Liz Truss Prime Minister
Discussion
PR wouldn't pass parliament because no PM with a majority would want to give it up. The safe seat MPs wouldn't give in to party lists. The marginal seat MPs who are in with the party leadership would try to push for party lists. The MPs who like constituency work will be pushing for a version which maintains the link, the MPs who don't care about it will push for something else. Those MPs who don't want it will be causing mischief.
Mr Penguin said:
PR wouldn't pass parliament because no PM with a majority would want to give it up. The safe seat MPs wouldn't give in to party lists. The marginal seat MPs who are in with the party leadership would try to push for party lists. The MPs who like constituency work will be pushing for a version which maintains the link, the MPs who don't care about it will push for something else. Those MPs who don't want it will be causing mischief.
Parliament essentially voted for PR when allowing the referendum in 2011. Sure, didn’t have a majority, but nervous MPs could have voted against. Mr Penguin said:
PR wouldn't pass parliament because no PM with a majority would want to give it up. The safe seat MPs wouldn't give in to party lists. The marginal seat MPs who are in with the party leadership would try to push for party lists. The MPs who like constituency work will be pushing for a version which maintains the link, the MPs who don't care about it will push for something else. Those MPs who don't want it will be causing mischief.
A royal commission into the whole shooting match, from PR to the Lords, will kick it into the long grass for at least one term but also make it look like they're doing something. Parties should never be allowed to order the lists as it just creates cronyism, Holyrood is filled with 3rd rate duffers there only because they're politically reliable. The australian system of getting the voter to sift the candidates appeals.hidetheelephants said:
Mr Penguin said:
PR wouldn't pass parliament because no PM with a majority would want to give it up. The safe seat MPs wouldn't give in to party lists. The marginal seat MPs who are in with the party leadership would try to push for party lists. The MPs who like constituency work will be pushing for a version which maintains the link, the MPs who don't care about it will push for something else. Those MPs who don't want it will be causing mischief.
A royal commission into the whole shooting match, from PR to the Lords, will kick it into the long grass for at least one term but also make it look like they're doing something. Parties should never be allowed to order the lists as it just creates cronyism, Holyrood is filled with 3rd rate duffers there only because they're politically reliable. The australian system of getting the voter to sift the candidates appeals.Wadeski said:
The Aussies have had their fair share of absolute wazzocks in charge too, to be fair though....
That's what happens when you let people vote; it's preferable to letting the weirdos who populate constituency parties(or the selection committees) do the picking, they really are odd.ATG said:
skwdenyer said:
ATG said:
If you want to have continental European levels of public services then you have to have continental European levels of tax. If you don't mind having US levels of public service (and all that entails in terms of social cohesion, levels of relative poverty, infant mortality, crime) then you can have US levels of tax.
What you cannot do is pay US levels of tax and receive continental European standards of public services. This is the UK illusion that is fueled every time the Conservatives say "the NHS is safe in our hands and we're seeking to reduce the tax burden" or when the Labour Party says "we'll increase pubic spending and we'll stick to the Conservative's fiscal plans".
Both positions are fundamentally dishonest and the idea the UK can pull off some magical fiscal trick because "exceptionalism" is clearly delusional.
The US isn’t low tax. You’re not comparing apples with apples.What you cannot do is pay US levels of tax and receive continental European standards of public services. This is the UK illusion that is fueled every time the Conservatives say "the NHS is safe in our hands and we're seeking to reduce the tax burden" or when the Labour Party says "we'll increase pubic spending and we'll stick to the Conservative's fiscal plans".
Both positions are fundamentally dishonest and the idea the UK can pull off some magical fiscal trick because "exceptionalism" is clearly delusional.
Edited by ATG on Wednesday 17th April 14:57
First, those numbers completely ignore the vast amounts spent by both companies and individuals on healthcare. When you factor those in, the effective tax rates aren’t the same at all.
If we take 2022, US tax was about 28% of GDP vs a 34% OECD average. A further 18% of GDP was spent on healthcare. Of that, 3% was Medicare and 2% was Medicaid (both from taxation). So tax + health was 41% of GDP.
When your employer pays for your healthcare, rather than paying NI, it is is still a de facto tax on employment.
In 2022, UK tax was about 35% of GDP. Private healthcare was a further 0.6% but let’s call it 1%. So tax + health was 36% of GDP.
At a simplistic level, if you rolled healthcare into the tax system in the US, overall tax levels would be at least as high as the UK (even allowing for normalised standards of care and taking out some of the egregious profit-making in the US).
And the US now has better social security benefits than the UK, by and large.
Sorry to say, we’re not high tax, we’re not molly-coddled, and our experiment has simply failed.
The US is not a low-tax country.
Carl_VivaEspana said:
If I were to move on to the U.S it would probably be to Florida.
Pay is about 25% higher, so is crime.
Sales tax is 6%-7%
Corporate tax is 5.5% which enables me to stay in a well paid job
Average income tax rate is about 26%
InterestingPay is about 25% higher, so is crime.
Sales tax is 6%-7%
Corporate tax is 5.5% which enables me to stay in a well paid job
Average income tax rate is about 26%
What do you have to pay in the US for elderly care/social care for example. Do you need to save etc? Cost of dentistry?
The only real way to compare would be to look at net disposable income after everything you need to pay for to get what we have here, and vice-versa and then adjust for cost of living
blueg33 said:
Interesting
What do you have to pay in the US for elderly care/social care for example. Do you need to save etc? Cost of dentistry?
The only real way to compare would be to look at net disposable income after everything you need to pay for to get what we have here, and vice-versa and then adjust for cost of living
This.What do you have to pay in the US for elderly care/social care for example. Do you need to save etc? Cost of dentistry?
The only real way to compare would be to look at net disposable income after everything you need to pay for to get what we have here, and vice-versa and then adjust for cost of living
At first glance the US looks cheaper but it is highly variable by state. What they do is put more choice of spend on the consumer, which is fine if you have money.
paulguitar said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
If I were to move on to the U.S it would probably be to Florida.
Pay is about 25% higher, so is crime.
Sales tax is 6%-7%
Corporate tax is 5.5% which enables me to stay in a well paid job
Average income tax rate is about 26
Florida is mental.Pay is about 25% higher, so is crime.
Sales tax is 6%-7%
Corporate tax is 5.5% which enables me to stay in a well paid job
Average income tax rate is about 26
captain_cynic said:
paulguitar said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
If I were to move on to the U.S it would probably be to Florida.
Pay is about 25% higher, so is crime.
Sales tax is 6%-7%
Corporate tax is 5.5% which enables me to stay in a well paid job
Average income tax rate is about 26
Florida is mental.Pay is about 25% higher, so is crime.
Sales tax is 6%-7%
Corporate tax is 5.5% which enables me to stay in a well paid job
Average income tax rate is about 26
Dagnir said:
captain_cynic said:
paulguitar said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
If I were to move on to the U.S it would probably be to Florida.
Pay is about 25% higher, so is crime.
Sales tax is 6%-7%
Corporate tax is 5.5% which enables me to stay in a well paid job
Average income tax rate is about 26
Florida is mental.Pay is about 25% higher, so is crime.
Sales tax is 6%-7%
Corporate tax is 5.5% which enables me to stay in a well paid job
Average income tax rate is about 26
blueg33 said:
What do you have to pay in the US for elderly care/social care for example. Do you need to save etc? Cost of dentistry?
The only real way to compare would be to look at net disposable income after everything you need to pay for to get what we have here, and vice-versa and then adjust for cost of living
I can see where you are going but the point that was being made earlier about taxation for U.S vs. U.K is not accurate. How you spend or save your money beyond that is down to personal choice and you can express that also through a democratic process i.e. you can vote Labour or Green in the U.KThe only real way to compare would be to look at net disposable income after everything you need to pay for to get what we have here, and vice-versa and then adjust for cost of living
The other point where this digressed is that presenting a different way of living or, voting is something to be protected. A lower tax, smaller state may not be palatable to some people but removing it from the political chess board as an option is problematic.
If nothing else, it removes opposition pressure which is needed to keep governments appropriately held to account, one way discussions are not healthy for a democracy.
Yes, access to NHS Dentistry would have been nice but with 53% total pay deductions, no NHS Dentist and an NHS system increasingly likely to harm your health rather than help you is not exactly a fair deal neither. Nobody really wants to stand up for people like me in this UK Election and therefore I vote with my feet with a cheeky postal vote in for Rebecca Long-Bailey.
What Truss is doing now simply sets the scene for the next, possibly all female Tory leader contest and the 2029 election. The left does not really like female leaders so it will be interesting to see how far the media will go to take out Kemi Badenoch and lower-tax small state proponents.
skwdenyer said:
Even if you scrapped all the US healthcare system, and replaced it with the NHS at the cost we pay for the NHS here (12% of GDP) and paid-for from general taxation, the US total tax take would be 37% of GDP in 2022 - 2% points higher than the UK.
The US is not a low-tax country.
Why do you insist on saying a load of private sector spending can be considered to be tax? It isn't. They are different things.The US is not a low-tax country.
Cost of living and tax are different things. Tax is lower in the US than it is in the EU. The spend on private sector healthcare in the US is way higher than in the EU. No contradiction. Two different things.
To add a personal perspective - I moved to the US just over a decade ago and the total tax take is near enough the same as the UK.
Just like the UK there are some fields where if you are rich you can massively fiddle it (not taking a salary, living your life through the company you own), but if you are a well paid wage-earner the gov are coming for roughly half of what you make each year.
It can be less in the some of the Red states (I live in NY), although the irony is for all their lower taxes, public services in those states are significantly subsidized by Federal funding - so the shortfall is made up from Blue states.
It is true that salaries are much higher (for certain professions) in the US than the UK. Doctors, lawyers, and many other professionals can earn 4-5x what they do in the UK
The flip side is when you need those services, it costs you too!
Just like the UK there are some fields where if you are rich you can massively fiddle it (not taking a salary, living your life through the company you own), but if you are a well paid wage-earner the gov are coming for roughly half of what you make each year.
It can be less in the some of the Red states (I live in NY), although the irony is for all their lower taxes, public services in those states are significantly subsidized by Federal funding - so the shortfall is made up from Blue states.
It is true that salaries are much higher (for certain professions) in the US than the UK. Doctors, lawyers, and many other professionals can earn 4-5x what they do in the UK
The flip side is when you need those services, it costs you too!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff