To think the abortion rate will increase after April this year?

[RocketQueenP]

When the new rules on tax credits / universal credit come in ie when no one can claim benefit be it top up or otherwise for any more than 2 children

Sadly I am helping a good friend cope who has just had an early abortion, she did not plan the pregnancy and one of the main reasons is she and her DH are low earners/ They already have 2 at school, and won't be able to afford to have this baby. She is devastated and has admitted they could have squeezed another DC in if it wasn't for the new rules. I think this will happen a lot. :(

In times gone by people would adopt out children that were unplanned that they couldn't afford and I really feel that this is what we are headed back to. Not adoption but, you get my drift

I also think the government fully know this and its one of the reasons they have brought it in. Simple population control

Despite the overcrowding, however, we still seem to have high employment rates and a shortage of skilled workers, leading to immigration. Without immigration, we would be a shrinking country (with a skills shortage).

I don't think it's people who have holidays and perfume that need it taken away. Just because some people aren't struggling doesn't mean they should pay more or support the rest of the country. It's not a bloody race to the bottom.

It's companies taking money out of wages to pay shareholders an increase every year on their investments that's the problem.

When you are in the minority.

In other words, we are all living too long and that's a massive cause of the problem, as pension funds are some of the biggest shareholders...

I don't know anyone who, in reality, would be content with a long-term (and ever increasing) tax hike.

I really want a tax hike - on the whole we are a moderately wealthy country and way too consumerist - many people have enough spare income to pay a bit more - fuck me holidays , waitrose , perfumes etc ! Not essential

Seriously, have a word with yourself. You are not entitled to my perfume or holiday fund. The way this works is that the state makes a case for how much they need and we, the taxpayers, arrange to hand it over - not the other way around.

I don't know anyone who, in reality, would be content with a long-term (and ever increasing) tax hike

Me (ok not ever increasing).

I can't remember just how much a household needs to earn before it becomes a net contributor but it's fairly high.
The top 40% of households (earnings wise) are net contributors and the bottom 60% are beneficiaries.

This doesn't seem particularly sustainable in my mind.

Have a word with myself ? Could you really not afford an extra £20 per month tax ?

Anyway there is no pint in arguing with people on this topic - but if we aspire to what Germany ,Sweden , the NL have which is essentially a more centrist socialists society where people are cared for - it's tax ! Please allow me to have a view point - you don't agree that's fine

No matter what the tax bands are, the UK has never been able to sustain taxation that is more than 38% of GDP, and in general it hovers around the 35-36% mark.

Increasing or decreasing taxes makes no difference to this because people just behave differently or evade. When the top rate of tax decreased from 50p to 45p tax receipts for top rate tax payers actually increased.

Whether this is a working mum deciding that it's more financially sensible to work 3 days a week instead of full time or a top 0.01%er becoming non domiciled it all adds up to this 35-36% mark.

For the latter, just look at all of the rich people who left France for Belgium after the top rate of tax was increased to 75%. This was obviously a complete failure and now has been scrapped - www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

I agree when

Full time and subsidized nurseries would be far better solution for soooo many reasons

God I wish I was danish

It would be far better to just subsidise childcare for all based on hours worked not salary. I can't see it costing more than income support, tax credits and child benefit.

That way everyone is free to work what they like and have what children they like.

No reason for people to not work then, more children are likely to grow up in a working household which benefits them in future and there is no rewarding of certain sectors.

Thanks stop I want to be danish too.

Increasing or decreasing taxes makes no difference to this because people just behave differently or evade. When the top rate of tax decreased from 50p to 45p tax receipts for top rate tax payers actually increased

Is there some way we could increase the tax take? I agree that it's better to have the top rate at 45% as it brings in more tax than 50%.

I'm thinking an extra 1% on everyone over £25,000 and an extra 2% if it's over £35,000.

Those tax payers would find it really hard to avoid the extra 1 - 2%

It wouldn't cost museum an entire holiday but she might miss out on a few meals out and bottles of perfume - I would take the hit on gin and fancy winter coats.

Could you really not afford an extra £20 per month tax ?

Do you really feel it's the state's place to examine my post-tax income, to find where I might have extra money so as to redistribute it to more deserving people?

If I decide that I have £20 too much on any given month, I'll transfer it into our savings account. I would have thought this was obvious, but please try to respect people's right to keep their own money.

I see nothing wrong in principle with a system either of tax breaks or welfare cuts to encourage childbearing primarily amongst the higher earners of society. It is well known that children who are born within the privilege afforded by parents with more resources enjoy better outcomes in terms of health and education and as such are more likely to go on to become productive citizens. It's all very well and good to say poorer sections of society should have as many children as they want but in reality those children will largely suffer from deprivation and be unable to reach their full potential and become the surgeons and cancer carers that everyone imagines. I wouldn't describe this exactly as eugenics as childbearing is not limited or prevented in certain groups due to innate biological characteristic such as race. It is simply ensuring the finite resources are devoted to those best able to utilise to the best outcomes. And no one is saying people with lower incomes should not have any children, just that they should have less and perhaps devote their limited resources to ensuring g those children are not deprived and thus are better able to compete with the privilege of children from wealthy families.
Mind you this is roughly the position taken in Sinagpore (although there was a lot more alluding to eugenics based on race superiority) and yet birth rate has been steadily declining for the past 4 decades and they are facing an aging population and are requiring immigrants to prop up the work economy. It is a simple fact that the very wealthy realise that while they may able to afford upteen children on their vast income, they do not have the resource of time to devote to each child and thus keep the family small. The middle income realise that they an comfortably support one or two children maximum and so keep their family small. The poor realise that they annotated afford to have children and so keep their family small. Overall population shrinkage despite creating an environment to encourage and enable the wealthy to breed.

I cannot believe some posters are deciding on behalf of others that they can spare an extra 20 quid a month. What right do they have to decide what others can or cannot spare and whether they choose to put that £20 towards essential or non essential spending? I resent paying even 1% more tax to help defray the cost of others ' choice to have children which they can't afford.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHorrid

I don't think its helpful to increase income taxes any more tbh. The top 1% are paying 30% of income tax, this was 11% in the 1980s for reference (this is more like 80% when you take into account ALL taxes, stealth wealth and otherwise). Generally the more you tax something the less of it you see, this is no different with income as it is with cigarettes.

If you are taxing to raise revenue you want taxes that are easy to administer, and difficult to avoid property taxes and tariffs are good examples. Leaving the EU will actually be a great opportunity to raise money through tariffs.

A tariff on imported manufactured goods would encourage companies to invest in the UK and make things domestically - British workers could be more productive because of this capital investment. British companies would be more profitable. All of these things would increase income tax and corporation tax through increasing total income and corporate profits, instead of increasing a %.

It's interesting that the main threat from dexeu to the EU is to slash corporation tax. Making the UK a tax haven that is literally on european shores and stealing the delicious corporation tax revenue from EU countries.

but please try to respect people's right to keep their own money

No one gets to keep all their money. And on one is actually suggesting the taxman is going to audit you and ask you to holiday in a tent instead of a hotel and hand the cash over to the state.

Some people are of the mind that the books aren't balancing at the moment. And that raising taxes a little is a good idea to try and reduce the severity of the cuts to public services.

Despite the overcrowding, however, we still seem to have high employment rates and a shortage of skilled workers, leading to immigration. Without immigration, we would be a shrinking country (with a skills shortage).

But with an effective migration policy we could still have migrants with the skills we need coming. But without the proliferation of low skilled McJobs that are giving us high employment rates but in jobs that provide low quality of living. Sure some of those jobs will go abroad, but we don't really want them. They will go somewhere else with large numbers of low skilled workers prepared to take shit wages and live in terrible conditions. But if those workers aren't here we won't need the jobs either.

rhaydhar

Thanks for your reply, I'm very much getting the impression you know loads more about taxation than me - so I really appreciate your thoughts.

I know the top 1% can avoid tax pretty well but what about average earners. If I was taxed an extra 1 to 2% I'm not in a position to hide my salary.

but if we aspire to what Germany ,Sweden , the NL have which is essentially a more centrist socialists society where people are cared for - it's tax !

I don't know why anyone would aspire to have what these countries have going on at the moment.

Some people are of the mind that the books aren't balancing at the moment. And that raising taxes a little is a good idea to try and reduce the severity of the cuts to public services.

And others are of the mind that the welfare state is unsustainable and needs reviewing. I'm of the perspective that the money you earn is the money you're entitled to keep (with the exception of necessary tax), whereas the money/benefits you're given by the taxpayers government is the money/benefits you're not indefinitely entitled to keep.

Child Tax Credit changes

The Chancellor announced in his summer budget that from April 2017 support provided through Child Tax Credit will be limited to 2 children, so that any subsequent children born on or after 6 April 2017 will not be eligible for further support. You can still receive a child element for more than 2 children if the children were born before 6 April 2017.

In addition to the 2 child limit, the ‘family element’ of £545 per year will be abolished. In effect this will mean that families with at least one child born before April 2017 will continue to get the family element but claims where the eldest child is born on or after 6 April will not receive the family element.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHorrid

I know the top 1% can avoid tax pretty well but what about average earners. If I was taxed an extra 1 to 2% I'm not in a position to hide my salary

So when i returned to work after DC1 I did the maths and found that it was actually better off for me to work 4 days than 5. The 5th day has a marginal tax rate that is pretty high considering that I've already used up my tax free allowance, and the top bits of your salary have a higher tax rate than the bottom.

Although I dont personally receive tax credits, many people around the 25-35K mark do receive them and that complicates the equation further because that is tax free money.

Someone on 40K and still paying a student loan (pretty normal here in London) would take home £28,341 each year. On returning to work the are offered part time hours and decide to work 4 days. This is now a take home of £23,621 or £90 less a week.

Given that childcare for a 1 year old in a typical London nursery is pushing £70 a day, plus tube fare, it is not hard to understand how even a few % increase in tax will make the difference for people.

Let's say that this hypothetical woman, is also a single mother. On 40K she will receive £715 a year (tax free) in tax credits. However, if she reduces her hours to 4 days this will increase to around £4500 a year. (the difference in her take home salary is actually only £900 a year for working the extra day each week, and thats not even taking into account her childcare costs). This means it is overwhelmingly in her interests to work less and therefore pay less income tax.

You are quite right to say that these people wont be able to hide their income, but they can certainly change their behaviour.

From what i can see as long as your children born before april 2017 you can claim for more than 2 still

I thought it stated that even if your kids were born before April 2017 and you made a new claim for whatever reason you wouldn't be able to claim for any child after your second?