Benefits and Taxes

[andrewducker]

budgie_uk points out that the recent child benefit fuss isn't actually anything new.

Because taxes are applied to individuals, not households, but many benefits are means-tested the other way around - on households, not individuals.

This means that any couple where there is an earning disparity gets the worst end of the deal for both taxes and benefits.

Am I missing something, or is he? And would it make more sense for benefits and taxes to both be conducted on an individual or household basis? Or is it actually better to work them separately?

Comments

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

Household, please! As soon as one partner cuts back on work to raise children, it's preposterous to treat them as separate entities.

Also, since in the long term, married/partnered couples are less of a burden on the state than singletons, it's in all our interests that couples should be treated as a household for tax purposes; not as a reward, but to alleviate a common source of argument amongst married or equiv.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

I disagree - it introduces whole new levels of complexity into people's domestic arrangements, and adds levels of possible abuse, to do it on anything other than an individual basis.

As for the main thrust of the post, this is perfectly true, which is why when, at roughly the same time, my wife became too ill to work while I doubled my income (previously we'd both been earning the same), our joint income went down significantly and we're only just getting back on our feet from that blow.

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

I agree with complexity being a problem.

However, it seems unfair to ignore domestic arrangements, especially where one partner is looking after or supporting the other, and very much so when raising children.

It's also in the interests of society to ensure that at least one parent can cut back their hours.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

Who gets to decide what's in 'the interests of society'? Why should it be the government's job to make it possible for people to cut back on hours, rather than an arrangement between worker and employer? Why should people who have no children and never wish to have children have their lives interfered in because of a rule designed to help those *with* children? *Should* we make it easier for people to have kids, given that the world is already overpopulated?

You're making a lot of hidden assumptions, and I'm not at all sure I agree with them.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

What model of society do you want to encourage? One of families or one of individuals as the base unit.

[andrewducker]

Individuals, personally. Anything else is too open to manipulation.

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

Neat isn't necessarily fair, though, is it? And, wouldn't it be in all our interests to weight the dice in favour of self-replicating stable domesticity?

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

No.

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

Why not?

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

Because personally, absolutely nothing could sound worse than being pressured into 'self-replicating'. There are already *huge*, almost overwhelming, societal pressures in favour of having children, in favour of 'the nuclear family' and in favour of the kind of life many people want to escape from. It should not be the business of the government to further entrench social norms; if it should be weighted either way, and I can't see why it should, it should try to restore the balance somewhat, not discriminate further against those who can't or won't fit a mould.

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

By "weight the dice" I just meant that if people choose to be together and especially if they raise children, then it's in our interests to help them stay that way by taking off some of the appalling financial pressure.

Fairness aside, from the point of view of society: couples are in general greener, and less of a drain in old age than singletons; divorce is expensive and destructive; and children with two involved parents are less *likely* to become disruptive.

Also, singletons need breeders because somebody has to wipe their bottoms and pay for their winter fuel in extreme old age.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

"divorce is expensive and destructive"
So why make it more so by making it both more complex and more costly?

"children with two involved parents are less *likely* to become disruptive."
Which is no reason at all to put additional pressure on those who don't want children at all.

"singletons need breeders because somebody has to wipe their bottoms and pay for their winter fuel in extreme old age."
Worldwide, the problem is not too few children but too many. If we didn't have such ridiculous rules about immigration, this wouldn't even be an issue.

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

Weighting the dice need not make divorce more costly, and does not need to put pressure on the non-breeders. Really, it's the same as making child care tax deductable, just that you're letting the parents do the caring.

Re Immigration: It's not much of a proposition -"Come settle here so we can tax you to pay for our increasing numbers of elderly, and if you're lucky you'll get some of that money back by drudging in OAP homes."

There's also the small matter that you're assuming that people from 'conservative' cultures (who look after their older relatives within the family) will vote to be taxed in order to preserve the independence of earlier generations to whom they feel no particular connection; "You wanted a comfortable old age, you should have had children."

[andrewducker]

Nope. It's in the interests of people during a short period where they're raising their kids full time. Which is generally a small part of their tax-paying lifetime.

[naath.livejournal.com]

Not in the interests of a woman been beaten by her husband. Not in the interests of a man whose father is trying to force him to marry a woman he has never met. Not currently in the interests of gay and lesbian couples whose relationships aren't fully recognised by the law. Not in the interests of a child abused by a parent. Not in the interests of a second wife whose relationship isn't recognised at all. Not in the interests of a person happiest living alone. Not in the interests of a widow.

And favouring one-parent-earns-one-parents strategies is not in the interest of families where both parents want to work, potentially part time, splitting the parenting between them. Or the interest of families where neither parent can manage to earn enough alone (even with the tax break) so both have to work. (or of course families with only one parent)

The social and financial costs of divorcing are already painfully high, we don't need them to be higher. Marriage and children and not a good fit for everyone, certainly for some unfortunate people they turn out to be a very very bad fit indeed and punishing those people is simply unfair.

Erk?

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

You made it sound as if I proposed mandatory Gorean family law!!

All I wanted was tax allowances to be calculated per household to support the give and take that usually happens with couples, especially parents! *(see example at the bottom of this post)

Of course I would extend this to anybody in a civil partnership, and - as if it mattered to the wider world - I've blogged in favour of gay marriage. It's in society's interest that you grow old together as a couple, regardless of your preferred genital plumbing arrangements.

You don't have to have children, but its in your interest that other people do and raise them right.


*For example, for the last 4 or so years, both of us have worked parttime, but for reasons of Mrs Hau's profession and career, I'm more part time than she is. It would seem fairer if we could pool both the cash and the tax allowance.

Similar arguments would apply if we were childless, but I was full time homemaker while she pursued a demanding job.

Re: Erk?

[naath.livejournal.com]

Funding your lifestyle in preference to mine is clearly good for YOU but is it good for ME? I don't expect my lifestyle to be preferentially funded (I see no reason why it should be), but why would I choose to fund other people's? And no, I don't think "other people having children" is something that benefits me enough to pay them to do so because a)they'll do it anyway and b)too many people on this rock already. Neither do I think "you staying together" is something that benefits me at all, in fact if your relationship was dreadful (I know nothing of it; but some people's are) it would probably dis-benefit me on account of making the world a slightly less happy place.

I do think that we need a benefits system, and that many people need benefits to live, and that the amount you need to live on depends on your family size, location and so forth... but tax breaks for married couples isn't about handing out money to people in need of money, it's about handing out money to people who've done "the right thing" by some narrowly defined definition of "right" which supposedly applies to everyone.

Re: Erk?

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

Us staying together means we look after each other in old age. This benefits you because we'll be less of a drain on society's resources, and require less living space. Surveys show that finances more than anything else puts stress on long term relationships. So it would seem cost effective to help things along.

As for children. Where do you think the tax and staffing is going to come from to ensure somebody wipes your bottom in extreme old age?