Should UK income tax be higher - discuss
Discussion
vonuber said:
I just went back to your source:
A village nameplate on two new posts costs up to £350. If a road safety message is required this costs an additional £150. The town or parish council may be asked to pay this additional cost.
I think that is fairly reasonable, covering the design, manufacture and installation of a one-off sign. Or do you think they are magically created and installed from thin air?
Take the streetlight installation for example:
Provision of a standard street lighting column including service connection costs up to £1,500.
Again covering design, manufacture and installation (including connection of electricity supplied by a new service run then reinstatement of the footpath etc). That is not unreasonable at all.
I think people have unrealistic expectations of how much things actually cost to design, manufacture and build - no wonder there is a lack of investment in infrastructure, people balk at the cost and put it off for another year.. then another..
How much design and "installation" does a sign saying"please drive carefully" need? And they're not one off, there are thousands of them all over the country. A village nameplate on two new posts costs up to £350. If a road safety message is required this costs an additional £150. The town or parish council may be asked to pay this additional cost.
I think that is fairly reasonable, covering the design, manufacture and installation of a one-off sign. Or do you think they are magically created and installed from thin air?
Take the streetlight installation for example:
Provision of a standard street lighting column including service connection costs up to £1,500.
Again covering design, manufacture and installation (including connection of electricity supplied by a new service run then reinstatement of the footpath etc). That is not unreasonable at all.
I think people have unrealistic expectations of how much things actually cost to design, manufacture and build - no wonder there is a lack of investment in infrastructure, people balk at the cost and put it off for another year.. then another..
And no it isn't surprising in the least that the private sector ia involved. They will take money wherever they can. It's the public sector paying for it with other people's money that is the problem.
I'd expect most of the things on that list could be done for 1/3 to half the cost. £50 for a little metal plate asking you to drive carefully still sounds a lot but more realistic than £150. Including the "design."
Countdown said:
FWIW the private sector isn't some paragon of efficiency. IME the larger the organisation, the less efficient it tends to be, and the more the amount that has to be invested in monitoring and management. Regardless of the sector that it operates in.
And yet it's still superior to the public sector overall. In the private sector there's profit to achieve, sustain and increase within a competitive environment where clients aren't a captive audience and customer service means something other than Bert will do it a week next Tuesday when he might be back from the latest sickie. Then there's the fact that private monies not taxes are at risk in terms of any inefficiency that may exist.A comparison with other public sector efficiencies doesn't put things in a better light: "A rigorous assessment of public sector efficiency commissioned by the European Central Bank found that if the UK’s bloated public sector were as efficient as that in the economies of countries like the US, Australia, and Japan, no less than £137 billion could have been saved (in 2012)."
Welshbeef said:
Given the years of minimal cuts we are now needing police and army cuts when we actually need more.
When such issues arise surely it makes sense to up income tax to pay for the added costs not cut.
My view is that we have a 0% up to £20k and thereafter 35% (or adjust the % /tax free £ value to balance the books).
Let's aim for a £10/hr minimum wage
You say you want tax rises but isnt what you've suggested a massive tax cut?!When such issues arise surely it makes sense to up income tax to pay for the added costs not cut.
My view is that we have a 0% up to £20k and thereafter 35% (or adjust the % /tax free £ value to balance the books).
Let's aim for a £10/hr minimum wage
I would like to see income at the lower end increased and related to home ownership costs.
Average property cost £130k min wage for any companies in that area £9ph. Ave £250k then raise it to £14ph. This would mean that any income earning family should be able to survive comfortably without the need for state top ups.
Companies will state that they are unable to fund this. Very simple. If any company wishes to use a chapter 11 scheme to drop salaries below the minimum wage for their area then all directors must take the new lower income as well. At this point state top ups can be applied to the company. Additionally, no dividends may be paid to stakeholders until the state top ups have been repaid by the company.
Reducing the burden for state top ups is (in my opinion) the biggest burden that we have. The largest employers in the UK pay the lowest possible income whilst stakeholders enjoy massive dividends.
I also believe that all companies working within the UK "on license" whereby they have to pay a foreign head office to trade here (Tesco, Starbucks, Costa, Google, Microsoft, Paypal, Ebay etc..) should pay a fixed fee of 2.5% of turnover to the UK. If the companies don't wan to do this then they can trade elsewhere.
The burden of national funding is placed to much on the individual when the focus should be on a fairer share from all.
Average property cost £130k min wage for any companies in that area £9ph. Ave £250k then raise it to £14ph. This would mean that any income earning family should be able to survive comfortably without the need for state top ups.
Companies will state that they are unable to fund this. Very simple. If any company wishes to use a chapter 11 scheme to drop salaries below the minimum wage for their area then all directors must take the new lower income as well. At this point state top ups can be applied to the company. Additionally, no dividends may be paid to stakeholders until the state top ups have been repaid by the company.
Reducing the burden for state top ups is (in my opinion) the biggest burden that we have. The largest employers in the UK pay the lowest possible income whilst stakeholders enjoy massive dividends.
I also believe that all companies working within the UK "on license" whereby they have to pay a foreign head office to trade here (Tesco, Starbucks, Costa, Google, Microsoft, Paypal, Ebay etc..) should pay a fixed fee of 2.5% of turnover to the UK. If the companies don't wan to do this then they can trade elsewhere.
The burden of national funding is placed to much on the individual when the focus should be on a fairer share from all.
sidicks said:
Actually in this thread it was to explain to certain people with an obvious lack of knowledge on the topic that their pensions were being heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.
Something they repeatedly tried to deny,...
Once again you attempt to conflate the state as employer / commissioner of services with the Exchequer and place blame for a political decision made by Government on workers and employers...Something they repeatedly tried to deny,...
mph1977 said:
Once again you attempt to conflate the state as employer / commissioner of services with the Exchequer and place blame for a political decision made by Government on workers and employers...
No one is "blaming" public sector workers (at least not until strike action is taken in the name of clearly unaffordable pensions etc). But for public sector roles the government IS the employer. So of course the "employer" gets the blame. The "employer" is heavily subsidising the pension arrangements it provides it's employees from funds it ought to be using elsewhere.
mph1977 said:
Once again you attempt to conflate the state as employer / commissioner of services with the Exchequer and place blame for a political decision made by Government on workers and employers...
This is nothing to do with blaming anyone. However your refusal to accept economic reality is clearly an issue.
DB pension schemes made sense when most people worked for the same employer for their entire lifetimes and would be expected to live for say 10 years in retirement.
Now people frequently move jobs multiple times over their working lifetimes and the expected lifetime in retirement is 30 years not 10.
In this scenario, particular when benefits increase with inflation, the costs of such schemes have risen dramatically to a point where the total cost, compared with the employee's contribution, is unaffordable on an ongoing basis, as it results in a massive unjustified subsidy from taxpayers to public sector workers.
The growing cost of such schemes is the reason these were generally closed to new members in the private sector 15+ years ago, and often to new accrual in the last 5-10 years.
Public sector workers should be grateful that they have retained these gold-plated schemes for so long (compared to the private sector).
Edited by sidicks on Monday 8th September 12:00
Welshbeef said:
Given the years of minimal cuts we are now needing police and army cuts when we actually need more.
When such issues arise surely it makes sense to up income tax to pay for the added costs not cut.
My view is that we have a 0% up to £20k and thereafter 35% (or adjust the % /tax free £ value to balance the books).
Let's aim for a £10/hr minimum wage
Sorry, but no.When such issues arise surely it makes sense to up income tax to pay for the added costs not cut.
My view is that we have a 0% up to £20k and thereafter 35% (or adjust the % /tax free £ value to balance the books).
Let's aim for a £10/hr minimum wage
I pay all the direct taxes I'm ever going to. Lets first look to real cuts in the welfare budget, an end to national bargaining in the public sector, and a move to money purchase pensions for all state employees.
Then we can make some hard decisions, such as what the state does verses what it should be doing. What departments can be replaced with a web site (5 a day coordinator's for example).
But lets be real clear about this, I'm not paying a penny more when all I see from the state is waste, ineptitude, and inefficiency.
lamboman100 said:
REALIST123 said:
RYH64E said:
Qwert1e said:
UK taxes are already massive.
Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
Completely agree, spending less is the answer. Taxes are too high as it is.Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
We're a nation of only 60M, in a tiny island. Yet we have 4 national parliaments/assemblies, layer on layer of local and regional government and on top of it all the debacle that is the EU.
It is patently ridiculous to think that there are not massive opportunities to save many billions from our budgets. No need at all for tax increases.
It is theft, pure and simple.
The private sector is working hard for the public sector to laze around.
If the UK state were well run, like a proper business, you could cut everyone's taxes by at least a third.
Having said that, if you actually work for the state, it is a great place to be. Do few hours, take days or weeks off for no reason, have zero chance of getting the boot, retire early on a fat wedge, etc. etc.
I know a few public sector employees who regularly work 50-60+ hrs a week.
And in private sector businesses ranging from 50 employees right up to 500,000 I've seen shocking levels of waste and laziness.
turbobloke said:
And yet it's still superior to the public sector overall. In the private sector there's profit to achieve, sustain and increase within a competitive environment where clients aren't a captive audience and customer service means something other than Bert will do it a week next Tuesday when he might be back from the latest sickie. Then there's the fact that private monies not taxes are at risk in terms of any inefficiency that may exist.
A comparison with other public sector efficiencies doesn't put things in a better light: "A rigorous assessment of public sector efficiency commissioned by the European Central Bank found that if the UK’s bloated public sector were as efficient as that in the economies of countries like the US, Australia, and Japan, no less than £137 billion could have been saved (in 2012)."
As you know I don't normally bother responding to you. However I just wanted to say, if there's ever a global shortageA comparison with other public sector efficiencies doesn't put things in a better light: "A rigorous assessment of public sector efficiency commissioned by the European Central Bank found that if the UK’s bloated public sector were as efficient as that in the economies of countries like the US, Australia, and Japan, no less than £137 billion could have been saved (in 2012)."
of meaningless waffle and hot air, you'll be able to retire from your "many businesses".
ETA I'm just looking at my BP shares and wondering whether they'll be going down the same road as my Bradford & Bingley shares did. Anybody know what happened to Tony Hayward after he left BP?
Edited by Countdown on Monday 8th September 13:01
AJS- said:
vonuber said:
I just went back to your source:
A village nameplate on two new posts costs up to £350. If a road safety message is required this costs an additional £150. The town or parish council may be asked to pay this additional cost.
I think that is fairly reasonable, covering the design, manufacture and installation of a one-off sign. Or do you think they are magically created and installed from thin air?
Take the streetlight installation for example:
Provision of a standard street lighting column including service connection costs up to £1,500.
Again covering design, manufacture and installation (including connection of electricity supplied by a new service run then reinstatement of the footpath etc). That is not unreasonable at all.
I think people have unrealistic expectations of how much things actually cost to design, manufacture and build - no wonder there is a lack of investment in infrastructure, people balk at the cost and put it off for another year.. then another..
How much design and "installation" does a sign saying"please drive carefully" need? And they're not one off, there are thousands of them all over the country. A village nameplate on two new posts costs up to £350. If a road safety message is required this costs an additional £150. The town or parish council may be asked to pay this additional cost.
I think that is fairly reasonable, covering the design, manufacture and installation of a one-off sign. Or do you think they are magically created and installed from thin air?
Take the streetlight installation for example:
Provision of a standard street lighting column including service connection costs up to £1,500.
Again covering design, manufacture and installation (including connection of electricity supplied by a new service run then reinstatement of the footpath etc). That is not unreasonable at all.
I think people have unrealistic expectations of how much things actually cost to design, manufacture and build - no wonder there is a lack of investment in infrastructure, people balk at the cost and put it off for another year.. then another..
And no it isn't surprising in the least that the private sector ia involved. They will take money wherever they can. It's the public sector paying for it with other people's money that is the problem.
I'd expect most of the things on that list could be done for 1/3 to half the cost. £50 for a little metal plate asking you to drive carefully still sounds a lot but more realistic than £150. Including the "design."
What annoys me is that trying in a private business to actually speak to people in the council that make decisions is nuts, I could save the public sector a fortune in my business alone but they are so slow and backwards to react to anything out of their comfort zone it is crazy. with 15 layers of bureaucracy no one take accountability for anything!
In addition if you asked the public sector to do an identical job it would probably cost around 3 times more!
Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
And yet it's still superior to the public sector overall. In the private sector there's profit to achieve, sustain and increase within a competitive environment where clients aren't a captive audience and customer service means something other than Bert will do it a week next Tuesday when he might be back from the latest sickie. Then there's the fact that private monies not taxes are at risk in terms of any inefficiency that may exist.
A comparison with other public sector efficiencies doesn't put things in a better light: "A rigorous assessment of public sector efficiency commissioned by the European Central Bank found that if the UK’s bloated public sector were as efficient as that in the economies of countries like the US, Australia, and Japan, no less than £137 billion could have been saved (in 2012)."
As you know I don't normally bother responding to you. However I just wanted to say, if there's ever a global shortageA comparison with other public sector efficiencies doesn't put things in a better light: "A rigorous assessment of public sector efficiency commissioned by the European Central Bank found that if the UK’s bloated public sector were as efficient as that in the economies of countries like the US, Australia, and Japan, no less than £137 billion could have been saved (in 2012)."
of meaningless waffle and hot air, you'll be able to retire from your "many businesses".
ETA I'm just looking at my BP shares and wondering whether they'll be going down the same road as my Bradford & Bingley shares did. Anybody know what happened to Tony Hayward after he left BP?
Edited by Countdown on Monday 8th September 13:01
Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
And yet it's still superior to the public sector overall. In the private sector there's profit to achieve, sustain and increase within a competitive environment where clients aren't a captive audience and customer service means something other than Bert will do it a week next Tuesday when he might be back from the latest sickie. Then there's the fact that private monies not taxes are at risk in terms of any inefficiency that may exist.
A comparison with other public sector efficiencies doesn't put things in a better light: "A rigorous assessment of public sector efficiency commissioned by the European Central Bank found that if the UK’s bloated public sector were as efficient as that in the economies of countries like the US, Australia, and Japan, no less than £137 billion could have been saved (in 2012)."
As you know I don't normally bother responding to you.A comparison with other public sector efficiencies doesn't put things in a better light: "A rigorous assessment of public sector efficiency commissioned by the European Central Bank found that if the UK’s bloated public sector were as efficient as that in the economies of countries like the US, Australia, and Japan, no less than £137 billion could have been saved (in 2012)."
Why break the habit of a recent lifetime?
Countdown said:
However I just wanted to say, if there's ever a global shortage
of meaningless waffle and hot air, you'll be able to retire from your "many businesses".
So there's nothing material you can offer relating to to the detailed, rigorous and quantified assessment of UK public sector inefficiency as carried out not by the Editor of the Daily Mail but by the European Central Bank - except some hot air personal angle complaining about the factual content of a referenced post you imply is hot air.of meaningless waffle and hot air, you'll be able to retire from your "many businesses".
Or, perhaps my implicit reference to a sickie rate in the public sector 63% higher than the private sector was too oblique.
It's definitely a good gameplan not to reply, you've never been able to cope and you're a sore loser.
Thanks for the kind thoughts on retirement which are N/A but it's the thought that counts
Edited by turbobloke on Monday 8th September 13:37
oyster said:
lamboman100 said:
REALIST123 said:
RYH64E said:
Qwert1e said:
UK taxes are already massive.
Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
Completely agree, spending less is the answer. Taxes are too high as it is.Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
We're a nation of only 60M, in a tiny island. Yet we have 4 national parliaments/assemblies, layer on layer of local and regional government and on top of it all the debacle that is the EU.
It is patently ridiculous to think that there are not massive opportunities to save many billions from our budgets. No need at all for tax increases.
It is theft, pure and simple.
The private sector is working hard for the public sector to laze around.
If the UK state were well run, like a proper business, you could cut everyone's taxes by at least a third.
Having said that, if you actually work for the state, it is a great place to be. Do few hours, take days or weeks off for no reason, have zero chance of getting the boot, retire early on a fat wedge, etc. etc.
I know a few public sector employees who regularly work 50-60+ hrs a week.
And in private sector businesses ranging from 50 employees right up to 500,000 I've seen shocking levels of waste and laziness.
Seems to me that it is unarguable that the cost of our public sector is too high at its current level of GDP. it needs to be reduced.
Can I remind though, that anyone who thinks income tax should be higher is quite free to make further donations to HMRC.
REALIST123 said:
Seems to me that it is unarguable that the cost of our public sector is too high at its current level of GDP. it needs to be reduced.
Can I remind though, that anyone who thinks income tax should be higher is quite free to make further donations to HMRC.
Very good points.Can I remind though, that anyone who thinks income tax should be higher is quite free to make further donations to HMRC.
Frybywire said:
REALIST123 said:
Can I remind though, that anyone who thinks income tax should be higher is quite free to make further donations to HMRC.
Typical twaddle, Tax is not OPTIONAL.You get the point...right....?
Anyone thinking more tax should be paid, is free to pay more tax than they legally have to.
Fill yer boots. (well fill the Govt's boots...).
Frybywire said:
REALIST123 said:
Can I remind though, that anyone who thinks income tax should be higher is quite free to make further donations to HMRC.
Typical twaddle, Tax is not OPTIONAL.Those who think income tax is too low presumably include their own position, given the typical lack of hypocrisy (ho ho ho) so surely lots of additional contributions will be flowing in already.
London424 said:
I'm pretty sure he's turned up at Glencore Xstrata.
I seem to recall Gulf Keystone Petroleum being on his CV somewhere. Nothing like being held accountable. I heard on the news this morning that BP could be paying out up to $55 billion in compo....Private sector efficiencies for you
Countdown said:
I heard on the news this morning that BP could be paying out up to $55 billion in compo....
Private sector efficiencies for you
What's to smile about?Private sector efficiencies for you
Compo deserved where it's due. It's an unfortunate but inevitable part of risk-reward where fallible humans work at the cutting edge in a competitive environment, alien to most of the public sector where compo is due when an employee falls out of bed taking a call from their boss.
No reply expected in keeping with your policy
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff