Younger people and their thoughts about working

I'm really not expecting you to address anything . I'm just responding to posts and giving my opinion.

I don't think that having separate rates for singles and partners is the answer though. We consume the benefits of living in a civilised society as individuals (whatever our domestic arrangements) so we should, IMO, all pay tax. I would exclude children, the sick and disabled, and probably have a maximum number of years when this was expected, although there would have to be a way to stop people from simply deferring their obligation until they would never pay it.

I don't know - I'm not an economist or a politician, and it is much easier to say what is not fair than what would be better. I don't think it is fair for people to be able to opt out of taxation by opting out of producing goods or providing services - to me that is a double whammy when it comes to being part of society - but you can't get blood out of a stone.

As has been pointed out, however, we may well be on the cusp of an era in which it can't be earnings that attract taxation, so new ways to pay for things (if that's the economic theory to which you subscribe) will have to be found.

Doodledog

That's still taxing income, so anyone not earning isn't paying, whilst those who work and provide goods and/or services are charged for doing so. That is at the crux of my objection, not so much the amount paid (although that could be fairer than now, too).

I can't address all your angst.

However, I'd prefer the government worked out a way I thought addressed problems for low earners regarding prices and housing. It's a Robin Hood idea - but with much higher bands than currently.

Perhaps taxing as households at one rate and singles in another? The people not paying could be in a household rate, as could workers who were partnered up. Singles or those who desired could pay on a different singles tax band?

Perhaps higher bands could reduce the need to so many benefits? Benefits and their administration/assessment cost tax money.

Nobody is actually wanting to change taxes much, imo ---

That's still taxing income, so anyone not earning isn't paying, whilst those who work and provide goods and/or services are charged for doing so. That is at the crux of my objection, not so much the amount paid (although that could be fairer than now, too).

Doodledog I remain unconvinced that one person's taxes (however much they are in £££) can cover another's - if there were a way for one parent to actually pay for another (on top of their own tax bill based on their earnings) that would be one way, but I doubt that would encourage people to have more children.

I believe I understand what you think - however I believe taxes could be re-structured to be more equitable for all.

Given I believe the current income tax bands are not collecting enough to sustain, perhaps a change in the overall income tax?

It seems to me the basics rate could be 20-60K @20%
The higher rate 60-150K @40%
And additional rate 150K and above - no daft exceptions.

IOW something to positively impact everyone below 150K and people earning more than 150K pay taxes on the good fortune/luck of living here. A higher IHT threshold, say several million, but above that 75%.

youtu.be/O6cuNDN1YKo?si=ShD4JiOshvS5YiMs

bothered by, not bothered when.

Norah

Doodledog

The only way people will have more children is if we subsidise childcare and reduce the cost of housing. Both are just too expensive now.

Or make sah parent a priority, by way of taxes.

I know, I know, I know, wrong answer!

How would you do that, whilst also ensuring that enough people are paying in to cover those who don't?

There is no right or wrong answer. I do, however, get sick of saying that I'm not bothered about how others run their lives and families, but I am bothered when the system that enables some to opt out of taxation whilst others are given no choice but to support them to do so. I remain unconvinced that one person's taxes (however much they are in £££) can cover another's - if there were a way for one parent to actually pay for another (on top of their own tax bill based on their earnings) that would be one way, but I doubt that would encourage people to have more children.

I agree, Miss A. How can we legislate so that there are no children with raggy clothes and big tellies . I also agree with biglouis that the work ethic is changing. That may be just as well, given that AI is likely to pull the rug from under the way work and reward has been structured since the Industrial Revolution.

biglouis

Hard as it may seem to many people we have to get away from this idea that life is about working. The work ethic is dying so we need something to put in its place. And governments need to come up with a more creative way to pay for services than taxation.

Well, you have a choice between borrowing or creating money, without taxation to back either. Or people pay to access services. What do you suggest?

nanna8

One thing I like about not relying on any government pensions or assistance whatsoever is that I don’t have to hang around those dingy offices with supercilious creeps deciding my future. Worth the unfairness.

I was one of those “supercilious creeps” for 13 years!

Hard as it may seem to many people we have to get away from this idea that life is about working. The work ethic is dying so we need something to put in its place. And governments need to come up with a more creative way to pay for services than taxation.

Presumably they'll need to be the right sort of children, though?
Not those whose parents feed them rubbish, and don't teach them manners, and pride, and that there is no such thing as a free lunch?

Not ones who may work part time, or those whose parents have come from generations of people who simply get given benefits for doing nothing...

Doodledog

The only way people will have more children is if we subsidise childcare and reduce the cost of housing. Both are just too expensive now.

Or make sah parent a priority, by way of taxes.

I know, I know, I know, wrong answer!

The only way people will have more children is if we subsidise childcare and reduce the cost of housing. Both are just too expensive now.

We need more people to have more children, otherwiseour children and grandchildren will have miserable old ages with out care or comfort - or we could introduce compulsory euthenasia.

Doodledog

My suggestion that the woman might be Catholic was just one possibility to explain the size of her family, which seemed to be relevant to GSM's rather nebulous point. It was not intended to suggest that all Catholics have large families.

As a forever Catholic I always laugh when people imply we all have large families. I know you didn't say that Doodledog but it is funny. We only have 4 children (though I've lost 4 others).

Through the years the Popes could have changed stance on birth control and they have not - but it seems to me Catholics, in general, have adopted ideas not in agreement with the Pope.

I'm not sure when, but there has been some change since I was a child in Catholic school with other girls from equally large families as my family. Our daughters only have 2 children each and as I said we only had 4.

When I take our GC and GGC to school I'm pleased to see larger family groups, a wonderful change back towards my childhood.

Difficult to comment without knowing this young lady’s job and her hours.

My daughter is also a millennial, slighter younger. Her job is very stressful. Recently she received a big pay rise and we were discussing the possibility of her working part time – 4 days so that she can have a better work life balance.

She changed her mind because she knows she will end up doing 5 days works in 4 days at a reduced salary.

One of her friends works as a dentist on a very high salary and can afford to work part time if she wishes to.

Really? You would disinherit your 'dear' daughter for working part-time?

I've heard it all now.

If the person was my DD I wouldn't be leaving any inheritance for her. If her attitude to life continues she won't mind being by-passed. Even though renting, doesn't mean there are no funds already held by her. Hope there isn't an expectation to have a full retirement pension, low contributions means low return. Thankfully there are a lot of younger people who do work and work hard to achieve their goals in life.

My suggestion that the woman might be Catholic was just one possibility to explain the size of her family, which seemed to be relevant to GSM's rather nebulous point. It was not intended to suggest that all Catholics have large families.

The astronomical cost of childcare in the UK is often cited as a reason for women to have less children. I believe there are other significant reasons.

Less and less women are falling for the tired old idea that it is somehow their "lot" in life to breed - and all the inconvenience, mess and physical cost that comes with it. More and more women having the intelligence and independence to ask "How is this life going to serve my interests?"

I didn’t make that claim though, I said there were now more large families in higher income groups? I don’t think they are discouraged, it’s a status thing.

Not sufficient to stop the birthrate in this country falling belwo replacement level.. Perhaps they should be encouraged.

M0nica

I might add, I do not know any 'middle class' (whatever that means) families with 4 children. When both parents have well paid professional jobs. they generally have 2 children.

This is why this country, like 75% of countries world wide have birthrates below replacement level.

There’s a growing trend for middle class (ie higher income) families to have four or more children Monica, even if you don’t know any. If you follow Mumsnet there are often threads about it. More people are having no children, or just one child, which offsets it, but it’s definitely happening.

Think the answer could be a term they use today "Side Hustle" ?

Bizarre comments about "uneducated " parents. What is educated? Is it the same as academic? I don't think so.

Still, the penis mug is amusing.