B1492 – Taxation of Minors Bill 2019 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1

What is this thread about?
This is a bill in the Model House of Commons (MHoC). It's a piece of proposed legislation that is currently being debated, and there's a good chance that the House will later vote on whether to pass it into TSR law. All are welcome and encouraged to ask questions about the bill's content and join in the debate – you don't have to be in a party or be an MP to do so.

What is the MHoC?
It's a political role-playing game where we pretend to be the House of Commons, and it's been going since 2005. We have formed parties, we have elections twice a year, and we debate bills and motions just like the real-life parliament. If you want to know more about how the MHoC works, your first port of call is the user manual. If you'd like to get involved and possibly join a party, you want the welcome thread.


B1492 – Taxation of Minors Bill 2019, TSR Libertarian Party


Taxation of Minors Bill 2019

An Act to remove income tax and national insurance liabilities from minors.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1. Minimum ages
(1) No person below the age of 18 shall be liable to pay income tax;
(2) No person below the age of 18 shall be liable to pay national insurance contributions.

2.Short title, Commencement, Extent
(1) This act may be cited as the Taxation of Minors Act 2019
(2) This act comes into force on upon royal assent
(3) This act shall extend to England and Wales

Notes
We often hear the payment of direct taxation at 16 being used as a justification for the reducing of the voting age with the oft quoted platitude "no taxation without representation". This bill seeks to remove the issue of minors being liable to, at least in some cases, pay taxes on their income while not having the right to vote by increasing the age at which these taxes are paid to be in line with the voting age.

Costing

While there seems to be little readily available data in the public domain showing how many under 18s are in work, let alone how many hours they work or what their income is, we believe the exchequer impact of this bill to be negligible given that even on the over 25 minimum wage it would take 30 hours of work per week to use up the full personal allowance, and 20 to be liable to pay national insurance.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
As the costings point out, this Bill will have a negligible impact affecting little numbers; I see no reason to oppose this.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
How will you stop those over 18 such as parents or family businesses paying under 18s to reduce tax liabilities? Or overpaid Premier League footballers- there may be Man City players earning six or seven figures at 17.

I'd prefer the issue to be resolved by giving the vote at 16. In any case, over the years indirect taxation has been increased (VAT now 20%, was 8% in the 70s), whereas duties on goods only legally bought by those over 18 (booze, to an extent petrol) have not gone up by as much.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by barnetlad)
How will you stop those over 18 such as parents or family businesses paying under 18s to reduce tax liabilities? Or overpaid Premier League footballers- there may be Man City players earning six or seven figures at 17.

I'd prefer the issue to be resolved by giving the vote at 16. In any case, over the years indirect taxation has been increased (VAT now 20%, was 8% in the 70s), whereas duties on goods only legally bought by those over 18 (booze, to an extent petrol) have not gone up by as much.
Employing under-18s will still be unprofitable except in the most extreme cases like premier league footballers as you say, because of the additional workplace regulations and laws on breaks and shift patterns that apply to 16 and 17 year olds that make them naturally less productive than those over 18.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
A bill which has my full support.
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
What is the point of this? If they earn enough to be taxed at that age, don't they deserve it as much as anybody else?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
While, like others, I'd prefer to see the vote at 16 to solve the issue, this does have my support if the current petition fails, as it remedies a problem I seek to address. If the petition passes, I shall be opposing this, and if future legislation supporting votes at 16 pass, I shall seek to repeal this if it is also passed.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
I'm undecided but somewhere between a Nay and Abstain.

While i see the logic i do share Saunders view and generally dislike age discrimination for most purposes. In addition, without costing you would not be getting more than an abstain anyway.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by Rakas21)
I'm undecided but somewhere between a Nay and Abstain.

While i see the logic i do share Saunders view and generally dislike age discrimination for most purposes. In addition, without costing you would not be getting more than an abstain anyway.
£3.52

The data required to give an anywhere near specific cost is not in the public domain, but given the size of the demographic and existing law even you could not argue it is above the £100m threshold to even vaguely be able to justify a need for costing according to the not so often followed precedent
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 1 month ago
0
TheRadishPrince
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
Given that you even say it is negligible cost wise this seems to be more interested as a bill in trying to halt any votes at 16 push in the future rather than being a typical Libertarian anti-tax bill seeing how little they pay as is.

See little real reason to support this so Nay.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by TheRadishPrince)
Given that you even say it is negligible cost wise this seems to be more interested as a bill in trying to halt any votes at 16 push in the future rather than being a typical Libertarian anti-tax bill seeing how little they pay as is.

See little real reason to support this so Nay.
And the votes at 16 proposition is headed towards a decisive defeat
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
nay. there are plenty of teenagers who work in movies, tv, music, modelling and social media that make a substantial income. it would seem very odd and somehow illegal if someone like Maisie Williams making 1 mill a year didn't have to pay tax for the first four years of her career. bearing in mind also it would take the average adult 25+ years to make what she does per/year and her one year tax contribution is probably equivalent to more than 100 teenagers. i don't think the general public would support this tax cut at all.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by Joleee)
nay. there are plenty of teenagers who work in movies, tv, music, modelling and social media that make a substantial income. it would seem very odd and somehow illegal if someone like Maisie Williams making 1 mill a year didn't have to pay tax for the first four years of her career. bearing in mind also it would take the average adult 25+ years to make what she does per/year and her one year tax contribution is probably equivalent to more than 100 teenagers. i don't think the general public would support this tax cut at all.
The amount of under-18s in acting/professional football and other exceptional careers is a negligible percentage of the population. It is not a logically valid argument to simply point out an anomalous result in a data cluster...

Also whether “the general public would support it” is irrelevant, most of the general public are uneducated and largely apolitical, most of them would support the death penalty but I imagine you won’t be using that argument there?

This is why MPs are representatives and not delegates, the views of the public do not matter.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
:bump:
0
ThePootisPower
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
Nay.

Unless a special exemption is made so that those who make substantial and abnormal income are fully taxed, because the rich don't need more tax cuts.

Also, this bill doesn't really need to exist when you consider that the Votes at 16 movement is NOT supported by the public as of this YouGov poll, which clearly shows that no matter how the question is lead, the majority don't want Votes at 16.

Either ensure that special case extraordinarily high income is taxed (hell, it's good for the budget at least), or drop the bill and just accept that Votes at 16 is a argument nobody can support.
Attached files
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#16
This did eventually go to vote but never got linked.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Biology Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (334)
15.63%
The paper was reasonable (1166)
54.56%
Not feeling great about that exam... (461)
21.57%
It was TERRIBLE (176)
8.24%

Watched Threads

View All