If Benefits & PS wages become regional, why not taxes?
Discussion
So, government is consulting on regional rates of pay for PS workers and beneifts which will reflect variations in cost of living in different regions.
This makes sense and sounds like an appropriate way to ensure some sort of 'fair' allocation of taxpayer funds (though I appreciate not everyone agrees it is fair to be paid a different rate to do the same job in a different region).
Will they look at regional taxation?
No chance.
This makes sense and sounds like an appropriate way to ensure some sort of 'fair' allocation of taxpayer funds (though I appreciate not everyone agrees it is fair to be paid a different rate to do the same job in a different region).
Will they look at regional taxation?
No chance.
Eric Mc said:
Income Tax paid IS proportional - to income levels. And, since income levels are often geographical by nature, then taxes are ALREADY, to some extent, geographically skewed.
Fair point.I was thinking more along the lines of regional spend though.
So if region 1 consumes 3 x government money as region 2, shouldn't region 1 taxpayers cough up a bit more?
In reality, what I am really angling for is regions being able to set some of their taxes in order to attract investment.
A bit like US states have control over sales tax, income tax and property tax rates.
johnfm said:
Eric Mc said:
Income Tax paid IS proportional - to income levels. And, since income levels are often geographical by nature, then taxes are ALREADY, to some extent, geographically skewed.
Fair point.I was thinking more along the lines of regional spend though.
So if region 1 consumes 3 x government money as region 2, shouldn't region 1 taxpayers cough up a bit more?
In reality, what I am really angling for is regions being able to set some of their taxes in order to attract investment.
A bit like US states have control over sales tax, income tax and property tax rates.
crankedup said:
If this proposal of regional pay gets off the ground in the public sector will the private sector be taking on the same policy. I'm thinking here of the supermarkets, Kwickfits, and other National Companies. Just a thought.
Many already do - by negotiating a salary with the employee. Most private sector companies don't have such rigid 'grades'.Those that do (law firms with lock step pay rises based on PQE) have very regional differences. Places like Addleshaws, Pinsent Mason et al with London and regional offices pay vastly different rates: 1 PQE in Leeds £40k. 1 PQE in London £60k.
johnfm said:
So if region 1 consumes 3 x government money as region 2, shouldn't region 1 taxpayers cough up a bit more?
Surely the biggest hole in this is that the expensive regions (from a gov't point of view) are the really nasty ones. Legions of unemployed and un-employable, large-scale consumption of stella and Oli.
zcacogp said:
Surely the biggest hole in this is that the expensive regions (from a gov't point of view) are the really nasty ones. Legions of unemployed and un-employable, large-scale consumption of stella and Lambert and Butler illegally imported fags, huge local immigrant populations. If local people who pay income tax saw their tax rates hiked then it would remove any incentive to live there, and you could just kiss the local area goodbye.
Oli.
Another fair point. There's been two fair points made in this thread, I am very proud of PH in this moment.Oli.
Indeed, those who live in the more affluent ares are WORSE off in the sense that even though their pay may well be higher than in less well off areas, costs of living will be higher AND the tax they pay will also be higher.
If you have a steady job in a not so affluent area and you have no real intention to move, you're on to a good thing.
If you have a steady job in a not so affluent area and you have no real intention to move, you're on to a good thing.
martin84 said:
The parts of the country the Government has to spend the most money on are typically the least productive parts of the country by default, hence why they require state help. You could argue it's offset by the lower spending required in better areas.
Making them cheaper makes them more competitive. A bit like Greece, but with worse weather.So, how else would a region attract investment and workers?
In a not very joined up way, you do get RDAs trying to secure tax breaks and infrastructure capex to attract big factories etc to a region - but this doesn't seem very effective. And it is then just the work that attracts the people to move there for work. No other incentive. That is probably why there is much less mobility in the UK than in the US, where people will move from one state to another for a better job/better standard of life.
In a not very joined up way, you do get RDAs trying to secure tax breaks and infrastructure capex to attract big factories etc to a region - but this doesn't seem very effective. And it is then just the work that attracts the people to move there for work. No other incentive. That is probably why there is much less mobility in the UK than in the US, where people will move from one state to another for a better job/better standard of life.
davepoth said:
Making them cheaper makes them more competitive. A bit like Greece, but with worse weather.
I'm not really sure its a question of making them 'cheaper' because we're always told how property is cheap in the North, labour is cheaper in the North etc. It already is quite cheap because it needs to be, nobody there has any money.
thinfourth2 said:
Puggit said:
Labour already set up a system to leech taxes from the SE to prop up their voting base 
Did they?I've never heard about it
Article from 2005 said:
A glance at regional public spending figures tells you all you need to know. According to the Treasury's Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis, average public spending on each person in the south east this year is forecast to be £5,593. In the north east, the government will spend 31pc more, or £7,366.
Yet what is the region with the largest share of income tax and council tax receipts...not least because the largest number of taxpayers, the output level of economic activity, and house prices, are all found in the SE.Article earlier this year said:
London's taxes prop up the rest of the UK as one pound in every five earned in the capital funds the rest of the country
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2100345/Londons-taxes-prop-rest-UK-One-pound-earned-capital-funds-rest-country.htmljohnfm said:
Eric Mc said:
Income Tax paid IS proportional - to income levels. And, since income levels are often geographical by nature, then taxes are ALREADY, to some extent, geographically skewed.
Fair point.I was thinking more along the lines of regional spend though.
So if region 1 consumes 3 x government money as region 2, shouldn't region 1 taxpayers cough up a bit more?
In reality, what I am really angling for is regions being able to set some of their taxes in order to attract investment.
A bit like US states have control over sales tax, income tax and property tax rates.
I'm thinking of East Coast flood defences, ex-mining towns, poor bloody Haringey Council with a huge proportion of refugees, general colossal social problems and that terrible white elephant otherwise known as Alexandra Palace... it's not proportionate.
Eric Mc said:
Income Tax paid IS proportional - to income levels. And, since income levels are often geographical by nature, then taxes are ALREADY, to some extent, geographically skewed.
It's not proportional to "wealth", though.A common argument is that I should pay a higher rate of tax than the guy nextvo me as I can afford more. It's also true, though, that the fellow in Newcastle on the same £80k per year as my junior is far richer than my guy in London, and so he "afford it" measure would suggest that he be taxed more.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff