Under Working for Families some families will receive back as much as they pay in tax (some more, some less) which is why it can't strictly be called either welfare or tax relief. But this is the first time I have seen a threshold specified.
Working for Families means families earning less than $35,000 will effectively pay no tax by 2008.
Is it fair for teenagers, and single low income workers to be paying tax while these families pay none? For all the blathering the Left do about slave wages and upping the minimum youth and adult rates you don't hear them protesting vigorously ( or even weakly) about this anomaly.
Derek Mackie: For what it's worth
5 minutes ago
9 comments:
"Is it fair for teenagers, and single low income workers to be paying tax while these families pay none?"
Fine by me.
WFF is paying people to raise children. Neither of your examples is doing that (and if they were they woud get WFF) so whats the problem?
Lindsay, 35,000 has always been the thresshold. It is the thresshold where WFF starts to abate. At least for a family with a couple of kids
Dave, So why did the release say "by 2008"?
sb, you obviously regard children as a "public good". I don't.
Lindsay, the release said by 2008 because WFF is getting another increase before 2008, meaning those under 35k will effectively pay no tax due to this increase in WFF payments. Those who earn more than 35K will have their WFF abated, as they currently do, so that their payments do not reach the level of the tax they pay.
Linsay: "you obviously regard children as a "public good". I don't."
So when you retire you don't intend to claim a state pension? If you do intend to claim it then who are you expecting to make the contributions - my kids?
Sb
sb, my kids, unfortunately.
Dave, I know there is another increase coming. So I assumed that increase would take the threshold to 35k. Look, it really doesn't matter. It's the whole idea I am opposed to.
"So when you retire you don't intend to claim a state pension? If you do intend to claim it then who are you expecting to make the contributions - my kids?"
Lindsay...like many of us would have liked to make her own arrangements with her OWN money sd. Instead she's forced to pay to raise the results of others breeding.
Left alone she would not be requiring anyone's kids to fund her retirement.
Lindsay, IM opposed to the whole idea of a low wage economy, and those of us who are not part of this low wage economy still get assistance from the state if they have kids when they don't actually need it. That is not " each according to his needs" thats veiled tax relief.
So what will the marginal tax rates be for people hovering around the 35-45k mark (ie for a VERY large proportion of the population?)
Of course, it would be much more efficient to either:
1.) just not take the tax in the first place than to give it back (but then it either means that 'rich' people get money too), or:
2.) Take less tax and top-up the income (but that means it is much more visible as the welfare that it really is).
IMNSHO, WFF is a dependency trap that will maintain a low-wage economy due to massive marginal tax rates. The intergenerational effects of it will be as bad as any other welfare before it.
Post a Comment