Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
It is a service from which mainly those families profit, in which both parents work, and that independent of chosen unemployment or due to a lack of appropriate workplaces.

And so what? Tax credits for having children - which you stated in the diary that you approve of - also provide more benefit to families where both parents work.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 10:14:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you have not understood the argument. I'm purely for reasons of justice, not solidarity for tax rebates. Families with a certain life style pay more taxes than non-families. That's against the principle, that everybody should be taxed according to his capability to do so. Even the constitutional court ruled, that the tax examption is too low. If there is no money for it, taxes for singles (like me) and childless pairs have to be raised to regain a just system. There is a clear priciple, so it is not just always increasing tax rebates, but to do it until a well defined point is reached. As far as I know France has such a system, but I'm not completely sure.

The current situation is, that the CDU wants to increase direct payments, while at least at the beginning the SPD wanted to use the money for child nurseries. This is current politics. I have never said there should not be direct payments, I just don't see an accapted principle, which would define how high the payments should be exactly. Here as well the question of the general financial situation of the gov can play a role. The last year the situation was good and the parties want to spend some money for families and the question is what to do.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 02:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Families with a certain life style pay more taxes than non-families.

Uh, how exactly do they pay more taxes, if they have the same income and lifestyle? I thought you said that they got tax credits for having children?

As an aside, I find the definition of "family" as meaning "man, woman, biological and/or adopted children" to be nonsensical. Why is it the state's business to determine that a man and a woman are a family which is extended legal benefits, while a woman and two men or two men or four parents and their adult children are not?

If you want to provide legislative and economic benefits to families - for which I think there is a case to be made - you should at the very least permit consenting adults and their children to form whatever family structure suits them. In which case I would guess that most of the toy models used to justify subsidies to families would fall apart. Even leaving aside the fact that quite a lot of conservatives would certainly stop endorsing such subsidies - I have a strong suspicion that for a lot of these people it's less about supporting families than about supporting nuclear families. Which I find nonsensical bordering on the hypocritical.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 02:39:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Simple example, let's define a set of things, which are part of a certain lifestyle, a certain amount of food for everybody, cloths, flat, and that the people earn exactly enough money to pay for this. Already with this items a middle class family buying exact the same products, only more, e.g. 4 T-shirts instead of 2, the family will pay a higher percentage of income taxes than the couple. How do you define same lifestyle, if you assume that you can have the same lifestyle with the same income with more people? If I have to share my food with two children I don't have the lifestyle I have, when I don't have to share it.

Fine, lets get rid of the state. I want subsidies, but more important I want justice. And this is something I really want for everybody. I know that indeed today the majority of conservatives does not want to give the right of economic unification to gays, but I think this will change with time and it proves a lack of understanding, that this is not a subsidy. No of this 'models' fall apart, if you use it for any group of people who want to belong together and take responsibilty for each other. You could even take an order as an example, where this works.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 03:28:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How do you define same lifestyle, if you assume that you can have the same lifestyle with the same income with more people? If I have to share my food with two children I don't have the lifestyle I have, when I don't have to share it.

Food shouldn't be a major part of the budget for a two-income family. If it is, then there is something atrociously wrong with your society's income distribution.

But that's an aside. Of course I am not claiming that you will have as much money for yourself if you choose to have children. And I guess you've sold me on the idea of giving some kind of legs-up to families with children (I would argue, however, that single parents should be counted as families).

My remaining beef is more with the fact that you want to help the kids through tax credits. I don't know how the German tax system works in detail, but I would imagine that a tax credit simply reduces your taxable income, in which case a tax credit would be socially regressive compared to subsidised daycare, free public transportation for children and similar measures.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 08:26:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The single parents get the split already today in the German tax system, if they are married, though not if they are samesex married, but as I already said, I think they should have the tax spitting as well.

Sure tax rebates are regressive, but it is a (multi)child vs. nochild family argument, and if children are now accounted for in the tax system right, then for singles and single parents the tax system is not progressive enough. I want the same progressivness for all. I was aware from the other "What are conservatives" diary, that some say conservatives always want just less taxes, but here I'm arguing for a well defined priniciple, which not even says something on the overall rate or the state quote or progressivness in general. With some recent changes in sole traders and partnerships  taxation (which was before simply the private taxation, which I think is better, however it is changed) I don't even think a higher marginal tax would hurt the economy (though I don't like it), but even this rate was 56% after 16 years of conservative rule, while 45% after 7 years red-green.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 07:51:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, sorry I've misunderstood, what single parents means, I thought at first single partents as parents without children. Probably you mean one parent with a number of children.

So they do't get the splitting now, but of course get the child payments and would get the splitting if it would be introduced.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 09:14:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series