From: "Andy Pandy" 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: OT:Govt Benefits - info needed.
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:20:16 -0000


"Tim"  wrote in message news:bvaoa6$bo3$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> > Overall, taxes and benefits considered, the single people will be better
> off.
>
> Look further back.  At 11.17am on 28th, you actually said: "families ... are
> getting more heavily taxed than eg childless couples and single people".
> You did *not* mention benefits at this point!

We've already had this conversation... at 15:34 I wrote:

"> Surely the differences (comparing like-with-like) will only be due to
> *benefits*, and not *taxes*?

If "like-for-like" also means the same number of earners, then yes, it's
benefits which results in the single people taking home more.
"

> And when queried why *tax* would be higher for a family unit compared to an
> otherwise similar "non-family" unit, you used the example of personal
> allowances, which of course does *not* compare "like-with-like".

My definition of "like-with-like" was the essential elements, such as number of
people and income. A non-earner has very similar financial requirements to an
earner, they still need to eat and have a roof above their head, so I can't
really see the point in insisting on the same number of earners and non-earners
in the groups, any more than the same shoe size or hair colour.

> True, after tax & *benefits* - 4 single people may be better off.  But I
> stand by my statement refuting yours that "families ... are getting more
> heavily *taxed* than eg childless couples and single people".

My reasoning behind that was that a family is far more likely to have more
non-earners.

Anyway, I don't really care, the important issue is that tax *and* benefits
considered, a group of 4 single people will nearly always be better off than a
family of 4 on the same income.

> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> >  If there are less younger taxpayers in the future,
> > then a) pensioners will have to pay much more tax to
> > make up the difference, ...
>
> Only if they have taxable earnings or some investments which aren't
> tax-free!

Well someone has to pay the taxes - maybe the government will be forced into
abolishing all tax free perks and introducing a wealth tax.

--
Andy