I want to pay less tax because I don't want children

Ellie2008

I

bumper234

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I don't see why I should have to subsidise education, healthcare, child benefit or anything else in an equal portion to parents, not saying I shouldn't have to contribute at all but should there be a tax benefit for not having children?

But all of the people who.paid there taxes to subsidise those things when you were a child, that's ok?

Ellie2008

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I don't see why I should have to subsidise education, healthcare, child benefit or anything else in an equal portion to parents, not saying I shouldn't have to contribute at all but should there be a tax benefit for not having children?

I want to pay less tax because I don't smoke or drink. I want to pay less tax because I eat right. I want to pay less tax because I drive a smaller car. I want to pay less tax because I've good genes and am less likely to burden the health service than most.

Oh right. It just doesn't work like that, since we're all members of society.

A Dub in Glasgo

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I don't see why I should have to subsidise education, healthcare, child benefit or anything else in an equal portion to parents, not saying I shouldn't have to contribute at all but should there be a tax benefit for not having children?

Are you also going to pay back all the benefits you had when you were a child / teenager?

RayM

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I don't see why I should have to subsidise education, healthcare, child benefit or anything else in an equal portion to parents, not saying I shouldn't have to contribute at all but should there be a tax benefit for not having children?

If everything goes as it should, you're basically subsidising the people who - when you get really old - will end up subsidising you.

riffmongous

What about that future pension crisis? If anything there should be more tax for people who dont have children :P

Pwindedd

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I don't see why I should have to subsidise education, healthcare, child benefit or anything else in an equal portion to parents, not saying I shouldn't have to contribute at all but should there be a tax benefit for not having children?

And all of today's children contributing to the economy when you are old, grey and pissing your pants in a cold lonely old folks home.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

It's called beeing a part of society. We don't contribute for own own benefit. I assume you are not physically or mental disabled either. So do you not want to assist people who are ? People who don't use of libraries, parks, swimming pools, etc should pax less tax too so. I don't use the motorway much so can I get back my contributions to road building and maintenance.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to only pay towards the things we want to?

Ellie2008

bumper234 wrote: »

But all of the people who.paid there taxes to subsidise those things when you were a child, that's ok?

Including my parents. Parents pay for children as they don't have their own means.

A Dub in Glasgo

Ellie2008 wrote: »

Including my parents. Parents pay for children as they don't have their own means.

Do you really think your parents paid the subsidy to you in tax?

Creol1

I think we should stop allowing married people to pay less tax. The very fact that schooling, etc., are provided by taxation single people pay undermines the case for the State in effect subsidising them and their choice.

Ellie2008

Casen Refined Poem wrote: »

It's called beeing a part of society. We don't contribute for own own benefit. I assume you are not physically or mental disabled either. So do you not want to assist people who are ? People who don't use of libraries, parks, swimming pools, etc should pax less tax too so. I don't use the motorway much so can I get back my contributions to road building and maintenance.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to only pay towards the things we want to?

I'm 100% happy to pay for disabled people thank you very much or the unemployed etc. or any disadvantaged group etc. and parks etc that benefit society generally they are there for me to use if I so choose.

I think think people who clog up A&E due to drunken behaviour should have to pay for it.

I think having a child is a luxury, there are plenty of people in the world, many of whom I'm sure would love to work in this country so I don't need your children to create the next generation of taxpayers.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Ellie2008 wrote: »

Including my parents. Parents pay for children as they don't have their own means.

You'll find the cost to the state of caring for your health and education alone was much more than your parent's total tax contribution during your childhood.

I think you need to think this through a bit more.

Ellie2008

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Do you really think your parents paid the subsidy to you in tax?

My parents and of course others but I would argue that wasn't fair on those others.

Ellie2008

Casen Refined Poem wrote: »

You'll find the cost to the state of caring for your health and education alone was much more than your parent's total tax contribution during your childhood.

I think you need to think this through a bit more.[/

But that is exactly my point?!!

Ellie2008

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I'm 100% happy to pay for disabled people thank you very much or the unemployed etc. or any disadvantaged group etc. and parks etc that benefit society generally they are there for me to use if I so choose.

I think think people who clog up A&E due to drunken behaviour should have to pay for it.

I think having a child is a luxury, there are plenty of people in the world, many of whom I'm sure would love to work in this country so I don't need your children to create the next generation of taxpayers.

You do realise that we need the birthrate to rise so that we have workers funding your retirement?

You're under the impression that you're doing society a favour here, but you're not.

Let's just have no tax then, just pay as you use stuff.

Annasopra

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I don't need your children to create the next generation of taxpayers.

You do actually. If there is not enough taxpayers then healthcare and pensions for you will be funded less in the future. Having a new generation of taxpayers funds you in later years.

A Dub in Glasgo

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I think having a child is a luxury

Fcukin hell

michellie

The OP starts very odd threads...

Ahem*attention seeker*ahem

Ellie2008

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You do actually. If there is not enough taxpayers then healthcare and pensions for you will be funded less in the future.

No I need people any people not just Irish people so up immigration the world is over populated anyway.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's just have no tax then, just pay as you use stuff.

There'll be no cracks for anyone to fall through in that scenario!

And it would be so cost and time efficient too! Sure there'll be no bureaucracy at all at all!

Annasopra

Ellie2008 wrote: »

No I need people any people not just Irish people so up immigration the world is over populated anyway.

Thats not workable as immigrants would still be having babies.

FloatingVoter

Its that time of the year when we're sick of rugrats getting under our feet everyday. They'll be back in their detention centres come September but the summer holidays are getting very old at this point.
This leads to radical ideas and intense emotions.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Thats not workable as immigrants would still be having babies.

Sterilise the immigrants.

Sounds fair!

Son Of A Vidic

I'm only posting to say, that I just noticed A Dub in Glasgo's new signature. Very nice.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

There'll be no cracks for anyone to fall through in that scenario!

And it would be so cost and time efficient too! Sure there'll be no bureaucracy at all at all!

Exactly, it'll be perfect. Pay for 20 year construction projects fully before you can use them. Still worth it though, so you can laugh at the people who didn't pay as they take the newly-uncongested facilities already available.

Annasopra

Candie wrote: »

Sterilise the immigrants.

Sounds fair!

Again not workable. You're spending the OPs retirement funds on public sterilisation programmes.

Snake

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I'm 100% happy to pay for disabled people thank you very much or the unemployed etc. or any disadvantaged group etc. and parks etc that benefit society generally they are there for me to use if I so choose.

I think think people who clog up A&E due to drunken behaviour should have to pay for it.

I think having a child is a luxury, there are plenty of people in the world, many of whom I'm sure would love to work in this country so I don't need your children to create the next generation of taxpayers.

My arse. Jesus it's not hard to tell when someone isn't a parent.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Again not workable. You're spending the OPs retirement funds on public sterilisation programmes.

Lets sterilise the OP instead.

She might change her mind and try welch on paying back all the tax she got away without contributing. I for one am not willing to take that risk.

AnonoBoy

I want to pay less tax.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

Lets sterilise the OP instead.

She might change her mind and try welch on paying back all the tax she got away without contributing. I for one am not willing to take that risk.

I've got this post bookmarked to use against you in future.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I've got this post bookmarked to use against you in future.

Nah, it's OP specific.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

Nah, it's OP specific.

I'll find a way, I always do. :P

Iwasfrozen

Candie wrote: »

You do realise that we need the birthrate to rise so that we have workers funding your retirement?

You're under the impression that you're doing society a favour here, but you're not.

Screw society. Stop taxing me for **** I don't need and I'll look after my own pension thank you very much.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Screw society. Stop taxing me for **** I don't need and I'll look after my own pension thank you very much.

Probably gonna be more expensive for you to pay for a personal 24 hour bodyguard once you've screwed that society though.

twowheelsonly

Creol1 wrote: »

I think we should stop allowing married people to pay less tax. The very fact that schooling, etc., are provided by taxation single people pay undermines the case for the State in effect subsidising them and their choice.

Eh.....I see two flaws in your argument there

1. Married people pay tax too so are also paying for schools etc., and...
2. Single people have been known to pop out the odd sprog here and there as well!!

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Screw society. Stop taxing me for **** I don't need and I'll look after my own pension thank you very much.

We're all members of society. Some contribute, some don't, some do a combination of either or both at different times.

Once you count yourself as a member of a society, the aim is to contribute to the greater good. Obviously some don't, and live outside many societal norms, but by and large people recognise that their tax goes towards public services that they may or may not avail of, but must be made available for the greater good.

One day you might need those services you think you might never use now.

anncoates

The luxury point is actually back to front.

Seeing as a certain amount of people have to produce kids for fairly obvious reasons, the choice not to have kids is a luxury afforded to you by others and not something that should be rewarded with tax breaks.

Before anybody jumps down my throat, being child free is perfectly acceptable and I'm not knocking It obviously.

mfceiling

I don't want my children's taxes to pay your pension...

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

Probably gonna be more expensive for you to pay for a personal 24 hour bodyguard once you've screwed that society though.

And the roads, and the education, and his own healthcare.

anncoates

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Screw society. Stop taxing me for **** I don't need and I'll look after my own pension thank you very much.

If only people that want this genuinely would. As in don't use anything funded by others like the police , roads, ambulances, parks, essential services etc.

But you won't because it's just a whinge about lower taxes that isn't particularly thought through .

The Highwayman

Candie wrote: »

I want to pay less tax because I don't smoke or drink. I want to pay less tax because I eat right. I want to pay less tax because I drive a smaller car. I want to pay less tax because I've good genes and am less likely to burden the health service than most.

Oh right. It just doesn't work like that, since we're all members of society.

You do pay less tax, you dont pay the VAT on drink, fags, less car tax and probably health insurance


Anyway all tax is theft

Iwasfrozen

anncoates wrote: »

If only people that want this genuinely would. As in don't use anything funded by others like the police , roads, ambulances, parks, essential services etc.

But you won't because it's just a whinge about lower taxes that isn't particularly thought through .

I'm happy to pay tax for police, ambulances, roads and essential services (parks aren't necessary). I support minimal government not anarchy.

Candie wrote: »

We're all members of society. Some contribute, some don't, some do a combination of either or both at different times.

Once you count yourself as a member of a society, the aim is to contribute to the greater good. Obviously some don't, and live outside many societal norms, but by and large people recognise that their tax goes towards public services that they may or may not avail of, but must be made available for the greater good.

One day you might need those services you think you might never use now.

Let's do better. Let's change the way society is run. Have a minimal government to provide policing, roads, emergency services and a legal system.

House of Blaze

The Highwayman wrote: »

You do pay less tax, you dont pay the VAT on drink, fags, less car tax and probably health insurance


Anyway all tax is theft

You would know anyway highwayman..

Whatever happened to "Your money, or your life?"

dickface

Strong independent womyn don't want to pay no taxes for some parasi...children.

anncoates

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

(parks aren't necessary)

Maybe others like them.

It really does denote an almost heroic sense of self absorption to see society so starkly in terms of what suits you.

Iwasfrozen

anncoates wrote: »

Maybe others like them.

Then let others pay for them.

Shakespeare's Sister

I don't get this fashion of saying "A child is a luxury", "A child is a lifestyle choice" as if a child is a pair of expensive shoes.

House of Blaze

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

I don't get this fashion of saying "A child is a luxury", "A child is a lifestyle choice" as if a child is a pair of expensive shoes.

In fairness you do see a rising number of people who treat their kids like a fashion accessory.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Let's change the way society is run. Have a minimal government to provide policing, roads, emergency services and a legal system.

And anything else you think might benefit you in particular.

Society is made up of people. To run society the way you want you'd have to have a majority of like-minded people to yourself.

I genuinely hope people like you are rarities.