George Osborne's speech.
Discussion
AJS- said:
Maybe there would be more philanthropy if the wealthy didn't get taxed so heavily?
Maybe - Is it worth bankrupting the country to find out?Why can't you just consider paying your taxes to be a philanthropic act?
The losses in the system of transiting the money are again just jobs, just middle class people doing their spreadsheets and clocking off an 5pm to pick their kids up from nurserys, it's all just the chrun of the economy.
The only real money that is lost in the UK, the money that is going to waste is the money the wealthy squirrel away and spend over seas to avoid paying taxes on it.
Anyway why are handouts from any source the key to social mobility?
I don't consider taxed philanthropy because they're not freely given, they're not spent on things I would freely give to, and they're at a level above what I would give freely.
But worse, they're actually destructive both to productive activity and to the recipients.
Money spent on needless bureaucrats is indeed wasted. It's drawn away from productive uses, and used to attract productive resources to do nothing. At least money invested overseas is growing and producing something somewhere, the product of which will likely be spent in the UK at some point.
I don't consider taxed philanthropy because they're not freely given, they're not spent on things I would freely give to, and they're at a level above what I would give freely.
But worse, they're actually destructive both to productive activity and to the recipients.
Money spent on needless bureaucrats is indeed wasted. It's drawn away from productive uses, and used to attract productive resources to do nothing. At least money invested overseas is growing and producing something somewhere, the product of which will likely be spent in the UK at some point.
GavinPearson said:
The issue I have with Osborne is the disproportionate time spent on talking about fixing something which will save very little, and not fixing the financial haemmoraging. The big problems are benefits and the NHS.
Osborne would be best off ratcheting down the amount paid for housing benefit where private companies & councils are the true beneficiaries.
The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net, not a trampoline where a single mother with 5 kids can live in millionaire's row having never held a job approaching the average wage.
If the Tories want to stay in power the people they need to appeal to are the ordinary working people and show them where the money is going so they can 'listen to the people' and cut funding where people won't resent it. Foreign aid to China and India could be cut out, for example.
One other thing the Tories need to consider is to up the state pension by 10% and then limit maximum benefits for each family to that of a couple on a state pension.
There also needs to be a hard look at what the NHS spends it's money on - for example if they are spending money on dealing with the effects of obesity then perhaps they should improve education on food and start taxing fast food and confectionery.
Have you been out of the country lately?!Osborne would be best off ratcheting down the amount paid for housing benefit where private companies & councils are the true beneficiaries.
The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net, not a trampoline where a single mother with 5 kids can live in millionaire's row having never held a job approaching the average wage.
If the Tories want to stay in power the people they need to appeal to are the ordinary working people and show them where the money is going so they can 'listen to the people' and cut funding where people won't resent it. Foreign aid to China and India could be cut out, for example.
One other thing the Tories need to consider is to up the state pension by 10% and then limit maximum benefits for each family to that of a couple on a state pension.
There also needs to be a hard look at what the NHS spends it's money on - for example if they are spending money on dealing with the effects of obesity then perhaps they should improve education on food and start taxing fast food and confectionery.
The benefit cap has been brought in by the Tories, just as you describe. OK limited to £26k rather than the number you have in mind (couple of state pension c. £10k).
AJS- said:
Why is state intervention the only way to give opportunity and social mobility to the poor?
Right now with the winter uplift underway we badly need 10-15 more private hire taxi drivers, so we started to prepare for it about 6 weeks ago. Thought it might be a good idea to 'phone the broo to get them to send some. Ever tried it? Weapons grade waste of time. By the way we specified that we'd be happiest with over 50's (thinking they're a difficult sector to get re-employed). So far, not one. (plenty of decent Poles from other sources, mind you).
Fittster said:
Is there any actually evidence that different economic tiers in society have on average different size families?
I understand that to be the case.The fundamental difference is not between say working class or middle class, or even upper-middle class, but rather between working and non-working (i.e. totally benefit dependant) people.
Trommel said:
crankedup said:
Those FTSE100 CEO's far to many still plundering Company coffers with ever increasing remuneration packages
There's only a hundred of them and it's not costing the taxpayer a penny. Big deal. Fortunately I can punish these companies that over pay their management starting today by not buying their products or services. Either because they're too expensive or because I find it "socially divisive" if indeed I did. And when enough others do the same the company will lose money and get taken over by one of those really successful and inclusive companies where top management are all on minimum wage. When the government is wasting money I can't do a damned thing about it except for sticking a cross in a box every 5 years next to whatever party I feel to be least worst.
hornet said:
crankedup said:
All the chat about cuts, well that seems reasonable enough, it has to be. Yet good old Channel 5 last night broadcast 'cutting salaries down to size'. Those FTSE100 CEO's far to many still plundering Company coffers with ever increasing remuneration packages.
Presumably such rises have to be approved by the shareholders, so can't see how it's "plundering" as such? You can argue that payscales are totally out of whack, and I'd probably agree, but if it's a plc, that surely is an issue for the shareholders rather than Government? I can't help thinking the people who are most vocal about such matters would make much more difference if they actually became shareholders in said organisations and started raising motions rather than just frothing about it to the press.AJS- said:
Fortunately I can punish these companies that over pay their management starting today by not buying their products or services. Either because they're too expensive or because I find it "socially divisive" if indeed I did. And when enough others do the same the company will lose money and get taken over by one of those really successful and inclusive companies where top management are all on minimum wage. When the government is wasting money I can't do a damned thing about it except for sticking a cross in a box every 5 years next to whatever party I feel to be least worst.
I disagree, not buying the Company products is the negative of resolving the problem. Agreed it might make us feel better in the short term. At least more people recognise a problem exists, that has taken four years to get to this point. Cable is ushering in legislation as I have already mentioned and most people are now aware of. From the point in time when shareholders are able to reject remuneration board annual awards will be the moment wholesale changes will occur in the Boardrooms. Plenty of good CEO are to be found outside of the U.K.I've been aware that some people moan about executive pay being too high since at least 1995, and that's just about the time I started paying attention. I've never been aware of a company being boycotted successfully because of it, or of a very successful company that didn't pay it's top management the going market rate.
AJS- said:
mattnunn said:
As long as the money finds it's way into the pockets of normal folk it will be spent, hence it becomes growth of the economic output.
Unfortunately what seems to have happend is that the QE has effehctively become a second bail out for the banks and a security net for big coperate business. A lack of imagination and forward thinking in the boardrooms of the big coperates has what has led to the stagnation, not a reduction in demand in the economy or any government policy per se.
You're just really wrong here. Unfortunately what seems to have happend is that the QE has effehctively become a second bail out for the banks and a security net for big coperate business. A lack of imagination and forward thinking in the boardrooms of the big coperates has what has led to the stagnation, not a reduction in demand in the economy or any government policy per se.
The money that finds it's way into the pockets of normal folk will be worth proportionately less than it was when there is less money. Inflation is a tax on the money that's already in the pockets of normal folk.
Simplify it. Imagine you have 10 people on a boat, with a set stock of rations, and they develop tokens to trade their rations - so smokers can buy more cigarettes at the expense of beans, bean addicts can buy more beans at the expense of cigarettes etc. You can print all the tokens you like and it won't create a single extra bean or cigarette. If you double the number of tokens, you double the price of everything. That's all inflation is.
Yes growth has to come from the private sector, but with the huge government sector bleeding them dry for taxes and crowding them out for resources, while stifling everything with regulation, it really isn't likely to happen for a while yet.
AJS- said:
I've been aware that some people moan about executive pay being too high since at least 1995, and that's just about the time I started paying attention. I've never been aware of a company being boycotted successfully because of it, or of a very successful company that didn't pay it's top management the going market rate.
It is 'the going rate' that is the problem. You must know of the ratchet effect.mattnunn said:
AJS- said:
Maybe there would be more philanthropy if the wealthy didn't get taxed so heavily?
Maybe - Is it worth bankrupting the country to find out?Why can't you just consider paying your taxes to be a philanthropic act?
Not all business people are greedy nihilists, some of us have worked (and are working) extremely hard to preserve and even create jobs. Hell, I'd saved enough capital for a new car two years back (would have been another British-made product sold, to replace the current British-made one, in case you're wondering) but instead used the money as a deposit on new CNC machinery - investing for the future and upskilling my workforce - but I could actually have done both had corporation taxes been more favourable.
crankedup said:
AJS- said:
I've been aware that some people moan about executive pay being too high since at least 1995, and that's just about the time I started paying attention. I've never been aware of a company being boycotted successfully because of it, or of a very successful company that didn't pay it's top management the going market rate.
It is 'the going rate' that is the problem. You must know of the ratchet effect.Thinking of the alternative, you must know of the meddling by incompetent politicians effect.
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
AJS- said:
I've been aware that some people moan about executive pay being too high since at least 1995, and that's just about the time I started paying attention. I've never been aware of a company being boycotted successfully because of it, or of a very successful company that didn't pay it's top management the going market rate.
It is 'the going rate' that is the problem. You must know of the ratchet effect.Thinking of the alternative, you must know of the meddling by incompetent politicians problem.
As I've said before, the most highly paid political figure in Europe is not Merkel, or Lagarde, but the no-mark Baroness (Labour peer) Ashton of Upholland.
With the alternatives to CMD and The Boy George including both Milibands, Balls, Danny and Vince, there are no viable alternatives in terms of politicians. Policy-wise I would expect those in office to do whatever they can to ensure there are clear signs of economic recovery prior to the next general election. Their self-serving self preservation power grabbing interfering tendencies cannot be overcome, on that basis alone the idea that the Conservative-led Coalition is deliberately not doing something it could do, is nonsensical. The idea that the Milibands, Balls, Danny and Vince would be any more effective is even more nonsensical.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff