h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have seen many postings and writings mentioning benefits for Parents, and how 2.4 offspring are essential for the upkeep of parents and grandparents into their dotage

I'm wondering if that is true. It probably is, or there wouldn't be so much written about the subject.

However, as a committed singleton, with no offspring that I know about, I often wonder who puts more into the system, takes more out and, financially, which is better for the State?

There are so many factors to take into account on both sides of the coin.

From the couple's perspective there may/would be child benefits, maternity/paternity leave, anti- and post-natal classes, food vouchers, nursery costs, education, medical costs, free public transport, free museum/gallery entry etc. Ability to benefit from BOGOF's.

All of these would be times 2, or 4.4, (except the latter) depending on whether it includes the children.

However there are also dual income tax payments and national insurance contributions, full Council tax bill payments etc. as well as payments for food, clothing, school clothing and equipment etc.

For the Singleton, usually the benefits are medical costs, and 25% off Council tax. As far as I am aware there are no other benefits, but please correct me if I am wrong.

There are no discounts, or benefits otherwise, often getting a single person surcharge slapped on for holidays, or paying full price. As an example, a Hotel room at £50 could be £60 for a singleton, while a couple would pay £25 each, saving £35 each, if charged as singletons.

Now the above is fine, although possibly skewed in favour of the couple, but when both the Singleton and the Couple reach retirement age and beyond, who comes out on the plus side of the equation?

The Singleton who, having bought no progeny into the world has paid his way through, and not added to the financial costs through his tenure.

Or the Couple, who having had 2.4 children, have their retirement sorted by their children working, despite the costs of bringing those children into the world and sustaining them throughout their childhood to working age.

I cannot find a definitive answer anywhere, and wondered if anyone could help.

And please, this is a serious question, and not one intended to stoke animosity or political argument, although the latter will surely come into it, as benefits, costs etc have all been changed over the years.

I just ask that postings, where possible, are friendly, informative and rational, and I apologise for any bias toward the Singleton but having not experienced the other aspect, it is hard for me to post otherwise.



MMF

You have to ask yourself what is the purpose of the human civilisation? Is it to perpetuate the race? Or is it to maintain the economic health of the state system?

"have their retirement sorted by their children working"

Really?

By that, Beatrice, I mean that allegedly the children pay into the system for their parents in their older life, rather than the parents having paid in to cover their own retirement.

This is one of the things I do not understand. I thought I paid tax and N.I. to cover myself

There are just so many questions that keep cropping up when I run through the single/married benefits/costs scenario.



MMF

And Icy, I can understand the need to perpetuate the population but, with the Western world having a largely stable population that is not really a factor. However that may well be a deep-seated genetic drive, except a proportion of the population use contraception.

My query is purely based on the fiscal side of the population. Does a Singleton pay, throughout their life, for all the costs they incur, and leave a net credit/debit? And which has the greatest profit/loss on society, taking what they pay into the system and what they take out?

It seems a simple question but is far more complex than I thought.



MMF

"Does a Singleton pay, throughout their life, for all the costs they incur, and leave a net credit/debit?"

This assumes that the singleton works 25 or more years, which is not always the case. Some people remain single owing to a lack of qualities that would make for attraction to other singletons, not that that explains a lot of cases. Still, it should probably be part of the discussion. I think back three or four decades, when one spouse [usually the male] earned money outside the home, while the other spouse [usually female] maintained the household and made sure the children didn't strangle themselves or anyone else . Again, there are prominent exceptions, i.e. wealthy families that have servants to do these things. If/when the daughters try to make unsuitable matches, the parents can arrange to send them on tour far away.

I think, though, that most people recognize the advantages of living in a society that doesn't let innocent people with accidentally huge needs founder on the shoals of random chance.

'This is one of the things I do not understand. I thought I paid tax and N.I. to cover myself'

No. You pay this money to entitle you to make a claim and use services when you need them. Some services, like hospitals, your contribution entitles you to benefit from now - the funding for this coming from past and current contributions (and with bludding PFI, future contributions too - who the hell thought THAT was a good way forward Messers Major, Blair and Milburn? ). Current state pensions and benefits however, are funded (largely) from current(ish) contributions.

From day 1 of the welfare state (generally thought of as 1948 when the NI Act came into force), it cost a lot of money to run and there had been no significant contributions to it at that stage, although much of the structure was in place due to developments throughout the 1900's (and we had a massive war debt too). From day one, people were entitled to benefit without ever having made an NI contribution (my great-grandfather for instance, gained security overnight and did not have to work until he died in poverty leaving my great grandmother dependent on family and the parish. The dynamic was established at that time. It may be possible to shift the contribution / benefit points about so that you ARE paying for yourself, but that would have to be done over the course of many parliaments and would require long term cross party consensus and co-operation. Like THAT'S ever going to happen.....

PP.

Thanks PP. That's the sort of information that I am looking for.

However, and I was never good at maths, surely a Singleton only puts a single drain on the system whereas a 4.2 family puts a 4.2 drain on the system. Or does the 4.2 input offset that drain?

My two least favourite subjects, Economics and Statistics. Didn't get them at School. Don't get them now.



MMF

That is a big question...

In my case, I was unemployed then got a job in the public sector, so I am the proverbial drain on society in some ways, living off the taxpayer, except I provide useful services with my time. My parents worked in the private sector until they retired and earned a good amount to support 2.4 children with some left over as well as providing useful services with their time.

My guess is that singletons will have more choice of what they spend their money on while they are alive and more money left when they die. Whether you consider this a good thing is up to you.

Singletons still get to pay full council tax, and all utility costs are remarkably similar, work that out

Due to the population growth families will soon become the pariahs of the communities.

That doesn't quite read right, sorry...

What I essentially mean is that people who get money that was collected from others as tax contribute in time, whether as volunteer/family/public sector, and people who get money from other people directly also contribute with their time.

I don't think it was ever designed to return monetary benefit to the contributor that was entirely equivalent to one's personal contribution.

The premise of taxation in the UK, has for some time been 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. The Nasty Party don't really like it - it's a bit socialist. The Eds Under the Bed wouldn't use the term because it opens them up to being labeled as Marxist.

Governments spend billions mangling the system for collection and delivery.

As a (now) single man with a mortgage and adult children (both working), and on a reasonable salary (but not a 40% tax payer), I make few current demands on the system and have few (no) tax breaks. I'm reasonably well off, so end up paying stacks of VAT. I'm pretty much a net contributor to the needs of others. I understand and accept that. However, as a younger man I needed access to the NHS for the birth and health needs of my 2 children as well as their education. When I am older, my social and health care needs are likely to increase and the chances are that I will rely on the contributions of others.

All in all, over a lifetime, it tends to balance out for most people. And that's fine.

I think it is less to do with Economics and Statistics (although the 10 yearly census does contribute to planning) than it does with Politics. The government knows that it needs £123,456 squillion to run the country. They have to work out how to raise the cash without alienating their supporters.

PP.

We have nearly 2,000 years of dispute in this country it will continue for the foreseeable future. But there are those who misuse the system

And some costs will vary for a singleton against a 4.2 family.

Next door on the left I have a retired couple. On the right a young 2+2 family. Our houses are all the same size.

We share an army, air force and navy. I'm not sure whether they get 2 or 4 times more of it than I do.

There is a small river that runs down the back of our properties. 'The areas alongside the River Purwell were once notorious for regular flooding although in recent years, drainage improvements associated with house building appear to have alleviated the problem. (Wrongipedia)' I really can't say how to proportion the costs of that work between neighbours. I suspect that I benefit disproportionately.

I go to art galleries. I use up some of my neighbour's share of that.

And so on.

PP.

'Singletons still get to pay full council tax.....'

As it happens we get a 25% discount.

I'm not sure why other than it doesn't seem fair for me to pay the same as a couple even though it is a property based tax.

PP.

I wrote that last sentence late at night and had use up my daily quota of punctuation.

PP.

"Due to the population growth families will soon become the pariahs of the communities" [Bobstafford]

That may be more or less true depending on what country you hail from. I know that this site taps into mostly UK viewpoints, but it's fascinating to see, for instance, that in nearby France it's government policy to encourage large families. It should be no surprise, then, that whereas Italy and some other European countries aren't even reproducing enough to replace their current levels of population, France is growing slightly. Japan, like Italy, is gradually growing older, on average.

I think part of the economic value of children is that both children and their parents work lives overlap.

A singleton will educate for 20 years, work their 45 years and then go on the pension for 20 years.

A parent will educate for 20 years, work their 45 years etc, but during the latter 15 years of working their children will ALSO be working.

That is, during their lifespan, the community will get an aggregate 1/3 more work out of a human being who has spawned twice than one who hasn't. The more children you have the bigger the increase is. If parents really grow the population your community's work/income/productivity will increase dramatically.

That argument makes a lot of sense.