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

[basherX]

Welshbeef said:

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?

Allow the market to set the wage level by slowly removing subsidies (read: Tax credits). Mitigate the effect of the loss of tax credits on the poorest by raising the minimum wage. Accept that there will be job losses. Use the tax savings to reduce corporate taxes and support any short term unemployed. Allow the economy to rebalance. Over time allow inflation to reduce the effect of the wage floor. Make work pay.

Cumulative wage inflation over the next 3 and a half years is quite unlikely to be 60%.

[Welshbeef]

basherX said:

Allow the market to set the wage level by slowly removing subsidies (read: Tax credits). Mitigate the effect of the loss of tax credits on the poorest by raising the minimum wage. Accept that there will be job losses. Use the tax savings to reduce corporate taxes and support any short term unemployed. Allow the economy to rebalance. Over time allow inflation to reduce the effect of the wage floor. Make work pay.

Cumulative wage inflation over the next 3 and a half years is quite unlikely to be 60%.

Well for min wage it is last Oct it was £6.50/HR Apr2020 it will be £9.20/HR there isn't enough tax credits to remove.

Anyway removing of tax credits does what? Zilch these peoples pay rise is vast who pays for that? It's not the govt it's either killing a company's profit or it's the consumer. Hence my point it's wooden $ you'll think your better off but your boot as it will be inflated away

Don't let facts get in the way of your view though.

£12.4k pa to £19.4k Oct15-Apr20. Mega salary rise plus the increase to £12.5k tax threshold.

[Zombie]

As the OP I must admit to not considering some aspects of my posts. One of my friends posted a link to an open letter in the wake of The DW's death as follows;



Dear Daily Fail....

You REALLY never fail to deliver...i have to say, I was intrigued to see how you would cover the tremendously sad news of the passing of His Grace, the Duke of Westminster - someone who has openly discussed his battle with Mental Illness; we all know how understanding you are on that subject - but even I couldn't have foreseen the sensitivity you would convey.

In your defence, this quiet and sensitive man championed so many without a voice, you wouldn't know where to start. You could have mentioned his tireless work for the homeless and substance misuse charities. Or, sending his children to state school. When Thatcher, in his words "steamrolled" the poll tax through, feeling it to be grossly unfair, paid it for the first few years for his staff and Tenants, while they got used to budgeting it in. Or, maybe you could have discussed the pain he felt for his farmers as he stood at their shoulder in the fields watching their herds destroyed due to Foot and Mouth. In fact, he became very poorly, as he took on everyone's pain...and those who sadly felt there was nothing for it but to take their own lives - of which there were many. It would be hard to know where to start in this lovely, sometimes lonely mans life.

But you decided to go with "Son Hugh, 25, inherits 9bn" oh and "son Hugh, 25, had a 5m pound 21st birthday party, where Michael McIntyre and Rizzle kicks appeared". The night his Father suddenly dies at 64, the daily fail write - with all the poisonous inference of a self righteous Grandmother - about the frivolous spending of "Prince George's youngest God Parent" and even managed to mention Princess Diana in the article...if only they could have found a way to weave in Maddie McCann and Immigrants.

Daily Mail - you really are the biggest bunch of self serving, self righteous, bunch of toxic Pricks.
He was lovely. My Grandadad was Umpire to his cricket team in Aldford, Chester. I trace my love for game right to that. And being snook in as a little girl to watch His Grace's team take on The Lord Taverners....when my Grandad lay gravely ill in hospital, he sent a hand written card. As a little girl at that cricket match, I remember going more than a little red and a bit silly...as he had the warmest smile and THE most piercing blue eyes. Whatever you might think of Landed Gentry, he was a good man with a good heart. He was never meant to be Duke, but when his Uncle didn't have children, the title went to him. All Gerald Grosvenor had wanted from life, was to be a Beef farmer in Ireland. It was a title he had never sought and...something i imagine his Son is feeling...not at such a high cost.

Rest In Peace splendid chap.

Edited by Zombie on Thursday 22 December 23:18

[Thorodin]

Having read the first two or three pages here and the seen expected outrage from successive posters who obviously have no real understanding of IT, I hope I'm not repeating anything from later contributors when I say IT is entirely voluntary, the avoidance of liability is neither secret nor expensive, and is also not in the same disreputable area as other tax avoidance/evasion rackets. Advice is freely available on-line - even on HMGOV info sites. Avoidance is not restricted to 'the Establishment' or those with huge wealth. All you realistically need is a qualified common-or-garden solicitor - available on every high street and at reasonable cost.

[98elise]

Thorodin said:

Having read the first two or three pages here and the seen expected outrage from successive posters who obviously have no real understanding of IT, I hope I'm not repeating anything from later contributors when I say IT is entirely voluntary, the avoidance of liability is neither secret nor expensive, and is also not in the same disreputable area as other tax avoidance/evasion rackets. Advice is freely available on-line - even on HMGOV info sites. Avoidance is not restricted to 'the Establishment' or those with huge wealth. All you realistically need is a qualified common-or-garden solicitor - available on every high street and at reasonable cost.

Agreed, i'm doing just that at the moment.

[Sylvaforever]

To the OP wtf has it to do with you anyway?

SJW'ing at its "finest"

[Carl_Manchester]

Wilmslowboy said:

I thought the inheritance tax idea was to try and even out individuals life chances....

Why should someone gain from a pot of money just because their father, or their father's father or even going back many generations before him was....lucky/war load/ gangster/brilliant / hard working....etc etc

Saying that I am really torn on the subject.....

Wife and I didn't get a single penny or will from our respective parents (in fact over the years we have supported our parents to the tune of many tens of thousands) ...we don't need inheritance or want it.

Yet the thought that my own kids will not get what's left after we pass away - fills me with rage........ Big fat contradiction

I totally agree with you.

I am pretty hard-line in my view that there should be no inter-generational Inheritance of money at all.

As a capitalist, inheritance is one of the causes for the death spiral of current capitalism as a means to generate wealth.

Whilst I support a general low tax approach, I feel some of the posters above are sorely mistaken in the damaging effects inheritance has on a developed economy.

[ZedLeg]

Welshbeef said:

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?

Why do the people already above the minimum wage need to get paid more? Apart from "well I want to be paid more than that guy who is clearly lesser than me".

A fair wage for a job done is something everyone deserves. if you can't afford to live on a full time wage, that's not fair.

[walm]

Carl_Manchester said:

I totally agree with you.

I am pretty hard-line in my view that there should be no inter-generational Inheritance of money at all.

As a capitalist, inheritance is one of the causes for the death spiral of current capitalism as a means to generate wealth.

If you're a capitalist you might have noticed that current capitalism has been a rip-roaring success.
The 1%-ers are coining it in, particularly after the financial crisis.

In fact it has been SO successful that the 99%-ers have started to notice and do things like vote for Brexit and Trump in response.

Lastly, I do see inheritance of money a significant part of the un-level playing field of life, but to stamp it out completely is very hard.
Where do you draw the line for example.
If I had the cash I could buy a house for my son - is that wrong?
Why is it OK if I do it now but not when I die?
And if it IS wrong - can I give my kids any gifts at all?
Clothes?
Food?
Expensive clothes?
A car?
An expensive car?

[Dr Jekyll]

ZedLeg said:

Why do the people already above the minimum wage need to get paid more? Apart from "well I want to be paid more than that guy who is clearly lesser than me".

A fair wage for a job done is something everyone deserves. if you can't afford to live on a full time wage, that's not fair.

Fine, I want a full time job doing something I enjoy but which just doesn't generate the value for anyone to pay me enough to live on. Who specifically is obliged to employ me at a loss?

[98elise]

ZedLeg said:

Welshbeef said:

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?

Why do the people already above the minimum wage need to get paid more? Apart from "well I want to be paid more than that guy who is clearly lesser than me".

A fair wage for a job done is something everyone deserves. if you can't afford to live on a full time wage, that's not fair.

Because if the easier job pays about the same nobody will want to put the effort in to learn the harder jobs. My industry pays based on skills and experience, and responsibility.

To get where I am today I have about 20 exams under my belt, and when the st hits the fan I'm expected to be the one dealing with it. If I could get similar money as a Junior and didn't have to pass exams, gain expereince, or have any responsibility then thats what I would do.

[walm]

Dr Jekyll said:

Fine, I want a full time job doing something I enjoy but which just doesn't generate the value for anyone to pay me enough to live on. Who specifically is obliged to employ me at a loss?

Have you considered becoming a civil servant?

[Welshbeef]

98elise said:

Because if the easier job pays about the same nobody will want to put the effort in to learn the harder jobs. My industry pays based on skills and experience, and responsibility.

To get where I am today I have about 20 exams under my belt, and when the st hits the fan I'm expected to be the one dealing with it. If I could get similar money as a Junior and didn't have to pass exams, gain expereince, or have any responsibility then thats what I would do.

But but but you should be taxed more so there is fairnesss in society, those on the lowest rung get the worst deal it's just not fair

[768]

walm said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Fine, I want a full time job doing something I enjoy but which just doesn't generate the value for anyone to pay me enough to live on. Who specifically is obliged to employ me at a loss?

Have you considered becoming a civil servant?

He said full time.

[anonymous-user]

768 said:

walm said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Fine, I want a full time job doing something I enjoy but which just doesn't generate the value for anyone to pay me enough to live on. Who specifically is obliged to employ me at a loss?

Have you considered becoming a civil servant?

He said full time.

[Carl_Manchester]

walm said:

Carl_Manchester said:

I totally agree with you.

I am pretty hard-line in my view that there should be no inter-generational Inheritance of money at all.

As a capitalist, inheritance is one of the causes for the death spiral of current capitalism as a means to generate wealth.

If you're a capitalist you might have noticed that current capitalism has been a rip-roaring success.
The 1%-ers are coining it in, particularly after the financial crisis.

In fact it has been SO successful that the 99%-ers have started to notice and do things like vote for Brexit and Trump in response.

Lastly, I do see inheritance of money a significant part of the un-level playing field of life, but to stamp it out completely is very hard.
Where do you draw the line for example.
If I had the cash I could buy a house for my son - is that wrong?
Why is it OK if I do it now but not when I die?
And if it IS wrong - can I give my kids any gifts at all?
Clothes?
Food?
Expensive clothes?
A car?
An expensive car?

Hah indeed.

I post fairly regularly on my views regarding the current state of capitalism, it worked well for a time but it is in serious need of reform.

The key problem which is compounding the inter-generational inheritance/gift problem is the current economic malaise and this draws me to a quote from a piece by Thomas Pikkety.

'in a society where output per capita grows tenfold every generation, it is better to count on what one can earn and save from one's own labour; the income of previous generations is so small compared with current income that the wealth accumulated by one's parents and grandparents doesn't amount to much.Conversely, a stagnant, or worse, decreasing population increases the influence of capital accumulated in previous generations. The same is true of economic stagnation.'

If we can fix capitalism and the taxation system then the problems seen with inheritence/gifts will become less of an issue.

So, in terms of buying houses and other large assets yes it should be legislated against once the value hits a certain thresh-hold. This is because in the main the current system of economic growth in comparison to historical trends is broken and we need a sticking plaster of solution until economic growth picks up.

TP also writes in his book:

'in a quasi-stagnant society, wealth accumulated in the past will inevitably acquire disproportionate importance. The return to a structurally high capital/income ratio in the twenty-first century, close to the levels observed in the eighteenth century, can therefore be explained by a the return to a slow-growth regime. Decreased growth - especially demographic growth - is thus responsible for capital's comeback.

Edited by Carl_Manchester on Saturday 24th December 11:13

[RYH64E]

Carl_Manchester said:

So, in terms of buying houses and other large assets yes it should be legislated against once the value hits a certain thresh-hold.

So you think it's OK for me to spend my money on drink and loose women but I shouldn't be allowed to spend it on my children?

[sidicks]

ZedLeg said:

Why do the people already above the minimum wage need to get paid more? Apart from "well I want to be paid more than that guy who is clearly lesser than me".

A fair wage for a job done is something everyone deserves. if you can't afford to live on a full time wage, that's not fair.

So everyone should be paid the same regardless of the job they do?

[Jonesy23]

I tried to understand some of the logic being demonstrated here but I think I'd need some pretty severe head trauma to get close to a point where it seemed to make sense.

Or in other words left wing academic treatise on capitalism is 'load of absolute bks'.

I can tell you one thing though, what I do with my stuff is my business. And of someone decides to make the system 'fair' by having the government basically take all my stuff when I die I'm either going to make sure I burn through the lot if I have a chance to known when the end is coming, and if not the whole fking lot is going up in flames (or getting 'lost') very shortly after I shuffle off.

[Thorodin]

The trouble with quoting from economists' considered views is that every economist there ever was has a different view than all others of that ilk. To compound the problem of impenetrable guff, their outpourings are gobbledegook to anyone other than monetary scientists.

This widely felt disgust for inherited wealth is puzzling too, probably emanating from envy. What is the use of the acquisition of 'estate' by dint your life's efforts if not for the benefit of one's offspring? And having acquired it, to pass it on to your own so your worldly efforts to provide for yourself and your descendants effectively removes them from the welfare pool?

A totally worthy enterprise in my view and a solid foundation for the growth of aspiration, ambition, self-reliance that enables charitable principles to prevail. Some well heeled paragons even limit their vast wealth being passed to their children so that they may not be 'spoiled by having it too easy' - what a ridiculous cop-out! Why not bring them up properly in the first place?

If wealth is to be prevented from being inherited, or punitively taxed, what would its detractors do with it? Dump it into state coffers to be redistributed in bribes to third world despots and crooks? Lose it in a badly reformed NHS? What massive disincentives!

As said earlier, every penny of it is voluntary, nobody has to pay it at all if they choose not too and to avoid it is easy. Considering the costs of wilful ignorance those that rest on a refusal to get their heads out of their fundaments will waste all their predecessors' efforts on their behalf. Deservedly so. I see that as scorning your ancestors and rubbishing their efforts. I inherited nothing from mine other than my principles and efforts and our children will inherit a modest benefit from our prudence. I hope and believe we have taught them to value a helping hand.