Which is better?

[Crocodile]

So which things would you have to pay if you are in a higher tax bracket?

Anyone who has studied any taxation laws knows that it is a slippery slope and the more taxes, the more laws, the more exceptions, the more inclusions - all in an effort to make everything "fair".

In Australia, one example is the Medicare Levy Surcharge. Australia has a reasonably good free health system, but a single person who earns over A$50k annually is "encouraged" to have private medical cover also. If they don't have private medical cover, they have to pay and extra 1% of their next income in tax. This is on top of the already 1.5% Medicare Levy that has to be paid - oh, except if you were exempt from that also (for various reasons). Yes, you can still use the free health care, but you have already paid either 2.5% of your income, or 1.5% of your income plus private medical insurance that you are not using, for the privilage of using the "free" care.

An example of money-for-nothing is the single mother at home with three kids. She receives a weekly income for each of those kids, including subsidised healthcare costs (pills, bills, etc) on things that aren't already free, subsidised public transport costs and others. Not saying it is a good life, but it is money/subsidies that I would never be entitled to. It doesn't take too many calcuations to work out that some people who don't work are financially better off than someone on minimum wage.

Trying to argue which taxation system works worldwide is fairly pointless as all countries are very different in their requirements of government. Ask yourself why Hong Kong doesn't have (or need?) a GST/VAT, but most major economic countries deem it necessary to having a robust and effective taxation system.

[chimo]

An example of money-for-nothing is the single mother at home with three kids. She receives a weekly income for each of those kids, including subsidised healthcare costs (pills, bills, etc) on things that aren't already free, subsidised public transport costs and others. Not saying it is a good life, but it is money/subsidies that I would never be entitled to. It doesn't take too many calcuations to work out that some people who don't work are financially better off than someone on minimum wage.

Bad example. A single mother with three kids shouldn't have to work.

In my opinion, men and women without children/elderly to support should be taxed much, much more. Men and women with a family to support should be given more tax breaks.

[hullexile]

Circles, circles. What system you deem best depends on your income level, your political views/values, and as I said before which culture you are from. No one model is proven better economically, both low and high taxation countries have done well and badly. Of course you could then look at social indices and I have not done that, my guess it would be pretty mixed again.

[Beuze]

Bad example. A single mother with three kids shouldn't have to work.

In my opinion, men and women without children/elderly to support should be taxed much, much more. Men and women with a family to support should be given more tax breaks.

So someone who decided not to have kids because he/she is not financially secure enough will have to pay for those who didn't think of that before ?

[Mat]

People get decent salaries by staying home?!?!?!

Where???

Where I come from: France

Assuming you have worked for a couple of years before, you have min 2 kids and leave in the country side, you earn more by gvt "subsidy" than by taking a job at the minimum salary (ie roughly 900 euros/month for a full time job)

[jimbo]

Bad example. A single mother with three kids shouldn't have to work.

In my opinion, men and women without children/elderly to support should be taxed much, much more. Men and women with a family to support should be given more tax breaks.

A single mother with three kids should get benefits i.e subsidised childcare whilst she goes out and works that I can't disagree with. However for the tax payer to pay for somebody to stay at home who is more than capable of actually working is a crazy idea.

The U.K model of a teenage girl who is unhappy at home decides to get herself pregnant and guess what? The local council gives her free housing and benefits whilst she stays at home is totally wrong.

Why should tax payers have to contribute to somebody that has not paid a single penny into the pot just because she's not happy at 'home'.

Plenty of young mums on council estates just popping out kid after kid so they can claim off the welfare state is frankly wrong.

[Mat]

the money you pay in taxes go back to yourself, through free, very good education for everybody, not only the rich, medical care for everybody, not only the rich, good infrastructure for everybody, security

Kind of like HK ....

[chimo]

So someone who decided not to have kids because he/she is not financially secure enough will have to pay for those who didn't think of that before ?

What is 'financially secure enough'? I'm 29 and could afford to have children. I know if I have a family I will not be able to enjoy the same lifestyle, but I chose not to and should be taxed higher. As I said, lower the taxes for people who have children.

[hullexile]

A single mother with three kids should get benefits i.e subsidised childcare whilst she goes out and works that I can't disagree with. However for the tax payer to pay for somebody to stay at home who is more than capable of actually working is a crazy idea.

The U.K model of a teenage girl who is unhappy at home decides to get herself pregnant and guess what? The local council gives her free housing and benefits whilst she stays at home is totally wrong.

Why should tax payers have to contribute to somebody that has not paid a single penny into the pot just because she's not happy at 'home'.

Plenty of young mums on council estates just popping out kid after kid so they can claim off the welfare state is frankly wrong.

The problem is either way has negatives. One way and it could be seen by some to encourage scrounging and the other way it could be seen by some to be inhumane. The middle ground seems very hard to find. Personally I don't think the UK way is too bad given the alternatives but FAR from perfect.

[Claire ex-ax]

As I said, lower the taxes for people who have children.

I think you'll find most places, Hong Kong included, gave child allowances to tax payers. Here it is $50,000 per child thus HK parents do pay lower taxes.