Tax - what if..?
Discussion
I wonder, what would be the effect on Albion of mercilessly slashing taxation - across the board?
Would we descend into anarchy and chaos or, would right minded individuals and companies simply find themselves hugely richer and by the nature of increased consumption and investment, hugely boost the economy in a way that 'wasteful' government expenditure simply never could?
Just how big an NHS do we need?
Just how many social security handouts should we really put up with?
Benefits for this, that and the other?
And yes, just how many 'excessively subsidised' state employees are really necessary?
All extreme postulations in the context of modern politics but I remain convinced that (western)populations act like mindless sheep when it comes to the myth of state dependancy.
Provide a sound infrastructural support, certainly but mercilessly strip out the cack.
I want my cash back, you thieving leeches.
Would we descend into anarchy and chaos or, would right minded individuals and companies simply find themselves hugely richer and by the nature of increased consumption and investment, hugely boost the economy in a way that 'wasteful' government expenditure simply never could?
Just how big an NHS do we need?
Just how many social security handouts should we really put up with?
Benefits for this, that and the other?
And yes, just how many 'excessively subsidised' state employees are really necessary?
All extreme postulations in the context of modern politics but I remain convinced that (western)populations act like mindless sheep when it comes to the myth of state dependancy.
Provide a sound infrastructural support, certainly but mercilessly strip out the cack.
I want my cash back, you thieving leeches.
It would certainly be possible to slash tax rates a long way but only if you are prepared to replace public money with Private.
For example if you changed the NHS into a safety net for the poor-then everyone else would have to arrange their own private provision.
More modest tax cuts could be achieved fairly comfortably by reducing the amount of benefits paid and the number of civil servants. Both are areas where expenditure has risen considerably since Labour came to power and simply returning to the situation at 1997 would enable a few pence to be knocked off income tax.
For example if you changed the NHS into a safety net for the poor-then everyone else would have to arrange their own private provision.
More modest tax cuts could be achieved fairly comfortably by reducing the amount of benefits paid and the number of civil servants. Both are areas where expenditure has risen considerably since Labour came to power and simply returning to the situation at 1997 would enable a few pence to be knocked off income tax.
There is without doubt a case for the reduction of government handouts. It should be a last chance rather than a safe haven.
The NHS is preposterously run and massively outdated. When Bevan created the facility I am damned sure he didnt envisage health tourism or a country with 60 million people in it. It cannot cope quite simply.
Fundamentally though there absolutely needs to be root and branch reform of the entire civil service.
Blair is keen to point out that unemployment is lower than it has ever been what he is not so keen to point out is that the vast majority of the terminally bone idle have been given civil non-jobs to massage the figures. 1 in 4 people in this country is employed by the state and that strikes me as lunacy quite frankly. Government should be the unobtrusive voice of the people and nothing more...
The NHS is preposterously run and massively outdated. When Bevan created the facility I am damned sure he didnt envisage health tourism or a country with 60 million people in it. It cannot cope quite simply.
Fundamentally though there absolutely needs to be root and branch reform of the entire civil service.
Blair is keen to point out that unemployment is lower than it has ever been what he is not so keen to point out is that the vast majority of the terminally bone idle have been given civil non-jobs to massage the figures. 1 in 4 people in this country is employed by the state and that strikes me as lunacy quite frankly. Government should be the unobtrusive voice of the people and nothing more...
Plotloss said
..................................................
There is without doubt a case for the reduction of government handouts. It should be a last chance rather than a safe haven.
The NHS is preposterously run and massively outdated. When Bevan created the facility I am damned sure he didnt envisage health tourism or a country with 60 million people in it. It cannot cope quite simply.
Fundamentally though there absolutely needs to be root and branch reform of the entire civil service.
Blair is keen to point out that unemployment is lower than it has ever been what he is not so keen to point out is that the vast majority of the terminally bone idle have been given civil non-jobs to massage the figures. 1 in 4 people in this country is employed by the state and that strikes me as lunacy quite frankly. Government should be the unobtrusive voice of the people and nothing more...
.............................................
It is true that most of the growth in employment over the last few years has come from the public sector.
However the biggest thing keeping the numbers of unemployed down is those people living on benefits who are not classed as unemployed-ie Those on incapacity benefit and single mums.
This is not a new phenomon-it started under the conservatives-but it is why you should always take the unemployment figures with a bucket of salt.
JagLover said:
More modest tax cuts could be achieved fairly comfortably by reducing the amount of benefits paid and the number of civil servants. Both are areas where expenditure has risen considerably since Labour came to power and simply returning to the situation at 1997 would enable a few pence to be knocked off income tax.
A considerable saving could also be made by leaving the EU.
Local government could also be streamlined so that each area has one authority with one set of highly paid officials and one set of expensive councillors.
