Thank goodness tax rise scrapped

[Jems557]

So we’re a blended large family, so after maintenance and all the outgoings for our large combined family we don’t have very much left at all, as obviously we need a big house so our mortgage and council tax is a lot, we need a bigger than average (although several year old) car etc. However we don’t claim any benefits, my DH works hard to provide for his and our children but so much is taken in tax anmd maintenance already, there is no tax allowance for raising children. This would of hit us hard

Children are massive economic driver, as they drive consumer spending on so many levels. Are you serious?

They’re not the spenders, we are. Children don’t earn money, they don’t pay tax, and they don’t independently spend money that wouldn’t otherwise be spent on other things.

I’d like to point out I do love my children, and as I said earlier they absolutely have value, but their financial value definitely isn’t their own yet 😂.

Err and where do you think these children get the money to drive consumer spending? If the parents didn't have these children then they would be still be spending the money, just on different things.

Not necessarily, we’d probably work less and save

Its a thread about support for blended families or not.

Its somewhat boring to hear what you think about Reeves all the time.

TheCurious0range

I saw a calculation the other day suggesting the 40% tax rate, if it had followed inflation, should start at £75k not £52k

raising NMW by a £ would increase tax revenue

The thread isn’t about blended families but about how this tax rise could have had a particularly unfair negative effect on certain groups, blended and large families one example. 2 parent single earner households with 3 children could be another. However I can imagine also higher earning single parents too. Of course there will always be someone who jumps in who whose net household income is very high or does not disclose they received the equity from their house on divorce or 50k deposit or other regular gifts from their parents or recieve 1k a month maintenance from their ex and those people will happily go on about how they’re all for any tax rises.

So what? Tax rises are relevant.

Obviously it’s parents who spend on them. Parents could be spending less and saving for example. But the way our economic system works, it’s better for the economy if they spend rather than save.

Thought you would be struggling with tax rises so how could you afford to work less and save?

hahahahahahahaha

🙄 this question related to what we would spend our money on if we didn’t have children

It would have an “unfair” effect on large families, because their outgoings are naturally higher so they perhaps notice the difference more.

But in fairness, they also generally cost more in public money.

Someone’s 5 kids are costing more in education for example than 3 would be. Obviously.

I don’t think that should discourage people from having large families, and there is apparently a birth rate crisis so it helps that, but surely you have to see that large families cost more so expecting them to put in less doesn’t make economical sense?

It would also “unfairly” affect anyone with a HRT payer in their household. We already put more in, which would obviously increase. I personally don’t think that’s unfair as I do believe people who earn more should contribute more. Broadest shoulders etc.

Wasn’t the main point of the education system to produce the workers for tomorrow, hence my older DC who are all now tax payers - one of them actually having to also pay back a student loan for training to do the work she also pays alot of tax on. Their education wasn’t for my benefit.

I’m not sure why that matters, tbh.

Their education needs paying for now, not when they’re older and (hopefully) working.

We pay for the education system that is currently in place, that many of our children access, and have no means of paying for themselves.

Unless we find a way to start charging children directly for their education, it’ll carry on coming from taxation, and more state educated children = more demand/cost.

I wish she would keep the two child cap, cut the welfare bill and remove the triple lock before going after working people.

All far too sensible I’m afraid.

I'm a relatively high earner but a single parent in an expensive part of the country. There's no support, no consideration of how single parents are doing it on one wage, and frankly my sympathy for families with loads of children and asset rich pensioners is low.

On a similar vein, unless it’s for a reason such as having a disabled child or health issues yourself, I have no sympathy for 2 adult single earner households who complain about their finances.

Single parents cope on one income because they have to. The second adult in a household with 2 could get a job themselves rather than complaining that their partner pays tax.

The children of benefit parents are the tax payers of tomorrow. The children need the money now but they could be excluded from being able to claim benefits in the future.

So take all the benefit of my older DC tax receipt and not have the brainwidth to see it either covered their own eduction or that of today’s generation of children, yes that makes perfect sense 🙄

?? Can you explain further? Is the assumption they are going to be tax payers or benefit claimants?
Whether there is a welfare system is for the future to decide. If DH and myself were not part of the consensus for a welfare state I would of not got myself in debt to qualify to work for the NHS and would of hopped abroad to a country where I didn’t have to pay any tax years ago. We just don’t want to be bled dry

Am I losing the plot?

It can’t cover their own education. It’s already happened.

I was state educated 1994 - 2008, the tax I started paying in 2010 isn’t me paying that back, it’s paying for the people who were in education in 2010.

It’s not a rebate system.

Your older children may well be covering the cost of children educated now, but when they were educated it was still a direct cost that was covered by the tax payer then.

I think you’d just like your whole family to pay less tax 😂

The message is we pay some parents benefits as their children are future tax payers. If that is true (not disputing it) those children once adults should be excluded from claiming any benefits (until they have contributed for a period e.g. 10 years).

You can't leave children in poverty but you can make sure they are not eligible for benefits once adult.

Do you really not get the concept of a cycle?? We certainly don’t mind paying a fair amount of tax but no we do want there no be consideration for the children we’re raising in the setting of that level of tax. The tax on the money we are EARNING from our own work. We’ll go round in circles as I consider my children valued individuals and full citizens and you consider them no more than my pets. Of course you’re no doubt quite happy for my older dc to be the net contributors they are now 🤦🏻‍♀️