[thebish]

FWIW over here people of the opposite sex who live common law (i.e without benefit of the bish) are equivalent to married for tax and other purposes after one year of cohabitation. Same sex couples who marry are, well, married. I'm not 100% sure of same sex unmarried couples, though the common law approach should apply. Menages a trois ou quatre etc probably do not get tax break beyond the prime couple but have our profound admiration (or sympathy depending). Living with a parent does not confer a benefit for tax purposes.

no such thing as "common law" over here - not in any legal sense anyway...

Just purely out of interest bish, are you absolutely sure of this? Only someone advised me (a long while ago now) that indeed we did have common law here.

In a purely definitional sense you could argue that we have "common law" - because this describes a legal system that is based not simply on statutes and but on a series of court decisions and precedents that make up "cases" - case law.

so - you could argue - yes.

but that wouldn't be how most people understand/use the phrase - and my response was to Monty who used the phrase "common law" to describe a partnership that had not been formally recognised in marriage or civil partnership and yet, after a passage of time, is treated, for legal purposes as if it had been.

that kind of "common law" (a "common law" wife) - we don't have over here. Couples who (simply) live together have hardly any of the same rights as married couples or civil partners. There is no such thing as "common law marriage" despite many people believing there is.


(PS - I like that - I have now copyrighted my opening gambit: "in a purely definitional sense"!)

[BWFC_Insane]

So the argument "why should I have to pay for <something I don't see the benefit of>", is usually fairly one-way.

For feck's sake, I really can't make this anymore straightforward, so this is my last attempt. It's nothing to do with me personally, the whole point of taking money off of people to then give it back to them as 'Child Benefit' is a wholly unnecessary exercise. We're not talking about the whole taxation system, we're talking about Child Benefit payments and Child Benefit payments alone. They should be abolished. You (that's YOU) are perfectly capable and hold the responsibility of bringing up your own kids without the state taking your pocket money off you in order to give it back to you in a way that it sees that you should be spending it.

But they don't take your money to give you your money back. It isn't a savings account. I don't remember there being a 'having a child' tax.

They do take your money to give it back, otherwise there's not a lot of point in them taking it in the first place. That's not to say they take an individual's money to give the same amount back to the same individual.

When they take your money, some of it does head back to the same individuals in a roundabout way (i.e. if they were redundant, or sick, or borrow a book from the library or send their kids to a state run school).

So in that sense it is a savings account, although without conferring the right for people to take out what they've put in, and at the same time allowing people to take out, what they haven't put in.

Child Benefit is part of that overall system, so the arguments against it are fairly spurious, unless you happen not to have kids.

As I've said all along, it should be means tested, rather than just given to everyone.

For those earning over the 40% marginal rate, it'll just be effectively a tax hike.

Which is probably best along with things like the winter fuel allowance, which as far as I know can be claimed by anyone irrespective of wealth.

BUT means testing will mean employing more civil servants setting up a department and probably end up cost neutral. And of course then there will be mistakes which will end up as headlines in the Daily Mail!

[Worthy4England]

BUT means testing will mean employing more civil servants setting up a department and probably end up cost neutral. And of course then there will be mistakes which will end up as headlines in the Daily Mail!

Why should means testing mean, on something related to incomes which we already have the information on in the tax office, employing more civil servants? Surely you just get rid of the child benefit office and have it administered by the tax office as it's a function of tax payable?

Answer: They probably can't do that, because the Tax IT system doesn't know how many kids people have got and they allow departments to build IT systems that don't talk to each other...

[BWFC_Insane]

BUT means testing will mean employing more civil servants setting up a department and probably end up cost neutral. And of course then there will be mistakes which will end up as headlines in the Daily Mail!

Why should means testing mean, on something related to incomes which we already have the information on in the tax office, employing more civil servants? Surely you just get rid of the child benefit office and have it administered by the tax office as it's a function of tax payable?

Answer: They probably can't do that, because the Tax IT system doesn't know how many kids people have got and they allow departments to build IT systems that don't talk to each other...

Yep. And the tax office is already overstretched and not exactly "cock up" free right now.

And then factor in all the "messy" family situations that need untangling and you're looking at a new department or in effect a new one.

[Lord Kangana]

BUT means testing will mean employing more civil servants setting up a department and probably end up cost neutral. And of course then there will be mistakes which will end up as headlines in the Daily Mail!

Why should means testing mean, on something related to incomes which we already have the information on in the tax office, employing more civil servants? Surely you just get rid of the child benefit office and have it administered by the tax office as it's a function of tax payable?

Answer: They probably can't do that, because the Tax IT system doesn't know how many kids people have got and they allow departments to build IT systems that don't talk to each other...

That will only get worse as decentralisation accelerates. Its the reason that most of our agencies duplicate jobs, waste time because they find it difficult to communicate with each other, and as you say they are/will be purchasing IT systems in a completely independent way. Which, just to add insult to injury, will make them more expensive, after all, we all know the benefit of bulk buying. Quangos et al were invented in the eighties to challenge local government power (traditionally seen as left leaning) and cost us more. They were a political, not economical, initiative. with PFI's and the like thrown in, we're paying more than we should for a less efficient service. I doubt Tesco's would advocate de-centralizing, and I bet they are bloody efficient.

[Worthy4England]

BUT means testing will mean employing more civil servants setting up a department and probably end up cost neutral. And of course then there will be mistakes which will end up as headlines in the Daily Mail!

Why should means testing mean, on something related to incomes which we already have the information on in the tax office, employing more civil servants? Surely you just get rid of the child benefit office and have it administered by the tax office as it's a function of tax payable?

Answer: They probably can't do that, because the Tax IT system doesn't know how many kids people have got and they allow departments to build IT systems that don't talk to each other...

Yep. And the tax office is already overstretched and not exactly "cock up" free right now.

And then factor in all the "messy" family situations that need untangling and you're looking at a new department or in effect a new one.

Having worked in the tax office as a yoof, overstretched isn't a word I naturally associated with it.

The main problem I see with this - and I'm sure there'll be plenty more down the lines, is that it's effectively an anti-family tax. Or if you happen to be single/married and with no kids, you could have always viewed it as a pro-family benefit (in acknowledgement of Brucie's view ).

So if you wanted to be really picky about it, you divorce so the partner that's earning over the threshold is no longer officially part of the family. The lower earning partner retains this benefit and probably a shit-load of others that they don't currently get, all of which require administering. The CSA has to come after the main "earner" and administer that which is already paid to the kids anyhow. They now need 2 houses, where they currently only have one and they both get discounted Council Tax rates as single adults, at a time when young un's can't afford to get on the property ladder anyhow. And so on and so forth.

Regressive and idiotic "saving".

[thebish]

BUT means testing will mean employing more civil servants setting up a department and probably end up cost neutral. And of course then there will be mistakes which will end up as headlines in the Daily Mail!

Why should means testing mean, on something related to incomes which we already have the information on in the tax office, employing more civil servants? Surely you just get rid of the child benefit office and have it administered by the tax office as it's a function of tax payable?

Answer: They probably can't do that, because the Tax IT system doesn't know how many kids people have got and they allow departments to build IT systems that don't talk to each other...

indeed - the tax system is built on individuals - not on family income - women saw this as a big breakthrough a few years ago. This is one of the reasons they are doing it this way - because HMRC deals with individuals not family units.