Cycling UK Forum

[quoteLike many things I suspect this raises the question as to how the numbers are counted. At the moment I will be a net drain as I have three kids in school (costing the taxpayer approx 15k) but in in 30 years I will have three kids earning and contributing; vs my DINKY friends who claim nothing now but will only be drawing out from the system in 30 years time.][/quote]

Presumably in 30 years time if your children have children of their own, by your own logic, they too will be a net drain rather than net contributors. So lets hear it for the DINKYs.

belgiangoth wrote:

pete75 wrote:It's the logic of describing someone as double income no kids YET and then saying they won't have children.

I think you're grasping at straws here. You could say that no-one should since by miracle or medical marvel people could have kids in their 50s or 60s. Yes it would be odd to describe 20 year olds as DINKYs, questionable in their 30s, but I don't see why it wouldn't be clearly applied to people in their 40s.

You've got it the wrong way round - DINKY is a description for people who can have kids but haven't had any YET. It's not a description that can be applied to people past child bearing age.

No, DINKYs = Dual Income No Kids.
It is the venn diagram intersection of two people, both with jobs, no kids.
Why does this confuse you?

belgiangoth wrote:No, DINKYs = Dual Income No Kids.
It is the venn diagram intersection of two people, both with jobs, no kids.
Why does this confuse you?

What do you think the Y is for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DINK_(acronym)

Here's a long read that looks at the core of the issue raised in this thread. It's about the effects of taxation policies, as well as the nature of taxation within socio-economic orders such as nation-states.

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/ ... -economics

Here's the concluding paragraph:

Much of the inequality we see today in richer countries is more down to decisions made by governments than to irreversible market forces. These decisions can be changed. However, we have to want to control inequality: we must make inequality reduction a central aim of government policy and wider society. The most entrenched, self-deluding and self-perpetuating justifications for inequality are about morality, not economy. The great economist John Kenneth Galbraith nicely summarised the problem: “One of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy … is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. It is an exercise which always involves a certain number of internal contradictions and even a few absurdities. The conspicuously wealthy turn up urging the character-building value of privation for the poor.”

The article will be auto-rejected by many as "leftist" although in fact it's outside of the tired old left-right politics really, despite considering the economic ideology mostly adhered to by those who also tend to the right in Western deomocracies. The above conclusion is perhaps a political statement but it's based on a very clear and unpartisan analysis of the effects of tax rates within a society.

Try a sustained read. I'd be interested in criticisms or challenges to the author's main propositions about taxation rates.

Cugel

al_yrpal wrote:I did some calculations a couple of years ago and I concluded that as a basic rate taxpayer 30% of my income eventually goes in tax...income tax, Council Tax, VED, tax on fuel, airline tax, insurance tax etc etc. Its pretty horrifying.

Also, all the money you spend on goods and services, is also taxed via the shops' income tax, VAT, business rates etc etc etc.

PH wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DINK_(acronym)

Yuppie