No, well done on deliberately missing my point though.
The problem is the high end of the wage structure has too many vested interests.
No, but people who are paid cash in hand are more likely to pump that 20 or 30 quid straight back into the economy.
There is quite a big difference in the tax we would have too.
I think everyone knows we are in the final throws of neoliberalism; Thatcher and Reagan's social experiment has proved an unmitigated disaster.
Perhaps, can't be too sure. What we do know is that it will be fairly "flat".
Hello Europe!?
Quite a big contraction (Relatively speaking). All sectors seem to be down, however, with inflation falling I suspect that some sectors will pick up later on in the year.
Well yes i certainly wouldn't have it as front and centre of the government's policies on tax avoidance/evasion [a peripheral and debatable matter]. And if you saw this morning's Telegraph it has turned into a right dog's dinner of an issue, the minister likely regrets ever having made the remarks now.
That was borrowed money, though it was a decent stimulus, it never really was a revenue raising scheme, and caused an even bigger budget deficit. This is something the UK could probably do on a small scale, but any large borrowing would be an issue, because there is a massive fear of high bond rates with countries with huge debts (UK).
Poor people are also less poor. Some (or even a great deal) of anger at inequality is jealousy, righteously disguised as concern about fairness.
Agreed, although it's not that simple. For example, UK Rail has been renationalised in effect, it's still shit, and will get shitter.
The public sector is also exploding at the seams, let's not even talk about uncapped and wrongly accounted pension liabilities. If you define as unemployed people whom if they didn't turn up at work no one would notice they were gone, I'd bet many in the public sector are basically on the dole. So are many in the private sector, just not as many.
The money is an incentive to create employment, among several other incentives. Right now the government seems to have declared war on working, so there are actual disincentives to create employment. What are rich people going to do with the money? Yes, stash it somewhere else, and follow it later.
The fact is it wont fix itself
I agree that the conversation about inequality is more jealousy than fairness. But the public sector workers who don't turn up?! That's a load of nonsense. If you don't turn up for work, you get sacked, public or private. The biggest difference is probably flexible/part time working which is better in the public sector.
The government declared war on working? Really?! Can you tell me since the coalition came into power what "anti-working" measures they have brought it? So you want to be less taxes, so do I, but at the current time it's not possible with the public services the government pays for. Almost everything the government wants to cut played-up and screamed about like its a national disgrace.
Heh. We're certainly not going to bail them out, so hiding behind a brick wall and hoping it gets better is probably the least bad strategy - to a spineless Tory.
Not sure what the sarcasm is about. The Eurozone is our biggest trading partner. The fact doesn't change that we need to wait for the Eurozone, how long this takes isn't within the control of the UK government. We can promote some trade with out growing countries (but they too are slowing down like China and India), and that the single market controls trade policy also, so preferential treatment wouldn't really be possible.
No sarcasm, just pointing out that no-one is fixing it
No, I meant people who turn up and are ostensibly employed but don't really make a difference. Crude example - I went off on 2 weeks holiday and came back to more than 1,000 emails, even though I did an hour or so of email checking every day. It's just a guess, but maybe I'm needed for something. Maybe I do add to productivity. I observe that when some other people go off, I don't even notice they were gone. This has been so everywhere I've ever worked, and friends who work in the public sector say it's so there too, maybe even more so. There are people who don't move the dial on things done / money made, but they are still employed. These people are on the dole, effectively.
Very simple. Lots of attention has been lavished on "cuts" to public services but they (1) don't go far enough and (2) are only half the issue. Where's the incentive to get people back to work? Where's the reduction in income tax and rise in consumption tax? Instead marginal income tax rates have risen to 60% on some people, and is probably nearer 75% if you factor in all the other consumption and wealth taxes. feck that.
This is a sweeping generalization of public sector workers, they exist in the private sector too. I have family and friends, all of them mention sweet talkers, get their interns to do their work, and do nothing themselves, whilst they do very little other than have a few meals with some rich colleagues. Oh wait, that was a sweeping generalization too! Your argument is that of efficiency, it's true private sector is slightly more efficient, but I do think the vast, vast majority have added value, if not more than some private sector jobs. You've also missed out the problem with inactivity. Even though, as you say, these people who have no productive benefit are effectively "on the dole," they are at least gaining experience (for future productive employment?) and maintaining health and mental (reduction in health expenditure, disability, or incapacity?)
Freeze on council tax? Income tax thresholds higher for almost all the low-paid jobs? (almost everyone gained money for that and is a drop in tax), though on the margin it wouldn't really effect many people on a middle or high income. Like I said, you say that aren't far enough, but public opinion is saying they are too far. It's a fine balance of politics and economics.
.....Tory MP Douglas Carswell said:
It's a generalisation, but hardly sweeping. From observation around 30% of people employed in every company I've ever worked for don't really need to be there. I've not seen or heard anything that says its any different or better in the public sector, or in other bits of the private sector. I could just as well challenge your assertion that "the vast, vast majority have added value" in the public sector. Really? More value than they take in salary (better than private sector now) and accrue in pension liabilities?
Do the math again, with all the hidden NI and changes in allowance. I reckon the moment you cross £35k your effective marginal tax rate starts rising from 40% and peaks at about 60%, maybe higher. So what incentive does anyone have to move from a low paying job to a high paying job? If we all capped our salaries at £35k as the tax system incentivises us to, surely that's in some way tax avoidance, and "immoral"?
Greater Fiscal and Political UnionEveryone agrees?
But what action? To do what and what for?
You are not being taxed 100% of what you earn above 35k, you'll still go home with more in your pocket then the person who doesn't have that job
Of all the daft things I've read in my time on here this takes the biscuit.
We are not doing as shit as some but there are comparable countries that are doing better than us.
Well the argument has ended, because you made a generalisation without a basis of fact. We agree that some jobs shouldn't exist, but even so, some should. So there is labour market failure in both the private and public sector, tell us something we don't know.
Again, the problem really isn't low-paid to high paid. It's benefits and paid. The argument that the marginal tax rate is higher for higher earners is correct. It's obvious. However, on the super rich, the argument is that the marginal tax rate drops again. It's not a disincentive. I don't think anyone is thinking would prefer not to jump from 30k to 50k income on the basis the tax man takes a bigger slide. It's simply not the problem. The real problem is the marginal kinks at certain thresholds (going from benefits to work, low tax bands and from part-time to full-time). Another flaw in the argument is that your proposal is to reduce taxation revenues from middle to high earners, it's political suicide.
Indeed, but politicians make choices, there's no point is draconian tax changes if you will get voted out and changed back within 5 years. This is precesly what might happen if cuts were steeper.
Please give an example of a 60m population OECD country, with a a huge deficit, huge debt, and one of the biggest historical exposures to financial services. You're effectively trying to compare our economy to the smaller European economies which are nothing like ours, and are unlikely to be without massive political and social reform. With our exposure to financial services, I think it's a miracle, we're not in meltdown.Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
