AIBU to think that most people with children who

[Hedgeblog]

say the phrases in regards to paying taxes such as

"I pay your wages mate (to anyone who works in the public sector)" or "I don't want MY taxes to pay for benefit scroungers" etc. are totally mistaken.

In fact the majority of people in the country barely cover the state costs of their own childrens education let alone their NHS bills, tax credits, child benefit, subsidised rail fares etc through their own taxes.

It costs the state 5K to educate 1 child of school age per year, add in NHS costs and you get the picture.

I hear this expression quite often it really grates on me. I know our society doesn't work on a zero sum basis but really unless your earning over #50K are in good health and don't have kids stop spouting on you pay everyone's wages!!

Hedgeblog everyone pay their taxes throughout their working life so firstly the cost of education is spread over 45(?)years. secondly everyone (except migrants) benefited from a free education being available so i dont think an individuals number of children is relevant (as they will also be tax payers)

Sunray

I am actually one of the top 10%, so I actually probably do pay for benefit scroungers not that I would ever use that expression.

Also I am very sure that earning £26K doesn't cover the costs of your own family even over a lifetime of tax paying.

Also, government revenues don't just come from individual taxes -- there's corporate tax, VAT, excise taxes, etc. So it doesn't have to 'even out' in the sense some people are thinking.

OP YANBU

It drives me crazy when people say 'I'm paying for her not to work and sit around on benefits blah blah blah' -- how can they not realise that they are also getting government money and services that other people are paying for?

By all means, criticise government spending if you disagree with it. Or tax policy, if you think you pay too much. But this idea that your taxes pay for anything specific really irks me.

good point there, should the parents "cover" the education of their children though tax or is the theory that the children themselves pay it back over a lifetime because being educated helps them contribute more to the country?

your children might well not be taxpayers though.

You need to earn a lot more than 26k a year to come close to paying in as much as you get out.

they might not, but it makes economic sense surely to try and raise the aspirations and earning abilities of children born into families that contribute less to try and break the cycle (know there's a lot more factors in that though)

The realtilly

I still don't think that over 45 years 5-6K per year in tax would cover all costs associated with oneself as well as those very expensive years having children and retirement.

The children will hopefully become tax payer but they will likely have children themselves and have all the other personal free benefits.

I think the fact that 10% of earners in this country pay most of the tax revenue collected says that someone earning 26K cannot possibly pay for themselves.

what about tax paid on fuel, alcohol, cigarettes, etc it's not just tax from salaries.

then why did you title this thread about people with children

are the 10% childless? I doubt it! if the threshold for breaking even is so high then for the average couple having or not having children will not take them over/put them under the threshold

also, no-one (with any sense) expects everyone to cover their own bill, so to speak. We should be subsidising each other, we should be ensuring that all children get education and healthcare etc no matter how much their parents pay in tax.
The only issue is the twats who are complaining about others taking their money when they are takers themselves.

I do say this in the specific context where people moan that "I'd be no better off working than I am on benefits". I've heard that a couple of times and I always feel that they've missed the point that working, if you reasonably can, is not optional - that the State's limited resources should be reserved for those who actually need it.

And yes, as a family we are substantial net contributors to the exchequer, so by the OP's logic I am allowed to say this.

In all other respects I am a woolly liberal on benefits, and I even agree that tactically it's a good idea to make work pay (even though it's ended up with us subsidising Tesco etc to pay poverty wages and top them up with benefits ), but every now and then I do hear an entitled whinge which seems to have forgotten that someone has to pay the bills in the end.

its not pricisely the average (which account for the various points being raised here)

it was on More or Less the statistical program on Radio 4.

Dreamingbohemian

Also, government revenues don't just come from individual taxes -- there's corporate tax, VAT, excise taxes, etc. So it doesn't have to 'even out' in the sense some people are thinking.

Very valid point

Well DH and I are both in that 10% that pays for the majority of public spend.
And we don't use state school or the NHS.

Does that mean we get to say how all the lovely tax money is spent? Ooh, I do like the sound of that.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more_or_less/default.stm

yes they do (app). if tesco makes 100m from selling food - its the food bought by mr/ms average that makes the profit.

if goods are imported into the UK, they are for sale to....on average Mr/Ms Average

corporate tax: making a profit by selling good and services in the UK to mr/ms average

VAT: mr/ms average buying things

excise taxes: mr/ms average buying things

if 10% of people pay for most of the services, by the time you average their salary with the other 90%, the break even point will be far nearer the average salary than the salary of the top 10%.

i did a level maths in 6 weeks. its true

Hedgeblog have i convinced you?

I tried to work out the break-even wage a couple of years ago (in relation to tax paid against state funded things like school, nhs), and I think I came to a figure of around 40k gross for a family with 2 kids...., they would get out from the state exactly what they put in.

We are in the top couple of % for income, and are certainly net contributors to society finances despite 4 dc, our tax bill is horrific, but I am happy to contribute to a financial safety net for those who NEED it.

What really gets my goat lately, is the constant whine of.... Tax the rich more, it not fair, make them pay etc etc......... We already do pay! We are they ones who are paying!

*fetches flame-proof coat

Paranoid I agree that the very high earners pay more and the low earners less. But surely you must see on average that it evens out.
Although as someone pointed out on this thread and on the other thread, I remember now, probably not, and that is why we're all in debt :o That made sense.

well oldmum if you're right then we do.
OTOH children shouldn't be factored in - you should be looking at a single person taking out and putting in, and the net difference. Over their lifetime and averaging for all people, that should be zero (except I'm sure we'repassing debt down generations)

old mum42 Couldn't agree more

the realtilly You have certainly made me think, I will need to think a bit more about break even point

I was factoring in kids, as most people have them, and I have more than most! I assumed 2 kids at age 30-35, with the cost of the kids education, tax credits, child benifit and nhs over the lifetime of the family.....from when the kids born to the parents retirement. Plus nhs cover for the parents, share of the cost of defence and legal system etc = 40k gross income over most of your working life to cover the costs of your family.

Of course everyone pays indirect taxes - vat, petrol duty etc, but the more money you have the more you spend, so the more indirect taxes you pay.....

if 10% of people pay for most of the services, by the time you average their salary with the other 90%, the break even point will be far nearer the average salary than the salary of the top 10%.

That's assuming the break even point is an average of wages. It may not be, hence the deficit.
It also depends whether you are talking about a mean medium or mode average.

I think it's a hell of a lot more complicated than break even point of tax paid to average paid back being the average wage.

As others have said tax also comes from other sources than wages deductions.