politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Anybody got any by-election news from Rochester and Strood?

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Anybody got any by-election news from Rochester and Strood?

… voting earlier with my wonderful wife. Today is day for people of Rochester and Strood who are my boss pic.twitter.com/OThUwF0po7

Read the full story here

SandyRentool

Kelly in the nice end of Chatham!

(Post early, post often!)

Pulpstar

Is campaigning allowed on election day ?!

Scrapheap_as_was

News, news, any news.... I need to bank the £10,000 asap please.

Pulpstar

Scrapheap_as_was said:

News, news, any news.... I need to bank the £10,000 asap please.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2315944/Tax-man-looks-at-Bates-bid.html

Creditors have until next Tuesday to dispute Bates's plans to buy the League One club out of administration by paying one penny in the pound to businesses and individuals owed £35 million.

fitalass

Telegraph - Ruth Davidson outlines 'alternative' Tory vision for Scotland

Pulpstar

http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115707446

Lots available at 1.02 still.

TGOHF

Fans of the film " Groundhog Day" will recognise Mark Reckless as Ned Ryerson the insurance salesman...

MikeK

Scrapheap_as_was said:

News, news, any news.... I need to bank the £10,000 asap please.

You can declare yourself bankrupt after the Rochester results are announced.
Money, Money, Money, it's a rich mans world.

MarqueeMark

QTWTAIN....

Scrapheap_as_was

MikeK said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

News, news, any news.... I need to bank the £10,000 asap please.

You can declare yourself bankrupt after the Rochester results are announced.
Money, Money, Money, it's a rich mans world.

Piffle - I need it for tomorrow night's trip to the dogs!!!

Aye, Aye, Open your legs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MikeK

Pulpstar said:

Is campaigning allowed on election day ?!

Allowed or not, everyone seems to be campaigning on the Medway. The bloody thing is spreading. LOL

taffys

Fans of the film " Groundhog Day" will recognise Mark Reckless as Ned Ryerson the insurance salesman...

Has anyone ever seen Peter Bone and Sven-Goran Eriksson in the same room??

Morris_Dancer

Incidentally, and this is entirely unconfirmed, I read somewhere or other [maximum detail, I know] that the sixth A Song of Ice and Fire book, The Winds of Winter, may be out in June 2015. Even if wrong, it may well give a reasonable idea of when(ish) we can expect it.

At this rate I do think the seventh TV season of Game of Thrones will arrive before the final book. Which is a slight shame, but the TV series is really very good.

The_Last_Boy_Scout

Interesting debate on the Mansion Tax earlier. It is another badly thought through tax because of the ludicrous cliff edge it builds and and the absurdity that someone with a fleet of £1m houses fails to pay it. Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

CarlottaVance

Telegraph has a rolling blog:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/byelection/11241798/Rochester-and-Strood-by-election-live.html

As does the Grauniad:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2014/nov/20/polls-rochester-strood-byelection-mark-reckless-ukip-live

TGOHF

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Interesting debate on the Mansion Tax earlier. It is another badly thought through tax because of the ludicrous cliff edge it builds and and the absurdity that someone with a fleet of £1m houses fails to pay it. Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

How much you earn and how much you pay for something are figures that are easy to value and tax. The value of a house at a point in time which is not for sale is very difficult and costly to get right.

Socrates

For all the abuse thrown at him, Mark Reckless does seem like a nice bloke.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Flashman (deceased), not only that, the variations in its value are usually not down to the individual. It's entirely beyond the average man's control whether his house's value rises or falls dramatically, and one's house is not an easy thing to change.

TGOHF

Socrates said:

For all the abuse thrown at him, Mark Reckless does seem like a nice bloke.

A duplicitous liar but a nice bloke ?

state_go_away

Sorry Mr Bond only just read your question to me on the last thread.

'Do you think that tax should be related to ability to pay'

Well yes of course. But I would argue that property taxes on high value homes do reflect ability to pay. I am not against taxes being rolled into a charge on the properties if owners do not have the readies immediately . If that reduces heirs' windfalls on death then that it is not a massive deal is it? Better to tax unearned income than earned

state_go_away

TGOHF said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Interesting debate on the Mansion Tax earlier. It is another badly thought through tax because of the ludicrous cliff edge it builds and and the absurdity that someone with a fleet of £1m houses fails to pay it. Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

How much you earn and how much you pay for something are figures that are easy to value and tax. The value of a house at a point in time which is not for sale is very difficult and costly to get right.

Go to ten different accountants and you will probably get 10 different amounts you 'earn'

The_Last_Boy_Scout

TGOHF - not so with the Child Tax as it is raised on couples, when taxation is on individuals. Hence, the government has to decide what counts as a couple. Also there is no legal reason why a woman has to declare to her partner that she receives CB - as it's paid direct to the mother.

rcs1000

Oliver_PB said:

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

The four most entrepreneurial countries in the world are the four largest ones of British settlement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/11241579/UK-is-most-entrepreneurial-country-in-Europe.html

Why on Earth did we throw our lot in with France and Italy round that nations we are so much more alike, and that have our economically competitive philosophy?

I was looking at Venture Capital data on Europe recently, and it will come as no surprise that the UK was the number one recipient (about 26% of total VC investments in Europe, IIRC). What surprised me was that France was number two, only just behind us.

Of course, there's a very good reason why so many people choose to start their tech businesses in the UK - we have a fabulous pool of labour. People finish their tech degrees in Krakow or Bologna, and head to London to join start-ups and start them. The London technology start-up scene is probably the second best in the world at drawing in talent, behind only San Francisco and the Valley.

I have a bit of experience in this area and the UK, and especially London, is notoriously crap for tech startups. A major reason is that a lot of the tech "talent" (ugh) goes to work for the big banks because that's where the money is.

I've started five businesses - four of which are tech companies - in London (Betgenius, Arete Research, Resolver Systems, PythonAnywhere, and Crowdscores), and I think it's a fabulous place to do a tech startup. There is a decent amount of cheap office space in South and East London; there is good access to the VC community; and there is a deep pool of technology talent from all over the world. Best, you'll probably be in a building with five other start-ups, so there is a good opportunity for you to share experiences. I know people that have come from places like Dusseldorf and Brussels to do their tech start-up in London.

The only issue with London as a place for starting businesses, is how staggeringly expensive is to live. But that doesn't seem to have harmed it yet.

Toffeenose

Turnout looks very big. Who that favours is the question. Lab/con/Ukip all doing GOTV. Libdems utterly absent. I think the 1.7% poll is possibly overstating their score.

state_go_away

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Flashman (deceased), not only that, the variations in its value are usually not down to the individual. It's entirely beyond the average man's control whether his house's value rises or falls dramatically, and one's house is not an easy thing to change.

it is indeed an unlucky man to not be able to control his house price going beyond £2 million and therefore ,whilst gaining upteen hundreds of thousands on his house will mean he pays a few thousand in a property tax!!-

TGOHF

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

TGOHF - not so with the Child Tax as it is raised on couples, when taxation is on individuals. Hence, the government has to decide what counts as a couple. Also there is no legal reason why a woman has to declare to her partner that she receives CB - as it's paid direct to the mother.

Child tax ?

Luckyguy1983

Is the 'wonderful wife' bit in quote marks a little catty? Perhaps she is wonderful, and perhaps he wants to say so publicly.

AlastairMeeks

The Telegraph has an interactive tool on the by-election (complete with a picture of the tool in question):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Nose, welcome to pb.com and cheers for the info.

Mr. Away, people often live in houses for many years. That doesn't mean it's legitimate to hurl an extra tax their way. Just because someone has money doesn't mean it's valid for the state to try desperately to think of a way to seize it. Fair taxation doesn't mean ever more taxation.

Oliver_PB

I think the mansion tax is a really clever policy. Gets the Conservatives up in arms, making them seem out of touch, while average folks will see it as perfectly reasonable.

Hopefully, next up is university fees.

state_go_away

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nose, welcome to pb.com and cheers for the info.

Mr. Away, people often live in houses for many years. That doesn't mean it's legitimate to hurl an extra tax their way. Just because someone has money doesn't mean it's valid for the state to try desperately to think of a way to seize it. Fair taxation doesn't mean ever more taxation.

I think the state should be smaller than it is (hence my name) but there is a huge national debt and if taxation does have to be raised I would prefer it to be more balanced towards assets than income. I said on the earlier thread I thought a better way of property tax would be an extension of the rates bands but the labour mansion tax is hardly a vote loser, unfair or even socialist imo

IMO it takes a particular sort of pessimist to start moaning about having to pay some extra tax because their house has shot up in value to over £2 million however many years they have lived in it!!

anotherDave

CarlottaVance said:

Telegraph has a rolling blog:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/byelection/11241798/Rochester-and-Strood-by-election-live.html

As does the Grauniad:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2014/nov/20/polls-rochester-strood-byelection-mark-reckless-ukip-live

Fighting talk from the Monster Raving Loony Party "we think we might beat the Lib Dems, which would be something"

AlastairMeeks

TGOHF said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

TGOHF - not so with the Child Tax as it is raised on couples, when taxation is on individuals. Hence, the government has to decide what counts as a couple. Also there is no legal reason why a woman has to declare to her partner that she receives CB - as it's paid direct to the mother.

Child tax ?

Candyman, candyman, candyman, candyman, candyman.

rcs1000

state_go_away said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nose, welcome to pb.com and cheers for the info.

Mr. Away, people often live in houses for many years. That doesn't mean it's legitimate to hurl an extra tax their way. Just because someone has money doesn't mean it's valid for the state to try desperately to think of a way to seize it. Fair taxation doesn't mean ever more taxation.

I think the state should be smaller than it is (hence my name) but there is a huge national debt and if taxation does have to be raised I would prefer it to be more balanced towards assets than income. I said on the earlier thread I though a better way of property tax would be an extension of the rates bands but the labour mansion tax is hardly a vote loser, unfair or even socialist imo

IMO it takes a particular sort of pessimist to start moaning about having to pay some extra tax because their house has shot up in value to over £2 million however many years they have lived in it!!

From a straight economics perspective, you're absolutely right. By taxing assets, you discourage inefficient use of capital.

AlastairMeeks

We need to move from the taxation of income to the taxation of assets. After all, income is a mediocre proxy for wealth.

state_go_away

rcs1000 said:

state_go_away said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nose, welcome to pb.com and cheers for the info.

Mr. Away, people often live in houses for many years. That doesn't mean it's legitimate to hurl an extra tax their way. Just because someone has money doesn't mean it's valid for the state to try desperately to think of a way to seize it. Fair taxation doesn't mean ever more taxation.

I think the state should be smaller than it is (hence my name) but there is a huge national debt and if taxation does have to be raised I would prefer it to be more balanced towards assets than income. I said on the earlier thread I though a better way of property tax would be an extension of the rates bands but the labour mansion tax is hardly a vote loser, unfair or even socialist imo

IMO it takes a particular sort of pessimist to start moaning about having to pay some extra tax because their house has shot up in value to over £2 million however many years they have lived in it!!

From a straight economics perspective, you're absolutely right. By taxing assets, you discourage inefficient use of capital.

I tend to vote Conservative because I generally think they are on the side of aspiration but if the Tories do have a fault its that they covert exemption on inheritance taxation more than anything else. If ,because of a property tax on high value homes , heirs get less money on death that is a good thing imo -it creates a more level playing field for others to aspire to get on

Pulpstar

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11242890/Scrap-dealers-5m-tax-dodge-unveiled-in-HMRC-name-and-shame-list.html

What the ?

Fellow scrap metal dealer William Henry Gray, from Kirkcaldy in Fife, was ordered to pay back £76,000 for evading £127,741 in tax. The man, now in his sixties, failed to pay tax due in 2012.

Couple Richard and Geraldine Chan, estate agents from Hampsthwaite in Harrogate, evaded £30,000 in tax and must pay back half.

No wonder people try and dodge taxes, it pays off.

SouthamObserver

Talking of tax, is Boris de facto ruled out as a possible PM or foreign secretary while this carries on?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/20/boris-johnson-us-tax-bill

chestnut

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Pong

Pulpstar said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11242890/Scrap-dealers-5m-tax-dodge-unveiled-in-HMRC-name-and-shame-list.html

What the ?

Fellow scrap metal dealer William Henry Gray, from Kirkcaldy in Fife, was ordered to pay back £76,000 for evading £127,741 in tax. The man, now in his sixties, failed to pay tax due in 2012.

Couple Richard and Geraldine Chan, estate agents from Hampsthwaite in Harrogate, evaded £30,000 in tax and must pay back half.

No wonder people try and dodge taxes, it pays off.

That does seem a bit ludicrous.

OblitusSumMe

state_go_away said:

IMO it takes a particular sort of pessimist to start moaning about having to pay some extra tax because their house has shot up in value to over £2 million however many years they have lived in it!!

I think most people would classify that as a nice problem to have.

AlastairMeeks

SouthamObserver said:

Talking of tax, is Boris de facto ruled out as a possible PM or foreign secretary while this carries on?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/20/boris-johnson-us-tax-bill

No.

Incidentally, I saw from one of my rare excursions on the tube that lovestruck.com are giving a free upgrade to their premium account for Londoners if you put in the codeword "Boris". This is not a service that I will be availing myself of, but I was fascinated to see that some advertising agency thought that Boris transcended politics sufficiently to be used as a codeword to denote London.

state_go_away

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

They should just have kept it as it was . It was the simplest form of benefit historically -you have a child ,we don't care what you earn ,you don't have to fill in a form every 12 months you just get £20 a week whether you are the Duchess of Cambridge or White Dee (or anyone in between)

state_go_away

OblitusSumMe said:

state_go_away said:

IMO it takes a particular sort of pessimist to start moaning about having to pay some extra tax because their house has shot up in value to over £2 million however many years they have lived in it!!

I think most people would classify that as a nice problem to have.

yes!!

OblitusSumMe

Pulpstar said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11242890/Scrap-dealers-5m-tax-dodge-unveiled-in-HMRC-name-and-shame-list.html

What the ?

Fellow scrap metal dealer William Henry Gray, from Kirkcaldy in Fife, was ordered to pay back £76,000 for evading £127,741 in tax. The man, now in his sixties, failed to pay tax due in 2012.

Couple Richard and Geraldine Chan, estate agents from Hampsthwaite in Harrogate, evaded £30,000 in tax and must pay back half.

No wonder people try and dodge taxes, it pays off.

People are sent to jail for fraudulently claiming benefits.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/mum-jailed-for-55k-benefit-27124/

Dodge tax and... you are named and shamed. Hmm.

AlastairMeeks

state_go_away said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

They should just have kept it as it was . It was the simplest form of benefit historically -you have a child ,we don't care what you earn ,you don't have to fill in a form every 12 months you just get £20 a week whether you are the Duchess of Cambridge or White Dee (or anyone in between)

In the real world, this is one of the most popular moves by the coalition, and rightly so.

rcs1000

state_go_away said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

They should just have kept it as it was . It was the simplest form of benefit historically -you have a child ,we don't care what you earn ,you don't have to fill in a form every 12 months you just get £20 a week whether you are the Duchess of Cambridge or White Dee (or anyone in between)

I always though that all benefits should be treated as taxable income. So, if I were to claim Child Benefit, I would pay 45% tax on it.

Simples.

Casino_Royale

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

rcs1000

state_go_away said:

rcs1000 said:

state_go_away said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nose, welcome to pb.com and cheers for the info.

Mr. Away, people often live in houses for many years. That doesn't mean it's legitimate to hurl an extra tax their way. Just because someone has money doesn't mean it's valid for the state to try desperately to think of a way to seize it. Fair taxation doesn't mean ever more taxation.

I think the state should be smaller than it is (hence my name) but there is a huge national debt and if taxation does have to be raised I would prefer it to be more balanced towards assets than income. I said on the earlier thread I though a better way of property tax would be an extension of the rates bands but the labour mansion tax is hardly a vote loser, unfair or even socialist imo

IMO it takes a particular sort of pessimist to start moaning about having to pay some extra tax because their house has shot up in value to over £2 million however many years they have lived in it!!

From a straight economics perspective, you're absolutely right. By taxing assets, you discourage inefficient use of capital.

I tend to vote Conservative because I generally think they are on the side of aspiration but if the Tories do have a fault its that they covert exemption on inheritance taxation more than anything else. If ,because of a property tax on high value homes , heirs get less money on death that is a good thing imo -it creates a more level playing field for others to aspire to get on

I agree 100%. I think, at the very simplest level, we should move to a recipient tax, rather than an estate tax. Treat inheritance as what it is: unearned income.

state_go_away

rcs1000 said:

state_go_away said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

They should just have kept it as it was . It was the simplest form of benefit historically -you have a child ,we don't care what you earn ,you don't have to fill in a form every 12 months you just get £20 a week whether you are the Duchess of Cambridge or White Dee (or anyone in between)

I always though that all benefits should be treated as taxable income. So, if I were to claim Child Benefit, I would pay 45% tax on it.

Simples.

yes if savings had to be made that would have been ok . They should also do this with pensioners fuel allowance

Socrates

rcs1000 said:

state_go_away said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

They should just have kept it as it was . It was the simplest form of benefit historically -you have a child ,we don't care what you earn ,you don't have to fill in a form every 12 months you just get £20 a week whether you are the Duchess of Cambridge or White Dee (or anyone in between)

I always though that all benefits should be treated as taxable income. So, if I were to claim Child Benefit, I would pay 45% tax on it.

Simples.

Why not just reduce the benefit paid by that amount, rather than sending it through the system twice?

state_go_away

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

state_go_away said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

They should just have kept it as it was . It was the simplest form of benefit historically -you have a child ,we don't care what you earn ,you don't have to fill in a form every 12 months you just get £20 a week whether you are the Duchess of Cambridge or White Dee (or anyone in between)

I always though that all benefits should be treated as taxable income. So, if I were to claim Child Benefit, I would pay 45% tax on it.

Simples.

Why not just reduce the benefit paid by that amount, rather than sending it through the system twice?

because the Revenue have enough trouble with tax codes estimating what people may earn without having to add that to it !!

rcs1000

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

state_go_away said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

They should just have kept it as it was . It was the simplest form of benefit historically -you have a child ,we don't care what you earn ,you don't have to fill in a form every 12 months you just get £20 a week whether you are the Duchess of Cambridge or White Dee (or anyone in between)

I always though that all benefits should be treated as taxable income. So, if I were to claim Child Benefit, I would pay 45% tax on it.

Simples.

Why not just reduce the benefit paid by that amount, rather than sending it through the system twice?

You can do that: but then you have to declare your tax band when you claim, and then again if your circumstances change.

Pulpstar

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

Everyone goes on about how we need children to pay the taxes of the parents... but children themselves will need pensions and so forth. Or does noone look that far ahead ?

BenM

Had many a coffee in Boomers.

AlastairMeeks

For those on here who I know are connoisseurs of Guardian articles:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/20/cuba-american-paternalism-government-innovation

The headline is a classic.

rcs1000

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

The Total Fertility Ratio is the UK is well below 2.1. So, you would have a growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young people. If you want to see how disastrous that is economically, look at Japan or Italy.

Casino_Royale

Not sure what I think about taxing assets. I think we certainly have to look at revising the council tax bands to make them fairer.

What I don't like (and I appreciate others may disagree, strongly) is the idea that someone has to pay a tax bill to the state for the privilege of living in their own house, or on their own land. I think that creates a dangerous precedent that the state owns more rights over assets than the individual and, done incorrectly, could lead to a change in the 'master-servant' relationship between the state and the individual that isn't for the better.

I also don't like the idea of someone being forced off their land or out of their house due to a tax bill.

Pong

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...

Financier

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

In some EU countries there is neither Child Benefit (after first 3-6 months) nor Child Tax Credit and nor Working Tax Credit. Trouble is that GB gave out lots of sweeties and so when they are retracted there will be lots of political squeals of outrage and unfairness.

Cyclefree

state_go_away said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Flashman (deceased), not only that, the variations in its value are usually not down to the individual. It's entirely beyond the average man's control whether his house's value rises or falls dramatically, and one's house is not an easy thing to change.

it is indeed an unlucky man to not be able to control his house price going beyond £2 million and therefore ,whilst gaining upteen hundreds of thousands on his house will mean he pays a few thousand in a property tax!!-

Oh don't be ridiculous!

I am not affected by the mansion tax. However my income has gone up about two and a half times since I bought my house 25 years ago. My house has gone up in value - allegedly - by much more than that. I do not have hundreds of thousands more as a result of this alleged increase in value. I have precisely zero. I have a larger income which would not, assuming that a tax was levied on houses like mine, be sufficient to pay thousands of pounds more in tax.

At the point at which I sell I will have actual money. That is the point at which it makes sense to levy a tax on the seller, as we already do, on the buyer. It also has the advantage that you have an actual valuation - a real price - not something dreamt up by an estate agent.

The reason my house has gone up in value is because of a failure of government policy i.e. their failure to ensure that there is sufficient housing in the country. So what Labour are proposing is to tax people for the government's failures - as exemplified by ridiculously high house inflation.

Rather than being a beneficiary of this failure, my own children will suffer because they will find it impossible - unless I help them - to purchase any sort of property or, indeed, rent anywhere. It would be better - and I have said this in the past - if my house were worth the same as it was when I bought it.

The only increases in value in houses should come from actual improvements not inflation caused by failures in government policy.

AlastairMeeks

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

The Total Fertility Ratio is the UK is well below 2.1. So, you would have a growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young people. If you want to see how disastrous that is economically, look at Japan or Italy.

Fortunately, we have the option of immigration, which means that we can import the young people at an economically useful age without having to go through the expensive bit of raising them. It's worked really well so far.

Ninoinoz

Luckyguy1983 said:

Is the 'wonderful wife' bit in quote marks a little catty? Perhaps she is wonderful, and perhaps he wants to say so publicly.

Yes, and the piece is unsigned.

Is Mark Reckless expected at Dirty Dicks tomorrow?

SouthamObserver

antifrank said:

SouthamObserver said:

Talking of tax, is Boris de facto ruled out as a possible PM or foreign secretary while this carries on?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/20/boris-johnson-us-tax-bill

No.

Incidentally, I saw from one of my rare excursions on the tube that lovestruck.com are giving a free upgrade to their premium account for Londoners if you put in the codeword "Boris". This is not a service that I will be availing myself of, but I was fascinated to see that some advertising agency thought that Boris transcended politics sufficiently to be used as a codeword to denote London.

I don't know the IRS very well, or whether government ministers get immunity, but if Boris owes US tax and is refusing to pay it doesn't that rather set him up for a bit of a problem at some stage when he visits the US?

[Deleted User]

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

The Total Fertility Ratio is the UK is well below 2.1. So, you would have a growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young people. If you want to see how disastrous that is economically, look at Japan or Italy.

A guess a reasonably stable population is a good thing. Significant growth and significant decline both bring major grief. So we do indeed need to reproduce. But don't forget the change that immigration brings to the overall shape of our demographics. The UK's population is growing very fast.

state_go_away

Casino_Royale said:

Not sure what I think about taxing assets. I think we certainly have to look at revising the council tax bands to make them fairer.

What I don't like (and I appreciate others may disagree, strongly) is the idea that someone has to pay a tax bill to the state for the privilege of living in their own house, or on their own land. I think that creates a dangerous precedent that the state owns more rights over assets than the individual and, done incorrectly, could lead to a change in the 'master-servant' relationship between the state and the individual that isn't for the better.

I also don't like the idea of someone being forced off their land or out of their house due to a tax bill.

It is easy to make sure nobody is forced off their property by making a rule that you can roll up the tax owed into a charge on the house payable only on a sale or death.

As for the master servant relationship you could argue that it makes it thus but surely merely having income tax means that you are 'bonded' for a certain amount of time to the state for your labour (when is tax freedom day again?) which surely is even more of a master servant relationship than a similar arrangement over your property

Ishmael_X

antifrank said:

We need to move from the taxation of income to the taxation of assets. After all, income is a mediocre proxy for wealth.

Thing is you want your tax as cash so the sensible thing is to tax sales when the sale takes place, income monthly or weekly or annually, and assets at the times when they are transformed into cash anyway- on sale, or on death. More convenient for everyone. So what you want to do if you want to tax wealth is abolish the cgt exemption on homes over £250 000 (but make gains rollable-over, so as not to hinder mobility), and abolish the lifetime gift exemption for IHT - how Labour managed not to do the latter in 13 years I will never understand.

RobC

It's a nice sunny mild day in Kent but as a general point on R & S it has to be said Reckless who astonishingly achieved 48% of the vote in 2010 in a previously Labour held seat by all accounts was also a fairly good constituency MP and I'd say these factors point the way to this by-election outcome rather than any amount of money spent on campaigning and number of "heavyweights" visiting the constituency. Cameron as the archetypal last minute swatter will find this strategy albeit unavoidable won't win him Rochester.

The Tories haven't helped themselves here by campaigning on negative Ukip territory. They have fallen into the trap where voters think they might as well vote for the real thing (Ukip) than the lite version a la Tolhurst.

Casino_Royale

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

The Total Fertility Ratio is the UK is well below 2.1. So, you would have a growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young people. If you want to see how disastrous that is economically, look at Japan or Italy.

There's an argument about an ageing population, but perhaps that involves changes to the way we make pension and healthcare provision. After all, the kids will get old too. And in the interim it only really works if all the childreb become productive members of the labour market too.

What policies do Japan and Italy have in place (and, for that matter, Germany) with respect to child benefit? Are they affordable?

Ishmael_X

antifrank said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

The Total Fertility Ratio is the UK is well below 2.1. So, you would have a growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young people. If you want to see how disastrous that is economically, look at Japan or Italy.

Fortunately, we have the option of immigration, which means that we can import the young people at an economically useful age without having to go through the expensive bit of raising them. It's worked really well so far.

I got my first payday loan at the beginning of this month. That's worked really well so far, too.

Casino_Royale

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...

I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

I can think of far better things to spend the money on.

[Deleted User]

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

The Total Fertility Ratio is the UK is well below 2.1. So, you would have a growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young people. If you want to see how disastrous that is economically, look at Japan or Italy.

What policies do Japan and Italy have in place (and, for that matter, Germany) with respect to child benefit? Are they affordable?

Japan's debt/GDP is well over 250% and getting worse rapidly. They're spectacularly bust. So the BoJ is trying to destroy the Yen and their debt. Old Japs must be very afraid.

Artist

RobC said:

It's a nice sunny mild day in Kent but as a general point on R & S it has to be said Reckless who astonishingly achieved 48% of the vote in 2010 in a previously Labour held seat by all accounts was also a fairly good constituency MP and I'd say these factors point the way to this by-election outcome rather than any amount of money spent on campaigning and number of "heavyweights" visiting the constituency. Cameron as the archetypal last minute swatter will find this strategy albeit unavoidable won't win him Rochester.

The Tories haven't helped themselves here by campaigning on negative Ukip territory. They have fallen into the trap where voters think they might as well vote for the real thing (Ukip) than the lite version a la Tolhurst.

I don't get the impression Reckless has much of a personal vote at all, which makes the likely result even more remarkable for UKIP.

What I would say about Reckless is that he isn't extreme enough to stop Lib Dems and Labour voters from tactically voting for him, if someone like Peter Bone defected, I think UKIP would struggle to win.

state_go_away

Casino_Royale said:

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...

I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

I can think of far better things to spend the money on.

like what? that 12billion is probably very efficiently spent in that it involves little admin (or did) and gets spent mainly on kids development or comfort in some form and crucially is spent by the parents not the state

AlastairMeeks

Ishmael_X said:

antifrank said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

The Total Fertility Ratio is the UK is well below 2.1. So, you would have a growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young people. If you want to see how disastrous that is economically, look at Japan or Italy.

Fortunately, we have the option of immigration, which means that we can import the young people at an economically useful age without having to go through the expensive bit of raising them. It's worked really well so far.

I got my first payday loan at the beginning of this month. That's worked really well so far, too.

Congratulations on possibly the worst pb analogy of the year.

weejonnie

Ishmael_X said:

antifrank said:

We need to move from the taxation of income to the taxation of assets. After all, income is a mediocre proxy for wealth.

Thing is you want your tax as cash so the sensible thing is to tax sales when the sale takes place, income monthly or weekly or annually, and assets at the times when they are transformed into cash anyway- on sale, or on death. More convenient for everyone. So what you want to do if you want to tax wealth is abolish the cgt exemption on homes over £250 000 (but make gains rollable-over, so as not to hinder mobility), and abolish the lifetime gift exemption for IHT - how Labour managed not to do the latter in 13 years I will never understand.

They,too are millionaires. (They just don't like to be reminded.)

Cyclefree

If child benefit is paid at all, it should be paid only for the first child, generously, if possible, and to the mother. There's an argument for saying that it should be paid only for the first 5 years of the child's life. And also an argument for taxing it.

Pong

Casino_Royale said:

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...

I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

I can think of far better things to spend the money on.

Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?

How about a condom tax?

Casino_Royale

state_go_away said:

Casino_Royale said:

Not sure what I think about taxing assets. I think we certainly have to look at revising the council tax bands to make them fairer.

What I don't like (and I appreciate others may disagree, strongly) is the idea that someone has to pay a tax bill to the state for the privilege of living in their own house, or on their own land. I think that creates a dangerous precedent that the state owns more rights over assets than the individual and, done incorrectly, could lead to a change in the 'master-servant' relationship between the state and the individual that isn't for the better.

I also don't like the idea of someone being forced off their land or out of their house due to a tax bill.

It is easy to make sure nobody is forced off their property by making a rule that you can roll up the tax owed into a charge on the house payable only on a sale or death.

As for the master servant relationship you could argue that it makes it thus but surely merely having income tax means that you are 'bonded' for a certain amount of time to the state for your labour (when is tax freedom day again?) which surely is even more of a master servant relationship than a similar arrangement over your property

On the first rule, I think there'd be pressure on people to move to avoid that bow-wave of a tax bill. It'd feel growing, immobable and inevitable - like a grim repear waiting to pounce on their mortality. I think that would stress a lot of people out.

Income tax is different. You 'pay as you earn', not pay as you live or pay as you earn. The state just takes a slice of what you earn each month. You stop earning, you stop paying. You earn less, you pay more. You earn more, you pay more. There's no ongoing or future liability just for existing.

Jonathan

Child Benefit and tax credit are important. It arrives just when you have a massive increase in expenses and decrease in salary.

Casino_Royale

Patrick said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

The Total Fertility Ratio is the UK is well below 2.1. So, you would have a growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young people. If you want to see how disastrous that is economically, look at Japan or Italy.

What policies do Japan and Italy have in place (and, for that matter, Germany) with respect to child benefit? Are they affordable?

Japan's debt/GDP is well over 250% and getting worse rapidly. They're spectacularly bust. So the BoJ is trying to destroy the Yen and their debt. Old Japs must be very afraid.

Yes, but is that cultural and values-driven? Or financial?

China seems to struggle to keep its population under wraps. Japan can't get its population to breed with each other. From my perspective, neither policy seems particularly effective.

I don't see why we should waste money paying to subsidise kids. I think most people who want them will have them. Those who don't would need to be very heavily bribed to incentivise them, and would we want kids born to such parents?

state_go_away

Casino_Royale said:

state_go_away said:

Casino_Royale said:

Not sure what I think about taxing assets. I think we certainly have to look at revising the council tax bands to make them fairer.

What I don't like (and I appreciate others may disagree, strongly) is the idea that someone has to pay a tax bill to the state for the privilege of living in their own house, or on their own land. I think that creates a dangerous precedent that the state owns more rights over assets than the individual and, done incorrectly, could lead to a change in the 'master-servant' relationship between the state and the individual that isn't for the better.

I also don't like the idea of someone being forced off their land or out of their house due to a tax bill.

It is easy to make sure nobody is forced off their property by making a rule that you can roll up the tax owed into a charge on the house payable only on a sale or death.

As for the master servant relationship you could argue that it makes it thus but surely merely having income tax means that you are 'bonded' for a certain amount of time to the state for your labour (when is tax freedom day again?) which surely is even more of a master servant relationship than a similar arrangement over your property

On the first rule, I think there'd be pressure on people to move to avoid that bow-wave of a tax bill. It'd feel growing, immobable and inevitable - like a grim repear waiting to pounce on their mortality. I think that would stress a lot of people out.

Income tax is different. You 'pay as you earn', not pay as you live or pay as you earn. The state just takes a slice of what you earn each month. You stop earning, you stop paying. You earn less, you pay more. You earn more, you pay more. There's no ongoing or future liability just for existing.

most people though have to earn to exist

BenM

Financier said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

In some EU countries there is neither Child Benefit (after first 3-6 months) nor Child Tax Credit and nor Working Tax Credit. Trouble is that GB gave out lots of sweeties and so when they are retracted there will be lots of political squeals of outrage and unfairness.

Not to mention the government doing the retracting not getting elected again for a generation.

Cyclefree

Jonathan said:

Child Benefit and tax credit are important. It arrives just when you have a massive increase in expenses and decrease in salary.

So what? It's your choice.

Casino_Royale

state_go_away said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...

I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

I can think of far better things to spend the money on.

like what? that 12billion is probably very efficiently spent in that it involves little admin (or did) and gets spent mainly on kids development or comfort in some form and crucially is spent by the parents not the state

Dozens. Paying down the deficit, for one. Investment in education, technological research, science, skills, strategic infrastructure...

If you can't afford to have kids, don't have kids. This welfare is a luxury we cannot afford.

MonikerDiCanio

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...

Didn't the French have a tax system in the good old days of the General where every child meant a 20% reduction in family income tax, if you achieved five or more offspring you no longer paid that tax ?
That should do the trick.

Pong

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...

I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

I can think of far better things to spend the money on.

Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?

How about a condom tax?

Wow, I've just learned the condom tax is actually a thing;

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/02/business.consumernews

state_go_away

Casino_Royale said:

Patrick said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

The Total Fertility Ratio is the UK is well below 2.1. So, you would have a growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young people. If you want to see how disastrous that is economically, look at Japan or Italy.

What policies do Japan and Italy have in place (and, for that matter, Germany) with respect to child benefit? Are they affordable?

Japan's debt/GDP is well over 250% and getting worse rapidly. They're spectacularly bust. So the BoJ is trying to destroy the Yen and their debt. Old Japs must be very afraid.

Yes, but is that cultural and values-driven? Or financial?

China seems to struggle to keep its population under wraps. Japan can't get its population to breed with each other. From my perspective, neither policy seems particularly effective.

I don't see why we should waste money paying to subsidise kids. I think most people who want them will have them. Those who don't would need to be very heavily bribed to incentivise them, and would we want kids born to such parents?

I doubt anyone is bribed by the child benefit to have kids . They may be bribed by other benefits but the child benefit is at a level where it does not encourage kid making but merely helps pay for the kids development or comfort in some way. That surely is a good way for a state to spend money

Casino_Royale

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...

I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

I can think of far better things to spend the money on.

Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?

How about a condom tax?

A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?

I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.

Peter_the_Punter

RobC said:

It's a nice sunny mild day in Kent but as a general point on R & S it has to be said Reckless who astonishingly achieved 48% of the vote in 2010 in a previously Labour held seat by all accounts was also a fairly good constituency MP and I'd say these factors point the way to this by-election outcome rather than any amount of money spent on campaigning and number of "heavyweights" visiting the constituency. Cameron as the archetypal last minute swatter will find this strategy albeit unavoidable won't win him Rochester.

The Tories haven't helped themselves here by campaigning on negative Ukip territory. They have fallen into the trap where voters think they might as well vote for the real thing (Ukip) than the lite version a la Tolhurst.

Thanks RobC.

Although I backed a low turnout I wouldn't be sorry to see a high one, and am pleased to note the elements will not be diminishing it.

The trouble with a low turnout is that vote shares become somewhat distorted. We really need to see how UKIP fare in 'normal' conditions: decent weather and a middling to good kind of candidate, like Reckless, against sound but not distinguished opposition should give us as good a benchmark as we are likely to get.

No doubt the spinners for all sides will go into overdrive after the event, but the betting markets suggest a 10% win for the Kippers will be about a par score. Seems about right to me.

Sunil_Prasannan

Pong said:

I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon,

Then we need a tax on gay people!

(only kidding, antifrank!)

Ishmael_X

antifrank said:

Ishmael_X said:

antifrank said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

The Total Fertility Ratio is the UK is well below 2.1. So, you would have a growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young people. If you want to see how disastrous that is economically, look at Japan or Italy.

Fortunately, we have the option of immigration, which means that we can import the young people at an economically useful age without having to go through the expensive bit of raising them. It's worked really well so far.

I got my first payday loan at the beginning of this month. That's worked really well so far, too.

Congratulations on possibly the worst pb analogy of the year.

Your imported youngsters contribute (in the best case scenario) for a bit. On a future date, partly ascertainable in each individual case (because we can forecast retirement but not illness/unemployment), we pay back more than we were paid in the first place. Can't see the flaw in the analogy myself.

Jonathan

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

Child Benefit and tax credit are important. It arrives just when you have a massive increase in expenses and decrease in salary.

So what? It's your choice.

It's a public good. We all rely on the next generation.

state_go_away

Casino_Royale said:

state_go_away said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...

I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

I can think of far better things to spend the money on.

like what? that 12billion is probably very efficiently spent in that it involves little admin (or did) and gets spent mainly on kids development or comfort in some form and crucially is spent by the parents not the state

Dozens. Paying down the deficit, for one. Investment in education, technological research, science, skills, strategic infrastructure...

If you can't afford to have kids, don't have kids. This welfare is a luxury we cannot afford.

The trouble is that if there is no child benefit the people who might not then have kids are not the chavs who could not give a chit about their kids (because they will still get 15 times the amount of what they did as child benefit in other benefits) nor the wealthy but the very people who should be having kids (ie the true working class who contribute to the country through labour and would try to raise offspring in a good pleasant way)

Casino_Royale

Cyclefree said:

If child benefit is paid at all, it should be paid only for the first child, generously, if possible, and to the mother. There's an argument for saying that it should be paid only for the first 5 years of the child's life. And also an argument for taxing it.

Yes. What I don't understand is that childcare costs are a vastly bigger issue (in terms of cost) than the piddly amount of child benefit people get. It can literally cost thousands (sometime a month) for two working parents, particularly up to the child's 5th birthday when he/she enters school.

There's a much better argument for funding vouchers for this instead, but we are used to our nice juicy handout from the State for a kid from 0-16 and we don't want our sweeties taken away.

Pong

state_go_away said:

Casino_Royale said:

state_go_away said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...

I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

I can think of far better things to spend the money on.

like what? that 12billion is probably very efficiently spent in that it involves little admin (or did) and gets spent mainly on kids development or comfort in some form and crucially is spent by the parents not the state

Dozens. Paying down the deficit, for one. Investment in education, technological research, science, skills, strategic infrastructure...

If you can't afford to have kids, don't have kids. This welfare is a luxury we cannot afford.

The trouble is that if there is no child benefit the people who might not then have kids are not the chavs who could not give a chit about their kids (because they will still get 15 times the amount of what they did as child benefit in other benefits) nor the wealthy but the very people who should be having kids (ie the true working class who contribute to the country through labour and would try to raise offspring in a good pleasant way)

Wow, this discussion turned nasty very quickly.

state_go_away

Pong said:

state_go_away said:

Casino_Royale said:

state_go_away said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...

I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

I can think of far better things to spend the money on.

like what? that 12billion is probably very efficiently spent in that it involves little admin (or did) and gets spent mainly on kids development or comfort in some form and crucially is spent by the parents not the state

Dozens. Paying down the deficit, for one. Investment in education, technological research, science, skills, strategic infrastructure...

If you can't afford to have kids, don't have kids. This welfare is a luxury we cannot afford.

The trouble is that if there is no child benefit the people who might not then have kids are not the chavs who could not give a chit about their kids (because they will still get 15 times the amount of what they did as child benefit in other benefits) nor the wealthy but the very people who should be having kids (ie the true working class who contribute to the country through labour and would try to raise offspring in a good pleasant way)

Wow, this discussion turned nasty very quickly.

nasty?

Cyclefree

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

Child Benefit and tax credit are important. It arrives just when you have a massive increase in expenses and decrease in salary.

So what? It's your choice.

It's a public good. We all rely on the next generation.

That just sounds like special pleading by parents.

We all relied on the older generation as well.

I'm in favour of spreading taxes as widely as possible with as few exemptions as possible and, in consequence, lower taxes. Let people decide for themselves what they do with their lives without being distorted by tax impositions, exemptions or the state trying to 'nudge' us.

We're adults. Let's try behaving as such.

BenM

Casino_Royale said:

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

Both taxes are awfully designed.

Agreed.

It's crazily bureaucratic now.

The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.

Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.

Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...

I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

I can think of far better things to spend the money on.

Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?

How about a condom tax?

A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?

I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.

The whole point of goverment f whatever hue is to socially engineer. You're deluded if you think not. Universal education was an act of social engineering!

Theuniondivvie

The really big R & S news:

Jamie Ross ‏@JamieRoss7 3 hrs3 hours ago
Just spoke to the Monster Raving Loony Party. They are genuinely confident of beating the Lib Dems today.

Jamie Ross ‏@JamieRoss7 3 hrs3 hours ago
The Loonies said they are campaigning on gluing unruly teenagers together because "if you can't beat them, join them." #RochesterandStrood