PDA

View Full Version : Should Childless Couples Pay Less Taxes?


V2-OMG!
14th Jan 2009, 05:04
I can't help but feel that as a childless person I am perpetually being "penalized" for it. Soon it is tax time. As usual, a large chunk of my hard-earned dollar will go towards supporting the education and health-care of other peoples' children. Do you think that is fair?

Secondly, the person next door has rented out his basement to another family. There are two families consisting of four adults and five children, using eight times the water and other municipal services like sewer and garbage pick-up than a single-person dwelling. Yet, the property taxes are the same. Do you think this is fair?

Do you think childless individuals/couples should be given a tax break, income and property-tax wise?

llondel
14th Jan 2009, 05:53
Think of it as a form of investment in your pension. No kids now means no one to do the work when you retire. We homeschool but we don't get any sort of rebate on taxes for it. Worse, the local authority don't get the money either, so the only financial winner is the Treasury. I'm guessing you're in the US from your choice of words, so your local utilities and tax situation will be different to those of us with UK residences.

BlueWolf
14th Jan 2009, 06:44
No, dammit, you should be paying a sizeable whack MORE than the rest of us.

This is to make up for you not having to get up in the middle of the night for feeding or crying or the boogieman, or deal with nappies or nightmares or bedwetting, or go to school interviews or Saturday sport or piano lessons, or spend 15 years clearing bikes/shoes/tennis racquets/skis/basketballs/motorcycle parts off the back porch just to get to the door, followed by three years of lying awake at three in the morning waiting for the phone to ring, and hoping it either is or isn't the cops....

.....or spend hours sitting through dreadful school productions, or waiting in doctors' waiting rooms, or listening to recorder practice....and for being able to have a lawn that isn't perpetually covered with swing ball sets and plastic cricket wickets and trampolines and rabbit hutches, and being able to get into your garage because it isn't filled with two-and-a-half dissassembled Volkswagens and a drum kit.

And because you will never know the joys of discovering guinea-pig droppings on your favourite armchair, or dead goldfish in the toilet, or projectile chunder on your clean shirt when you have a meeting with the boss in 15 minutes, or that your new razor has been used to shave Fluffy to look like a poodle. You don't even want to know what Fluffy is. Trust me. Finger paint on the new wallpaper and rice risotto down between the sofa cushions are mild by comparison.

And then there's bee stings, and fish hooks, and by Christ, what the hell was that stuff in the bathroom cabinet?? Where's the number for the poisons centre?

You think you're being hard done by now....wait till you have to fork out for school fees, and soccer uniforms, and scout camps, and ski trips and museum visits and braces, and cellphones and cellphone bills, and hairdressers and gowns for the senior formal, and then there's varsity and polytech fees!

When they leave home you still won't be able to get into your garage, because it will be filled with their furniture every time they break up with boyfriend/girlfriend, or get kicked out of some flat for trashing the place/not paying the rent/both. This will happen about every six months (rest assured you will be lugging said furniture, usually up and down at least three flights of stairs, and paying for the furniture trailer rental), and then they will come and live on your couch for another six months, not paying rent and trashing the place, and you won't have a lounge either, or any beer in the fridge. Then they'll go overseas, and you will get your lounge back, but you can kiss goodbye to the garage for another two straight years at least, because everything they own will be in it.

When they come home, you will lose all your most beloved and comfy old furniture, because your spouse will decide that it's too old and tattered for you anymore, but it will be just ideal for Junior/Juniess to set up in a nice flat. Expect to pay for both the flat, and new furniture for yourself.

If you're really lucky, Juniess will move back into your spare room (well, it IS her room, after all) and breed illegitimate children for three - five years. Do not even think about complaining about this to your spouse, or the best you can hope for is to be allowed to move into one of the Volkswagens in the garage.

And you think only nine-person families of basement-dwellers can go through eight times your allowance of municipal water, sewerage, and garbage services? Jesus, wait till you have ONE teenage daughter. Oh, and if you're going to have more than one teenage daughter, you will need to build at least four additional bathrooms. Seriously. Or you'll never get to use one. I don't know how this works, but it does. The maths don't stack up, but then nothing about raising kids makes any sense.

And YOU want a break??!!

All this and we let you get away with only paying the same tax as us. You know, I think that's a pretty good deal, under the circumstances, and if I were you I'd grab it and run, before we change our minds. :ok:

So come on, harden up and pay up, there's good a childless taxpayer. ;)

....or you could join the Dark Side, have some children, and become one of us....:E


PS: those Other People's Children will grow up to become the medical professionals, and rest home workers, and Police officers, who will look after you as you grow old....alone....so don't be too quick to deny them their existence.
(didn't mean to spoil the party, but I had to add that bit. ;)

Wod
14th Jan 2009, 07:09
I think Blue Wolf is on the money. (Again: this is becoming embarassing)

The short version is- you've got all that disposable income which the family unit reduced to one wage earner for a number of years can only dream of: you should give more of it to the Gummint.:E

Whirlygig
14th Jan 2009, 08:24
You could always rent out your basement as well :ok: and then you'd be on an equal footing with your neighbour.

Cheers

Whirls

r1flyguy35
14th Jan 2009, 08:31
I think BW should have kept it in his pants if that is his thought on the matter! :ugh:

Whirlygig
14th Jan 2009, 08:36
I think r1flyguy35 needs to reread BW's post :ok: All of it :ok: I can see the tongue in cheek from half way across the world and if anyone thinks that BW's post is anything but affectionate, then there's a deficit in comprehension skills.

Cheers

Whirls

merlinxx
14th Jan 2009, 08:39
If you can't afford them, don't breed em!:ugh:

radeng
14th Jan 2009, 08:43
With a growing world population, there is something to be said for removing tax breaks once there's been two kids produced. If we carry on at the present rate, we will run out of the capability of feeding the world population. In some parts of the world, that seems to have happened. If you believe the global warming/carbon emission lobby, things can only get worse. A smaller world population will lead to lower carbon emissions (which may well not make a h'aporth of difference) so it should be part of the green agenda.

tony draper
14th Jan 2009, 08:57
I think there should be a one in one out law,the person who fathered the child should report to a special facility on the day of the childs birth and be euthanased.
:rolleyes:

BlueWolf
14th Jan 2009, 08:57
Cheers Whirls :ok:

Relax r1flyguy35, I had so much fun raising my first two lots of kids (admitedly they were both someone else's first) that I'm about to do it again with some of my own. ;)

Captain Stable
14th Jan 2009, 09:02
V2 - do you think that only people who are ill should contribute to the NHS? Or that only people who have children of school age should contribute towards education? Or that only people who are disabled should contribute towards disability benefit?

The entire principle is that the state taxes everyone (more or less) fairly according to their income and then uses that money to provide services as an investment in the future of the country - like our children's education, like a healthy workforce.

Blacksheep
14th Jan 2009, 09:57
Do you think that is fair?Of course not. It may be "New Labour" but its mantra is still "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Why would anyone without childen need to occupy a whole house complete with a basement, two floors and presumably a loft or attic?

I reckon Whirls is on the right track, but you should really rent a studio apartment, move out and rent out not only the basement, but the main house and the attic. That way you can really get your money's worth while at the same time, making a contribution to social equilibrium.

I seem to recall that when the police raided a certain west London house and accidentally shot one of the occupants on the stairs, they found that the basement had a doorway connecting to the neighbour's basement. There could be an opportunity there - put in two doors and rent the basement to both of your neighbours. They could grow Pot plants down there ;)

corsair
14th Jan 2009, 10:08
No, childless couples have more disposable income even after taxes. When I was single I paid more tax but I had more money. Now I have none. I'm not crying about it because it was all self inflicted. :(

In any case by being childless you are in fact unpatriotic. Children are future taxpayers. By not having children you are depriving the state of tax. In fact you should really be taxed more to compensate for this future shortfall. On top of that you are contributing to global recession. People with children spend more, a lot more. We bought a bigger car when our first arrived. We spend a fortune on all sorts of stuff. We provide jobs in creches, toy shops. We keep the police busy chasing our kids when they get up to bad things. We keeps schools open, provide an audience for TV and other media. The list is endless. People with children are what keep the economy going.

Oh and having kids, gives you the opportunity to be smug and patronise childless people by saying how your life is so fulfilled now that you have embraced your genetic imperative. :yuk::ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose
14th Jan 2009, 10:20
Loneliness can make one very bitter towards ones fellow man/woman/child :(

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
14th Jan 2009, 10:30
Iím with radeng and llondel on this one but donít expect Governments, at least Western ones, to support limiting birth rates. We are locked into a consumer society mindset and one of the things it relies on is, err, consumers. Grow more consumers and you grow your economy. The fact that a growing consumer population accelerates mineral depletion and leads to food/water famine will be irrelevant to them.

Iím very happily childless (perhaps Iíve always had a reluctance to share my toys) but donít begrudge paying for them who will pay my pension.

anotherthing
14th Jan 2009, 11:22
V2 -

I would go to the other extreme and suggest that people with kids should pay more taxes to cover health services etc!!

On top of that, we should get some crop dusters and spray all the sink estates in the UK with an agent that can sterilise people...

Parapunter
14th Jan 2009, 11:42
Hypothecation in any form is a slippery slope imho, we're all in this mess together.

Pilotinmydreams
14th Jan 2009, 11:54
Laughed my arse off at Bluewolf's original post. Tounge in cheek it may be but so familiar in places!

Metro man
14th Jan 2009, 12:26
With a growing world population, there is something to be said for removing tax breaks once there's been two kids produced.

Problem is the population is growing in the wrong places and static or shrinking where it matters. Japan, Singapore, Western Europe etc all face declining birth rates, in some cases below replacement level. ie who's going to support the aged further down the track.

Africa, Indian sub continent, poor SE Asian countries still breeding like rabits. Far in excess of requirements for replacement, never mind food supply and employment.

radeng
14th Jan 2009, 13:12
If western European birthrates are falling, why is the UK population predicated as hitting 70 million by 2020?

Captain Stable
14th Jan 2009, 13:19
Because death rates are falling faster. 'Nuff said? Ban the NHS, I say - it's saving too many lives. We need the oldies to die off. Change of policy, of course, when I class myself as an oldy.

Then if we ban the NHS, we can all have tax cuts that will keep V2 happy.

bnt
14th Jan 2009, 13:44
In any case by being childless you are in fact unpatriotic. Children are future taxpayers. By not having children you are depriving the state of tax. In fact you should really be taxed more to compensate for this future shortfall. On top of that you are contributing to global recession. People with children spend more, a lot more.
Sure, they're future taxpayers: assuming that the crumbling school systems succeed in teaching them to read, and that they can find jobs that they can do. Assuming that the economies of Western countries haven't collapsed under the ever-increasing costs of pensions and healthcare for the baby boom generation, and education and social welfare for all these new "future taxpayers". Assuming that such basics as fresh water, food and energy can be produced and supplied, at costs that don't bankrupt individuals and families and send countries in to Zimbabwe-style inflationary spirals. Assuming that there's a government left to pay tax to.

Quite a lot of assumptions go in to making a future taxpayer... :E

Storminnorm
14th Jan 2009, 15:02
As an oldie, I refuse to go anywhere before I've had some
of the money that I paid into the system back again! :ok:
People that don't breed should always pay more tax!
Otherwise they just fritter it away on enjoying themselves!

And life is NOT for just enjoying yourself!

MadsDad
14th Jan 2009, 15:18
And after all those years with me being no drain on the NHS just when my old age means I'm getting some sort of return on my investment (for the diabetes, prostate, er.... that other thing I can't remember the name of) some young bugger wants to euthanase me.

I think I'll invite him down to my local for a pint and a chat with me and my mates. The resultant mulch should be good for the roses anyway. Just got to remember who it is I've got to invite.

Scumbag O'Riley
14th Jan 2009, 15:35
Evidence would suggest the current generation of parents are bringing up an unhealthy bunch whose life expectancy is lower than what us old fecks have. So not only do us old **** parents have to pay for the current yoof to be (poorly) educated, we are going to be paying for their healthcare too.

Bah humbug. Not right I tell you, when do I get to take out of the system?

Beatriz Fontana
14th Jan 2009, 15:41
My head hurts.

I thought taxation in the UK was based on the individual? If people choose to have kids, that's not so much of a tax break but a future tax burden because of all the state allowances bestowed upon the youngsters and their... wait for it.... stay at home mothers. What is the married couples allowance these days (and is it more tax beneficial to be married / civil partnered, it's certainly cheaper if you're sharing the mortgage payments)?

I'm perfectly happy paying my share as a childless singleton until the next election when taxation policies will be laid bare again and I can make my choice. One day I'll be old or ill so I'll be claiming on every state benefit and tax break I possibly can from my own contributions and other people's kids growing up and paying taxes. :)

Whirlygig
14th Jan 2009, 16:40
Married couples' allowance was abolished sometime last century (by a Tory government if I recall) except for those over 65. Both parties to a "relationship" just have their own single person allowance. In addition, there are no tax reliefs for mortgage payments anymore. It's certainly cheaper, per person, to share mortgage costs but you can share a mortgage with a friend; doesn't have to be spouse/civil partner.

Child benefit is still payable to the mother (whether married, living with or not) and this is not means-tested. Working families tax credits are also availble for those with children (and) in low paid jobs.

Cheers

Whirls

ShyTorque
14th Jan 2009, 18:23
What is the married couples allowance these days (and is it more tax beneficial to be married / civil partnered, it's certainly cheaper if you're sharing the mortgage payments)?

Married couples allowance? It's long since been removed, even though it was there to even out the perks of folks in the military who get free rent, food and government sponsored opportunities to fly round the world buying lots of tax free goods.

Whirlygig
14th Jan 2009, 18:28
for those with children in low paid jobs.
ShyT, you missed an opportunity there :}

Cheers

Whirls

V2-OMG!
14th Jan 2009, 18:31
Think of it as a form of investment in your pension. No kids now means no one to do the work when you retire. We homeschool but we don't get any sort of rebate on taxes for it. Worse, the local authority don't get the money either, so the only financial winner is the Treasury. I'm guessing you're in the US from your choice of words, so your local utilities and tax situation will be different to those of us with UK residences.

llondel, by the time I retire, the baby boomers will have exhausted our pension plan. I tend to believe in individual responsibility vs. any sense of entitlement to the public coffers.

Kudos to you for homeschooling. Good point - I think you should be given some tax advantage for it.

Pontius Navigator
14th Jan 2009, 18:35
In a capitalistic and selfish society you should pay for what you need.

No kids = no schooling, less garbage, less water, utilities, motor transportation etc and, with an increasing global population this is very green. You should pay less.

In a socialist society everyone should have equal access and sufficient unto their needs. With a greater disposable income they should remit more to the state.

In an economy with a shrinking labour force (France in 19th and early 20th C), or causian groups in the developed world, more kids are needed. Tax breaks should be given to families with children.

As far as green foot prints, a couple may be more green than two singles, except of course if one happens to be a female who shops for England.

So should you pay more or less tax?

V2-OMG!
14th Jan 2009, 19:26
Bluewolf, your domestic satire is hilarious! Reminds me of Erma Bombeck!!!

The short version is- you've got all that disposable income which the family unit reduced to one wage earner for a number of years can only dream of: you should give more of it to the Gummint.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif

Wod, a tongue-in-cheek follow-up?? :E

Whirly, I do not have a basement to rent out, but I have rented -- actually donated a storage shed to a charitable vintage aviation group --
and am given a tax credit for that.

I think BW should have kept it in his pants if that is his thought on the matter!

41flyguy, awwwww, come on now. It was a parody meant to make us laugh, and I sure did!

Whirly, thanks for backing up my last comment. :ok:

merlinxx, "if you can't afford them, don't breed them?" Well, life isn't always so black and white, but in general, I would agree with you.

radeng, every human being makes a carbon footprint, so more humans = more greenhouse gases. Will we ever be able to negate that footprint? I doubt it.

I think there should be a one in one out law,the person who fathered the child should report to a special facility on the day of the childs birth and be euthanased.

tony, are you by chance a member of VHEM (Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?) :eek:

Relax r1flyguy35, I had so much fun raising my first two lots of kids (admitedly they were both someone else's first) that I'm about to do it again with some of my own. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

bluewolf, good for you!

The entire principle is that the state taxes everyone (more or less) fairly according to their income and then uses that money to provide services as an investment in the future of the country - like our children's education, like a healthy workforce.

Captain Stable, thanks for that observation. It is....well, quite stable.

...but you should really rent a studio apartment, move out and rent out not only the basement, but the main house and the attic. That way you can really get your money's worth while at the same time, making a contribution to social equilibrium.

Blacksheep, why don't I just move to a park bench where all the winos hang out? Then I could spend everything on booze while making an invaluable contribution to the "social equilibrium" of skid row.

In any case by being childless you are in fact unpatriotic.....People with children are what keep the economy going.

corsair, you're kidding, right? Am I being "unpatriotic" in turning a $2,000 venture into a profitable business which brought in a six-figure gross income its first two years while employing two full-time employees?....employees who are suppporting children?? Gee, I am such a drain on the economy. Is there a "special facility" where we should be euthanized?

Loneliness can make one very bitter towards ones fellow man/woman/child http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Seldomfitforpurpose, if you really want to see loneliness, go to your nearest old folks' home,or the extended care wing of your local hospital, and look at all the old people who never see their children.

GolfBravo, thanks for your reply, and it is really about choice.

I would go to the other extreme and suggest that people with kids should pay more taxes to cover health services etc!!

On top of that, we should get some crop dusters and spray all the sink estates in the UK with an agent that can sterilise people...

anotherthing, on an especially jaded, exhausting day, I would tend to agree with you.

parapunter, hypothecation may be a slippery slope, but it's my observation that the average tax payer is at risk of being snow-under by an avalanche.

pilot/dreams, thanks. I thought bluewolf's satire was pretty funny too!

metroman, yes, Japan and the western economies do have a declining population. I can't see how the "global economy" will ever equalize the canyon between the have and have-not countries.

V2-OMG!
14th Jan 2009, 19:56
My head hurts.

Beatriz, same here. I think I'll just keep paying my taxes and join VHEM - VOLUNTARY HUMAN EXTINCTION MOVEMENT. I just love their tagline...
"May we live long and die out. Thank you for not breeding."

I bet their parties are a lot of fun.

Paradise Lost
14th Jan 2009, 20:43
Question for Blue Wolf and other breeders........just when do the little darlings stop coming home for more funds?
I've done the two teenage daughter bit, and now can get into a bathroom before midday (so long as I'm very quick) but the cost of running the rascals seems to be rising exponentially. They are even working, but still the Bank of Dad has to fund their clothing/phone and social costs.
I think V2 and Beatriz should keep paying up like lambs, but can I claim a "Dependents' allowance please, or I will have to throw myself on the mercy of the state..........heaven help me, because New Lab won't!

Beatriz Fontana
14th Jan 2009, 21:39
Does paying my niece's university course fees count?

And I have a water meter, so I pay for what I use. Although I'm still looking for a hippo for my loo cistern. Then I'd be happy.

BlueWolf
14th Jan 2009, 21:54
........just when do the little darlings stop coming home for more funds?

There's a brief lull between about 25 and about 30. Then they want a house deposit :D:D:ugh:

Shortly after that, you have grandchildren to 'help' with.

After that you die, and they get the lot. :E

Wod
14th Jan 2009, 22:47
Excuse the slight thread drift.

Parental happiness comes when the last child leaves home and the family dog dies. (Anon. as far as I know)

ShyTorque
14th Jan 2009, 22:48
Although I'm still looking for a hippo for my loo cistern. Then I'd be happy.

Strange thing to wish for! How would you plumb it in? Pull it's tail to flush? It might bite you in half while you are sitting on the loo with your back to it. :}

V2-OMG!
15th Jan 2009, 04:25
Thanks for all your great replies. Sorry I wasn't able to address every one (I still have a headache) but I really do enjoy the input to my threads.

And.....I like babies (sometimes) lol!

This quote by Alistair Cooke says it all, really.

Politics will undoubtedly bedevil us till the day we die, butÖ even the prospect of early annihilation should not keep us from making the most of our days on this unhappy planet. In the best of times, our days are numbered, anyway. And it would be a crime against nature to take the world crisis so solemnly that it put us off enjoying those things for which we were presumably designed in the first place, and which the gravest statesmen and the hoarsest polititicians hope to make available to all men in the end: I mean the opportunity to do good work, to fall in love, to enjoy friends, to sit under trees, to read, to hit a ball and bounce a baby.