9.9bn Quid, 0% tax. Tell me PH, How is this fair?

[djc206]

Kermit power said:

If you think our current system is fair, you're merely demonstrating the fact that the complexities of the system make it nigh on impossible to see what's happening.

You wouldn't think it was fair if your supermarket bills suddenly rocketed so that 60% of the people who shopped there could be given their food for free and a cash handout on top, would you?

Why, therefore, do you think it's fair that we have a tax system where over half of all households in this country are net beneficiaries of the state?

What an utterly bizarre response. I didn't say it was, I said the income tax component of our system is fair ish in my book. I am far from being a beneficiary and I don't mind it. They're not beneficiaries of the state through the tax system, they're beneficiaries through the benefits system.

Edit: and through the pension and in kind systems such as education to reach your 50% figure. Of non retired households 36.9% are net beneficiaries, again this includes things like children's education costs borne by the state.

Edited by djc206 on Wednesday 2nd November 09:52

[r11co]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Without making poverty a grindingly miserable, subsistence existence with only the most basic humanitarian needs met, how will we ever inspire the poor to improve their lot?

That's how revolutions start. Not disagreeing that no-one should spend their lifetime living solely on benefits, but history tells us that the impoverished poor tend to improve their lot by killing the complacent rich.

[Burwood]

r11co said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Without making poverty a grindingly miserable, subsistence existence with only the most basic humanitarian needs met, how will we ever inspire the poor to improve their lot?

That's how revolutions start. Not disagreeing that no-one should spend their lifetime living solely on benefits, but history tells us that the impoverished poor tend to improve their lot by killing the complacent rich.

It's not North Korea or 17C Britain

[r11co]

Burwood said:

It's not North Korea or 17C Britain.

Societies can regress very rapidly if the conditions are wrong. I used the word complacent with good reason.

[Kermit power]

djc206 said:

Kermit power said:

If you think our current system is fair, you're merely demonstrating the fact that the complexities of the system make it nigh on impossible to see what's happening.

You wouldn't think it was fair if your supermarket bills suddenly rocketed so that 60% of the people who shopped there could be given their food for free and a cash handout on top, would you?

Why, therefore, do you think it's fair that we have a tax system where over half of all households in this country are net beneficiaries of the state?

What an utterly bizarre response. I didn't say it was, I said the income tax component of our system is fair ish in my book. I am far from being a beneficiary and I don't mind it. They're not beneficiaries of the state through the tax system, they're beneficiaries through the benefits system.

Edit: and through the pension and in kind systems such as education to reach your 50% figure. Of non retired households 36.9% are net beneficiaries, again this includes things like children's education costs borne by the state.

It's still madness! How can we have a system where over a third of people do nothing but take?

It would be fair for people who earn more to pay more, but how is it fair for people who earn more to pay a significantly higher percentage?

How is it fair that a household with two working adults earning £30k each will pay under £13k between them, yet a household with a single working adult earning £60k will pay almost £18k?

[Burwood]

Kermit power said:

djc206 said:

Kermit power said:

If you think our current system is fair, you're merely demonstrating the fact that the complexities of the system make it nigh on impossible to see what's happening.

You wouldn't think it was fair if your supermarket bills suddenly rocketed so that 60% of the people who shopped there could be given their food for free and a cash handout on top, would you?

Why, therefore, do you think it's fair that we have a tax system where over half of all households in this country are net beneficiaries of the state?

What an utterly bizarre response. I didn't say it was, I said the income tax component of our system is fair ish in my book. I am far from being a beneficiary and I don't mind it. They're not beneficiaries of the state through the tax system, they're beneficiaries through the benefits system.

Edit: and through the pension and in kind systems such as education to reach your 50% figure. Of non retired households 36.9% are net beneficiaries, again this includes things like children's education costs borne by the state.

It's still madness! How can we have a system where over a third of people do nothing but take?

It would be fair for people who earn more to pay more, but how is it fair for people who earn more to pay a significantly higher percentage?

How is it fair that a household with two working adults earning £30k each will pay under £13k between them, yet a household with a single working adult earning £60k will pay almost £18k?

The rationale for your example on tax is quite clear to see. You may not think it's fair but you can not please everyone. You hear all myriad of gripes-a common one is a single person with no kids thinks they should avoid contributing to school etc. It's the price we all pay to live in our society.

[thepeoplespal]

r11co said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Without making poverty a grindingly miserable, subsistence existence with only the most basic humanitarian needs met, how will we ever inspire the poor to improve their lot?

That's how revolutions start. Not disagreeing that no-one should spend their lifetime living solely on benefits, but history tells us that the impoverished poor tend to improve their lot by killing the complacent rich.

Well Brexit is a kind of revolution of sorts, all the great and the good wanted to remain in the EU, but if you are in poverty or in a grindingly miserable existence with better qualified foreign nationals either taking your job or seen to be suppressing wages, why wouldn't you vote for something different and poke the status quo in the eye.

I personally don't like inheritance taxes, as only the "stupid" and unlucky end up paying it.

[djc206]

Kermit power said:

It's still madness! How can we have a system where over a third of people do nothing but take?

It would be fair for people who earn more to pay more, but how is it fair for people who earn more to pay a significantly higher percentage?

How is it fair that a household with two working adults earning £30k each will pay under £13k between them, yet a household with a single working adult earning £60k will pay almost £18k?

They're not all permanent drains on the state. I'd hazard that significant number of people with school aged kids are net beneficiaries because their kids education costs £5k/pa per child but once they've grown up the tables turn.

It's not. I do think cohabiting couples should be able to share personal allowances.

[basherX]

djc206 said:

I do think cohabiting couples should be able to share personal allowances.

This would be a significant step in the right direction IMHO

[Welshbeef]

basherX said:

djc206 said:

I do think cohabiting couples should be able to share personal allowances.

This would be a significant step in the right direction IMHO

The issue with that is our tax take would drop notably overnight. Do you then simply reduce the tax free threshold or the % tax rate to recover the missing tax revenues?

[djc206]

Welshbeef said:

The issue with that is our tax take would drop notably overnight. Do you then simply reduce the tax free threshold or the % tax rate to recover the missing tax revenues?

You reduce tax credits

[Welshbeef]

djc206 said:

Welshbeef said:

The issue with that is our tax take would drop notably overnight. Do you then simply reduce the tax free threshold or the % tax rate to recover the missing tax revenues?

You reduce tax credits

So potentially some people would gain and then lose the exact same amount.

[ellroy]

Welshbeef said:

So potentially some people would gain and then lose the exact same amount.

But in the context of the overall impact to the UK there's some evidence that children from a two parent families are less likely to offend, end up in care, or the courts, and so the costs to society are less overall. So it could make sense to allow shared allowances to encourage family units.

The point is that tax, and it's impact, can be varied and complex, and one easy simple solution for one thing can actually have both negative, or positive, impacts way beyond the direct one.

[Welshbeef]

ellroy said:

Welshbeef said:

So potentially some people would gain and then lose the exact same amount.

But in the context of the overall impact to the UK there's some evidence that children from a two parent families are less likely to offend, end up in care, or the courts, and so the costs to society are less overall. So it could make sense to allow shared allowances to encourage family units.

The point is that tax, and it's impact, can be varied and complex, and one easy simple solution for one thing can actually have both negative, or positive, impacts way beyond the direct one.

But then you have the issue of certain areas of the uK will have kids who do better so give them more of an incentive... no way that's simply not how we as a global leading society behave.

[basherX]

Welshbeef said:

basherX said:

djc206 said:

I do think cohabiting couples should be able to share personal allowances.

This would be a significant step in the right direction IMHO

The issue with that is our tax take would drop notably overnight. Do you then simply reduce the tax free threshold or the % tax rate to recover the missing tax revenues?

I'd cut spending. Starting with tax credits. I'd up the minimum wage if necessary. Some people would be better off, some people would be worse off. On balance I'm ok with that: it's a price worth paying.

[Welshbeef]

basherX said:

I'd cut spending. Starting with tax credits. I'd up the minimum wage if necessary. Some people would be better off, some people would be worse off. On balance I'm ok with that: it's a price worth paying.

Up minimum wage to what?

It's going to be £9.20 by Apr 2020 so a full time cleaner will be on c£19,400 a year.
Who's going to pay for the vast differential in salary? for all other roles above that grade?


It's a huge problem as you keep upping it so many roles are mopped into it then it's a car of why work

[basherX]

Welshbeef said:

Up minimum wage to what?

It's going to be £9.20 by Apr 2020 so a full time cleaner will be on c£19,400 a year.
Who's going to pay for the vast differential in salary? for all other roles above that grade?


It's a huge problem as you keep upping it so many roles are mopped into it then it's a car of why work

No idea as I'm not the Chancellor and don't have all the data. But what I can say is that I work in the finance/employee benefit sphere for a large plc and it's a nonsense that we can rely on the state to subsidise our lower paid workers (but we'll keep on doing it as long as everyone else is).

I am, however, realistic enough to know that our society's addiction to tax credits is not about to end any time soon.

[Welshbeef]

basherX said:

Welshbeef said:

Up minimum wage to what?

It's going to be £9.20 by Apr 2020 so a full time cleaner will be on c£19,400 a year.
Who's going to pay for the vast differential in salary? for all other roles above that grade?


It's a huge problem as you keep upping it so many roles are mopped into it then it's a car of why work

No idea as I'm not the Chancellor and don't have all the data. But what I can say is that I work in the finance/employee benefit sphere for a large plc and it's a nonsense that we can rely on the state to subsidise our lower paid workers (but we'll keep on doing it as long as everyone else is).

I am, however, realistic enough to know that our society's addiction to tax credits is not about to end any time soon.

It's not up to the Chancellor to set rates of pay above min wage or role specific pay it's down to market forces.

But how do you do it?

Cleaner 1 year ago full time would earn £12,400 in 5 years it will be £19,400 that's 56% rise in 5 years. Plus those same people get the full benefit of he income tax threshold rise.

So let s say you earn £19,400 now hypothetically and only get 2.5% roses for 5 years - let's say your a mechanic or a Fireman so by Apr 2020 your salary would be £21,400 so £3k gross more than a cleaner OR after tax £2,400. One job you clean toilets the other you risk your life fighting fires or a mechanic. At what point do you say no way I'll clean a big.

Also as this is PH then the servicing costs of your car are going to go up hugely ditto cost of the parts as labour goes up ditto cost of the actual car etc etc. We all end up paying more so the only loser is the ones at the bottom as they end up in the same place but with different numbers but due to inflation it's meaningless

[Kermit power]

Welshbeef said:

It's not up to the Chancellor to set rates of pay above min wage or role specific pay it's down to market forces.

But how do you do it?

Cleaner 1 year ago full time would earn £12,400 in 5 years it will be £19,400 that's 56% rise in 5 years. Plus those same people get the full benefit of he income tax threshold rise.

So let s say you earn £19,400 now hypothetically and only get 2.5% roses for 5 years - let's say your a mechanic or a Fireman so by Apr 2020 your salary would be £21,400 so £3k gross more than a cleaner OR after tax £2,400. One job you clean toilets the other you risk your life fighting fires or a mechanic. At what point do you say no way I'll clean a big.

Also as this is PH then the servicing costs of your car are going to go up hugely ditto cost of the parts as labour goes up ditto cost of the actual car etc etc. We all end up paying more so the only loser is the ones at the bottom as they end up in the same place but with different numbers but due to inflation it's meaningless

I wouldn't risk my life fighting a mechanic for less than £1m.

[Welshbeef]

Kermit power said:

Welshbeef said:

It's not up to the Chancellor to set rates of pay above min wage or role specific pay it's down to market forces.

But how do you do it?

Cleaner 1 year ago full time would earn £12,400 in 5 years it will be £19,400 that's 56% rise in 5 years. Plus those same people get the full benefit of he income tax threshold rise.

So let s say you earn £19,400 now hypothetically and only get 2.5% roses for 5 years - let's say your a mechanic or a Fireman so by Apr 2020 your salary would be £21,400 so £3k gross more than a cleaner OR after tax £2,400. One job you clean toilets the other you risk your life fighting fires or a mechanic. At what point do you say no way I'll clean a big.

Also as this is PH then the servicing costs of your car are going to go up hugely ditto cost of the parts as labour goes up ditto cost of the actual car etc etc. We all end up paying more so the only loser is the ones at the bottom as they end up in the same place but with different numbers but due to inflation it's meaningless

I wouldn't risk my life fighting a mechanic for less than £1m.

This is the fundamental issue when you have MINIMUM wage of c£20k - does that mean someone on £20k today should be what £32k come 2020? Then what about those on £32k today what about them that's £50k etc. Plus the final salary pension implications of these changes. Where does it stop? Clearly no one is expecting CEOs to have such a rise so where does it stop going up? £500k?
Who gets to judge where it doesn't go and where it does?