Abolishing political correctness would undoubtedly save billions as a huge number of people are employed to make sure that we will all comply with the pc fashista.
The abolision of the nanny state would also be beneficial. If people were encouraged to smoke and drink more they would not live so long, giving a saving on pension payments and would contribute far more heavily in additional taxes than the extra cost incurred by the NHS.
All the rest was padding for the last line - that's the gist of it isn't it?!
The Reagonomics principle of not taxing the higher earners out of existence is a fundamental principle of capitalism. If you over-tax the high earners such as the entrepreneurs, then you reduce their incentive to invest and create employment. This idea is obviously an anathema to the rampant socialists and, not surprisingly, is suffering under Tony's crowd as they increasingly show their true colours (red and red).
One problem in the UK is that, with the death of true industry, and the dependance of the country on the development of service industries and essentially, the financial sector, too many of the top earners are city based people who have limited added value other than the taxes they pay. They are not large scale employers, so the only way for the country to get its money's worth out of them is by high taxation.
Maybe there is room for a system of reduced taxation for founding MD's employing over X employees? Probably become a loophole, but just an idea.
The Reagonomics principle of not taxing the higher earners out of existence is a fundamental principle of capitalism. If you over-tax the high earners such as the entrepreneurs, then you reduce their incentive to invest and create employment. This idea is obviously an anathema to the rampant socialists and, not surprisingly, is suffering under Tony's crowd as they increasingly show their true colours (red and red).
One problem in the UK is that, with the death of true industry, and the dependance of the country on the development of service industries and essentially, the financial sector, too many of the top earners are city based people who have limited added value other than the taxes they pay. They are not large scale employers, so the only way for the country to get its money's worth out of them is by high taxation.
Maybe there is room for a system of reduced taxation for founding MD's employing over X employees? Probably become a loophole, but just an idea.
Never going to happen - would require honest politicans with vision, and the balls to implement. Bet you wouldn't need two hands to count the number of those in the good old House of Commons.
On reflection, would also require an electorate prepared to pay attention and understand the need for 'unpleasant medicine' in order to accomplish long term improvement.
I'd like to think this latter is possible but I'm doubtful. Unless, that is, there were to be some major cataclysm. Fundamental change generally requires an outside stimulus.
On reflection, would also require an electorate prepared to pay attention and understand the need for 'unpleasant medicine' in order to accomplish long term improvement.
I'd like to think this latter is possible but I'm doubtful. Unless, that is, there were to be some major cataclysm. Fundamental change generally requires an outside stimulus.
JagLover said:
It is true that most of the growth in employment over the last few years has come from the public sector.
However the biggest thing keeping the numbers of unemployed down is those people living on benefits who are not classed as unemployed-ie Those on incapacity benefit and single mums.
This is not a new phenomon-it started under the conservatives-but it is why you should always take the unemployment figures with a bucket of salt.
Without doubt but there is a vile course that runs through New Labour that exists purely to keep them in power.
They play on a somewhat harsh fact that your average voting man on the street cant see past the end of his cap.
Do people see that unemployment hasnt changed, its merely moved classification? Do they see that housing prices have been removed from the RPI to create a (dangerously) inaccurate inflation figure that looks good on the headlines. No, fundamentally.
The current government has turned Britain into a workshy nation of luddites and that alone is good enough reason for me to want them out and the sooner the better.
I, like probably almost everyone, wouldnt object to paying tax as long as it was used efficiently and provided real value for money.
This is in no way to justify any high rates of tax, or for the paying of more - no, just that I doubt that people would complain if the money that they paid actually went into something that they could see was good value.
One classic example is the local Council Tax. I mean, I pay over £100 a month for the bin men, and thats about it. I could have a personal contract with a cleaning company which would do a better job for less!!! And the basic services which they offer are getting less and less - take for example the lack of gritting as cited by Derestrictor recently!!!
Services are constantly whittled away or reduced yet we pay no less (even more)! It makes no sense and beggars belief sometimes. So how about some radical thinking for a change? How about opting 100% out of the NHS care system and paying for your own medical care? Reduce your tax burden that way (though you obviously have to pay for medical cover, insurance and hospital bills yourself)?
Value for money is what we want to see - not escallating costs and poorer services.....
This is in no way to justify any high rates of tax, or for the paying of more - no, just that I doubt that people would complain if the money that they paid actually went into something that they could see was good value.
One classic example is the local Council Tax. I mean, I pay over £100 a month for the bin men, and thats about it. I could have a personal contract with a cleaning company which would do a better job for less!!! And the basic services which they offer are getting less and less - take for example the lack of gritting as cited by Derestrictor recently!!!
Services are constantly whittled away or reduced yet we pay no less (even more)! It makes no sense and beggars belief sometimes. So how about some radical thinking for a change? How about opting 100% out of the NHS care system and paying for your own medical care? Reduce your tax burden that way (though you obviously have to pay for medical cover, insurance and hospital bills yourself)?
Value for money is what we want to see - not escallating costs and poorer services.....
There is a movement underway in the US to institute a "fair tax". It works like this:
* Total elimination of income tax (personal and corporate)
* 27% tax on consumption (purchases)
Economists are arguing that it would actually be easier and more fair. There would also be provisions for a monthly "prebate" for those making under a certain amount of money per year.
Sounds fair to me...
ErnestM
* Total elimination of income tax (personal and corporate)
* 27% tax on consumption (purchases)
Economists are arguing that it would actually be easier and more fair. There would also be provisions for a monthly "prebate" for those making under a certain amount of money per year.
Sounds fair to me...
ErnestM
The way government funds departments feeds inefficiency. The Project teams secure funding for the next financial year. The department aggregates all the projects' funding requirements, add a contingency and submit the departments budget for the next year. When the funding is approved, departments and project teams get their money to spend for the year. If they do not spend what they have, they get less the next year. So, each year they make sure they spend all their budget. Any company that supplies government knows that the majority of spend comes at the beginning and the end of the financial year.
If this is the case... I would like to see an approach where the Politicians press for year on year 10% reducation in budget, making departments reduce costs without affecting front line services. You could easily operate the current levels of service in this country for half its cost - so much is spent on middle management, back-office, Political Correctness, Health & Safety and enforcement that gets in the way of productivity.
edit: Basically, if it was in the interest of the civil servents to reduce cost without the expense of reduced service, it could easily be done. Lets get some one to force the issue by commiting to tax cuts and providing bonuses to those departments that achieve the highest cost savings
>> Edited by jazzybee on Tuesday 1st February 14:05
>> Edited by jazzybee on Tuesday 1st February 14:07
If this is the case... I would like to see an approach where the Politicians press for year on year 10% reducation in budget, making departments reduce costs without affecting front line services. You could easily operate the current levels of service in this country for half its cost - so much is spent on middle management, back-office, Political Correctness, Health & Safety and enforcement that gets in the way of productivity.
edit: Basically, if it was in the interest of the civil servents to reduce cost without the expense of reduced service, it could easily be done. Lets get some one to force the issue by commiting to tax cuts and providing bonuses to those departments that achieve the highest cost savings
>> Edited by jazzybee on Tuesday 1st February 14:05
>> Edited by jazzybee on Tuesday 1st February 14:07
jazzybee said:
The way government funds departments feeds inefficiency. The Project teams secure funding for the next financial year. The department aggregates all the projects' funding requirements, add a contingency and submit the departments budget for the next year. When the funding is approved, departments and project teams get their money to spend for the year. If they do not spend what they have, they get less the next year. So, each year they make sure they spend all their budget. Any company that supplies government knows that the majority of spend comes at the beginning and the end of the financial year.
If this is the case... I would like to see an approach where the Politicians press for year on year 10% reducation in budget, making departments reduce costs without affecting front line services. You could easily operate the current levels of service in this country for half its cost - so much is spent on middle management, back-office, Political Correctness, Health & Safety and enforcement that gets in the way of productivity.
edit: Basically, if it was in the interest of the civil servents to reduce cost without the expense of reduced service, it could easily be done. Lets get some one to force the issue by commiting to tax cuts and providing bonuses to those departments that achieve the highest cost savings
>> Edited by jazzybee on Tuesday 1st February 14:05
>> Edited by jazzybee on Tuesday 1st February 14:07
Yep - what you are advocating is the way most private businesses and plc's are run - basically budgetting to see "how can we deliver the same output for less £££" - pity the self-absorbed public sector enterprises and councils main objective is "spending money" to avoid losing the budget next year.
Example : loads of school signs / road humps / lights / warnings etc. near my house put up at the end of the financial year (local school has 20 (specialneeds only)kids - all bused in.
total waste of money - but avoided budget getting chopped.
Interesting article in The Business about adoption of the "Flat Tax Revolution". This has swept through the Baltic States and Russia and Georgia & Romania have just joined. The argument is compelling: tax everyone at a single low rate (15 - 20%). This discourages evasion, broadens the tax base and substantially reduces compliance costs. But the most important advantage is the dramatic boost given to economic growth. Numerous studies have demonstrated the impact of taxes on income and capital; conversely flat tax countries have seen competitiveness and tax revenues surge.
"Flat tax will be to politics and the global economy this decade and the next, what privatisation was to the world during the 1980s and 1990s"
"Flat tax will be to politics and the global economy this decade and the next, what privatisation was to the world during the 1980s and 1990s"
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff