critique my tax idea for parents
Discussion
GT03ROB said:
The difference is not realy in housing costs, it's in the the things we now treat as necessities be it mobile phones, Ipads, computers, broadband, Sky, eating out/entertaining, cars, holidays, gym memberships, basically conspicuous consumption! There's easily a few hundred a month in the above, which I would never have had to spend.
Couldn't agree more. 
GT03ROB said:
Really?
I bought 1st house in 1987 for £57k with interest rates at 12.5% so paid about 7k/yr interest with 5% deposit
Same house today is £230k with interest rates at say 3.5% so that about 7500/yr interest with 5% deposit
Seems housing is far more affordable now......very simplistic I know, but I don't buy the housing costs point.
you need to compare the average house price:earnings ratio for the two time periods.I bought 1st house in 1987 for £57k with interest rates at 12.5% so paid about 7k/yr interest with 5% deposit
Same house today is £230k with interest rates at say 3.5% so that about 7500/yr interest with 5% deposit
Seems housing is far more affordable now......very simplistic I know, but I don't buy the housing costs point.
Countdown said:
You seem to have left out the mahoosive deposit required and the fact that the capital element of the repayment has gone up roughly 400% 
LOL! I don't know if its either people not quite understanding the mathematics or if they actually choose to omit massively important factors and figures in some deluded attempt to put forward a deliberately false argument.RealSquirrels said:
GT03ROB said:
Really?
I bought 1st house in 1987 for £57k with interest rates at 12.5% so paid about 7k/yr interest with 5% deposit
Same house today is £230k with interest rates at say 3.5% so that about 7500/yr interest with 5% deposit
Seems housing is far more affordable now......very simplistic I know, but I don't buy the housing costs point.
you need to compare the average house price:earnings ratio for the two time periods.I bought 1st house in 1987 for £57k with interest rates at 12.5% so paid about 7k/yr interest with 5% deposit
Same house today is £230k with interest rates at say 3.5% so that about 7500/yr interest with 5% deposit
Seems housing is far more affordable now......very simplistic I know, but I don't buy the housing costs point.
hmmmm seems similar..... House price x4, salary x4......interest x 0.25
......before you ask house was bought between 2 of us......
GT03ROB said:
OK try this..... When I graduated I was paid £8k pa...... Graduates in same company now get £32k....
hmmmm seems similar..... House price x4, salary x4......interest x 0.25
......before you ask house was bought between 2 of us......
UK house price to income ratio 1987, when you purchased, approx 3.75:1.hmmmm seems similar..... House price x4, salary x4......interest x 0.25
......before you ask house was bought between 2 of us......
UK house price to income ratio 2006, when I purchased, approx 5.75:1.
It appears the ratio has fallen in recent years but people who bought when I did, and especially those who bought in the couple of years after I did, would not benefit from that fall. We are the generation who are currently having children or having to consider the prospect of not having children.
Countdown said:
I don't care about different imaginary friends. In fact, as long as they don't tax me for living here I positively welcome them with open arms. YOU want newkeeler weapons, YOU pay for them. Same goes for your administrivia.
That's the problem with the swivel-eyed frothy brigade, always wanting others to pick up the tab...
I do, I pay for the bloody lot. That's the problem with the swivel-eyed frothy brigade, always wanting others to pick up the tab...
WeirdNeville said:
The selfishness and shortsightedness exhibited by some in this thread frankly staggers belief: You think that because you don't benefit directly from something, it is of no benefit to you whatsoever?
You don't use the NHS, so why are you paying for it? How about the benefits of living in a country where vaccinations are widespread and free (no, wait, you've never used the NHS so you weren't vaccinated for free as a child, right? And you didn't have your growth and development monitored by a healthcare professional), where anyone has free and unfettered access to some of the best healthcare in the world? You don't even know it, but you don't see sick and dying people in the streets for want of simple but unaffordable to them healthcare. You can rely to some extent that elderly parents will be cared for, meaning the burden doesn't fall directly to you.
You don't use schools, so what use are they to you? So, you were in fully privately funded education from day one, were you? No University I take it seeing as they are heavily subsidised? Ok, assuming that is the case, how about the benefits of living in a country where literacy rates are amongst the best in the world. Where if you need to hire someone then GCSE's on their cv (which they can at least write) means that they can red simple written instructions and do basic maths. The benefits of everyone who has stuck out compulsory education should at leas tbe able to speak their mind, read and write, and get a menial job.
You've never used social housing, why on earth are you paying for that? Well, at least the streets aren't awash with the millions who would otherwise be homeless because market forces have priced them out, or the free market has had them evicted with a months arrears because of some small misfortune or miscalculation on their part. They're not breaking into your shed trying to sleep somewhere, they're not transmitting disease as you walk to work past them. They're not dying, for want of shelter. And god forbid that in old age, some miscalculation on your part, or completely outwith your control, might lead to the collapse of your best laid plans and leave you with no option but to go to the housing association. Why the very shame would kill you!
Police? The Justice System? Why do I pay for them? They don't turn up when I call, and I have nothing to do with them? I just get a speeding ticket now and again: So what is the benefit of living in a place where criminals are effectively supressed, you are free to buy and enjoy shiny cars and watches with minimal chance of being killed for them? Where your home isn't burgled thrice yearly?
Like it or not, you HAVE benefited from the services you see as useless in the past, you are probably benefiting from them now in ways you don't even appreciate, and you will benefit from them again in the future. Buy you only have 40 or so years to cover them all in your taxes. It's like a true insurance scheme that we must all pay into to get the benefit from it wholesale. Imagine you start work with a debt for all the services you have used and benefits you have used to working age, and not only do you have to pay it off, but you have to build up enough money to see you through retirement and to death - with the last £500 set aside for burial fees. What amount would you have to put aside each month to cover it all?
Childcare falls into that same category in my eyes: It costs money, but it should not cost the livelihoods of those who choose to have children. That hurts society through the removal of productive workers and spending power in the economy as well as reduction in tax revenue. It should be down to parental choice if they want to work or put the child into care. The economics of the situation removes that choice for many.
I find the suggestion that People want it all: the child, the holidays, the new car mildly offensive. I don't want it all. I want nothing more than a decent future for my Son. Finding the balance between earning what we will need to provide adequately for him, staying in work, and investing sufficient time in his development is a FAR harder proposition than working through the spec list on the next new Audi, or wondering if it's Thailand or the Maldives this year.
Stop being sensible right now!!!You don't use the NHS, so why are you paying for it? How about the benefits of living in a country where vaccinations are widespread and free (no, wait, you've never used the NHS so you weren't vaccinated for free as a child, right? And you didn't have your growth and development monitored by a healthcare professional), where anyone has free and unfettered access to some of the best healthcare in the world? You don't even know it, but you don't see sick and dying people in the streets for want of simple but unaffordable to them healthcare. You can rely to some extent that elderly parents will be cared for, meaning the burden doesn't fall directly to you.
You don't use schools, so what use are they to you? So, you were in fully privately funded education from day one, were you? No University I take it seeing as they are heavily subsidised? Ok, assuming that is the case, how about the benefits of living in a country where literacy rates are amongst the best in the world. Where if you need to hire someone then GCSE's on their cv (which they can at least write) means that they can red simple written instructions and do basic maths. The benefits of everyone who has stuck out compulsory education should at leas tbe able to speak their mind, read and write, and get a menial job.
You've never used social housing, why on earth are you paying for that? Well, at least the streets aren't awash with the millions who would otherwise be homeless because market forces have priced them out, or the free market has had them evicted with a months arrears because of some small misfortune or miscalculation on their part. They're not breaking into your shed trying to sleep somewhere, they're not transmitting disease as you walk to work past them. They're not dying, for want of shelter. And god forbid that in old age, some miscalculation on your part, or completely outwith your control, might lead to the collapse of your best laid plans and leave you with no option but to go to the housing association. Why the very shame would kill you!
Police? The Justice System? Why do I pay for them? They don't turn up when I call, and I have nothing to do with them? I just get a speeding ticket now and again: So what is the benefit of living in a place where criminals are effectively supressed, you are free to buy and enjoy shiny cars and watches with minimal chance of being killed for them? Where your home isn't burgled thrice yearly?
Like it or not, you HAVE benefited from the services you see as useless in the past, you are probably benefiting from them now in ways you don't even appreciate, and you will benefit from them again in the future. Buy you only have 40 or so years to cover them all in your taxes. It's like a true insurance scheme that we must all pay into to get the benefit from it wholesale. Imagine you start work with a debt for all the services you have used and benefits you have used to working age, and not only do you have to pay it off, but you have to build up enough money to see you through retirement and to death - with the last £500 set aside for burial fees. What amount would you have to put aside each month to cover it all?
Childcare falls into that same category in my eyes: It costs money, but it should not cost the livelihoods of those who choose to have children. That hurts society through the removal of productive workers and spending power in the economy as well as reduction in tax revenue. It should be down to parental choice if they want to work or put the child into care. The economics of the situation removes that choice for many.
I find the suggestion that People want it all: the child, the holidays, the new car mildly offensive. I don't want it all. I want nothing more than a decent future for my Son. Finding the balance between earning what we will need to provide adequately for him, staying in work, and investing sufficient time in his development is a FAR harder proposition than working through the spec list on the next new Audi, or wondering if it's Thailand or the Maldives this year.
WeirdNeville said:
Childcare falls into that same category in my eyes: It costs money, but it should not cost the livelihoods of those who choose to have children. That hurts society through the removal of productive workers and spending power in the economy as well as reduction in tax revenue. It should be down to parental choice if they want to work or put the child into care. The economics of the situation removes that choice for many.
in my eyes I see no reason at all why the costs of childcare should be further spread over the general populace. In an era of unemployment there is no need for more 'productive workers' than are already on JSA. The economics of the situation are in no way different to the economics of my situations which is that I want a Fender USA Precision bass guitar in Daphne Blue. Much as I would like the taxpayer to chip in for this, if I exercise the choice to buy it then it will have to come out of my own pocket. If you exercise the choice to have a child, then much of the costs will be borne by the state, but you would like even more?WeirdNeville said:
The selfishness and shortsightedness exhibited by some in this thread frankly staggers belief: You think that because you don't benefit directly from something, it is of no benefit to you whatsoever?
No.WeirdNeville said:
It should be down to parental choice if they want to work or put the child into care. The economics of the situation removes that choice for many.
This sounds like the real selfishness. I think, as with many situations, there's a balance to be struck and it's certainly too far away from allowing parents back into work at the moment. But to have it swing entirely the other way such that anyone can choose to dump their child in childcare and go to work regardless of how many children they have (which can be a lot) and how much value they add to the economy by being in work (which can be negative) would be just as wrong.singlecoil said:
The economics of the situation are in no way different to the economics of my situation which is that I want a Fender USA Precision bass guitar in Daphne Blue. Much as I would like the taxpayer to chip in for this, if I exercise the choice to buy it then it will have to come out of my own pocket.
Is the Fender USA Precision bass guitar in Daphne Blue likely to pay taxes once he or she is old enough to work?WeirdNeville said:
singlecoil said:
in my eyes I see no reason at all why the costs of childcare should be further spread over the general populace. In an era of unemployment there is no need for more 'productive workers' than are already on JSA. The economics of the situation are in no way different to the economics of my situations which is that I want a Fender USA Precision bass guitar in Daphne Blue. Much as I would like the taxpayer to chip in for this, if I exercise the choice to buy it then it will have to come out of my own pocket. If you exercise the choice to have a child, then much of the costs will be borne by the state, but you would like even more?
Which conveniently ignores the fact that your Dafne Blue Fender is of no value to the UK economy (other than the small amount of VAT you pay on it). Children aren't an unnecessary luxury to be enjoyed by the few. They are essential to the continuation of the nation. Would you rather they are cranked out by a dole scum mum, one father at a time, or raised in a loving, stable family where working is the norm? Yes, I want a little more help. Well, wanted, because the situation as it was meant we left the country to see if things were rosier abroad. UK - 0, Nev - 1.You need to establish that the facts you are relying on to make your argument are indeed facts. This particular one isn't.
aizvara said:
singlecoil said:
The economics of the situation are in no way different to the economics of my situation which is that I want a Fender USA Precision bass guitar in Daphne Blue. Much as I would like the taxpayer to chip in for this, if I exercise the choice to buy it then it will have to come out of my own pocket.
Is the Fender USA Precision bass guitar in Daphne Blue likely to pay taxes once he or she is old enough to work?singlecoil said:
To pay taxes, you need to have a job. There isn't enough jobs to go around at the moment, and the situation is getting worse, not better. Had you not noticed that?
And in 18 years when a child has grown up?Also, no I haven't noticed much problems in the job market. I and everyone I know who wants a job has a job.
singlecoil said:
It doesn't conveniently ignore a 'fact', because I don't agree that it is a 'fact'.
You need to establish that the facts you are relying on to make your argument are indeed facts. This particular one isn't.
this is just ridiculous now. you don't agree that it is a fact that a child is more valuable to the economy than a bass guitar.You need to establish that the facts you are relying on to make your argument are indeed facts. This particular one isn't.
put this way, if i had to choose between investing in a child or a guitar, for 10 % of it's earnings, i'd pick the child.
aizvara said:
singlecoil said:
To pay taxes, you need to have a job. There isn't enough jobs to go around at the moment, and the situation is getting worse, not better. Had you not noticed that?
And in 18 years when a child has grown up?Also, no I haven't noticed much problems in the job market. I and everyone I know who wants a job has a job.
No, there's plenty of people out of work and it's not going to get better, there's an obvious trend as globalisation continues, and such jobs as there still exist are going to the lowest paid, wherever they might be. Even if there are jobs that cannot be exported, there will be little money to pay for them and fierce competition.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff