At what earnings point does someone become an 'asset'
Discussion
With all this talk of migration in the EU debate, I Keep considering the never talked about notion of when someone becomes a net contributor to our country.
So I have a question:
At what earnings point does a family become a genuine contributor to the economy? you have to balance the amount of income taxes incurred as well as vat on a typical basket of consumer spending (as well as other typical taxable spending) against tax credits and other welfare bribery?
Let's look at a typical nuclear family of 2 adults working and 2 school age kids
My suspicion is somewhere around the £60k household income point before someone is genuinely not a drain on society
I suspect in light of this clarity it may put the immigration argument in a different light. Just how many car wash attendants do we REALLY need
So I have a question:
At what earnings point does a family become a genuine contributor to the economy? you have to balance the amount of income taxes incurred as well as vat on a typical basket of consumer spending (as well as other typical taxable spending) against tax credits and other welfare bribery?
Let's look at a typical nuclear family of 2 adults working and 2 school age kids
My suspicion is somewhere around the £60k household income point before someone is genuinely not a drain on society
I suspect in light of this clarity it may put the immigration argument in a different light. Just how many car wash attendants do we REALLY need
It's harder to work out than that though as the 2 kids are a future investment and therefore whilst the 2 adults income, less their costs to the state and those of the children, might not be an income producing asset today they are an investment for the future.
Take me - private education from 10, good income, no kids, smoke like a trooper so likely not to need a pension for long but may be a short term drain on the NHS, never been unemployed and am never likely to be even if I gave up the day job, if I wasn't private - you'd think that i was the greatest asset before the next bloke in the same boat but earning £5kpa more than me. BUT the no kids thing is also a bit of a bummer for the state as once i die there is nothing more to squeeze from me or my genes. They will not even get the death duties as i have made sure of that
Take me - private education from 10, good income, no kids, smoke like a trooper so likely not to need a pension for long but may be a short term drain on the NHS, never been unemployed and am never likely to be even if I gave up the day job, if I wasn't private - you'd think that i was the greatest asset before the next bloke in the same boat but earning £5kpa more than me. BUT the no kids thing is also a bit of a bummer for the state as once i die there is nothing more to squeeze from me or my genes. They will not even get the death duties as i have made sure of that
You need to earn around 40k before you become a net contributor to the economy.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
Worth noting as well that, with an immigrant, all of the education/childbirth/nursery expenses have been paid for by their previous country. I think this is why politicians love immigrants- we get their income tax but someone else has paid all of the big expenses.
Their break-even point must be lower than a native.
Their break-even point must be lower than a native.
But you can't simply look at what they receive or pay to the state.
Someone could help to make, say, a large number of Nissan cars thus enabling Nissan to generate profits. His contribution to GDP is therefore relevant.
Another example would be the after school staff who look after my son - therefore allowing my wife to do more work each day than she could otherwise.
Someone could help to make, say, a large number of Nissan cars thus enabling Nissan to generate profits. His contribution to GDP is therefore relevant.
Another example would be the after school staff who look after my son - therefore allowing my wife to do more work each day than she could otherwise.
lawless50 said:
I don't think 'society' is defined as the top 16% of the population by income.
Maybe not defined by, but paid for, yes....thanks for the diagram, let's assume that it is somewhere near accurate. That puts quite a spin on the immigration argument, IMO.
So we have our emigrants leaving to retire to Spain, get a job in Europe etc and that is counteracted by immigrants coming to do 'largely' menial manual work. That doesn't seem a very fair swap to me as far as a skills and money drain. Compounded by the fact that however hard they work, they will still be a net drain.
It's an interesting angle
Rude-boy said:
It's harder to work out than that though as the 2 kids are a future investment and therefore whilst the 2 adults income, less their costs to the state and those of the children, might not be an income producing asset today they are an investment for the future.
We should only consider people as individuals not a family. At the moment kids will be a drain, then as the work they will contribute, and at the same time their parents will become a drain. All things being equal every person will be a child, a working adult, and finally pensioner (so it all balances in the end). You are a net contributor when you pay enough taxes to fund 1 persons worth of full life benefits.
lawless50 said:
Greg_D said:
Compounded by the fact that however hard they work, they will still be a net drain.
Not according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. Were they mistaken? Which part of their reports and analysis have you found issue with?lawless50 said:
If this were true, wouldn't you have much bigger problems than immigration and the EU?
Using the calculator on the IFS website, 2 adults and 2 kids (ages 0-13) with household income of £60K is in the top 16%. Meaning, by your estimate, 84% of households are a drain on society.
I don't think 'society' is defined as the top 16% of the population by income.
We DO have much bigger problems than immigration and the EU.Using the calculator on the IFS website, 2 adults and 2 kids (ages 0-13) with household income of £60K is in the top 16%. Meaning, by your estimate, 84% of households are a drain on society.
I don't think 'society' is defined as the top 16% of the population by income.
We STILL have a massive deficit. We STILL have an obscene National Debt. And despite Cameron and Boy George having a govt majority this time round, the plans to materially kill both are shakier than my beer gut. Why is all this? (Not my gut - I know why that's there) Because we don't have enough net contributors in this country any more (and haven't had for a long time - we've become feckless and lazy...).
Unfortunately while ever we have lack of control over immigration, and rather large net contributions to the EU, too many people will point that way rather than internally to allow us to focus on getting a proper grip on our bigger issues. They get used as diversionary items. You can add in stuff like Foreign Aid and the like. Tinkering round the edges in many respects. But I suppose at least we can say we're looking after the pennies etc.
Greg_D said:
Government stats from a department I've never heard of on immigration... With the governments recent unimpeachable evenhandedness regarding these issues, you will excuse me for not taking the time to read their reports in order to unpick their obvious bias...
Seriously? You've never heard of the OBR? In this case I politely suggest that this particular sub-forum is not one for you!sidicks said:
Seriously? You've never heard of the OBR? In this case I politely suggest that this particular sub-forum is not one for you!
There's nothing polite about that... No I've never heard of the obr, please demonstrate to me where it is widely reported on (outside of the guardian or their own website). I'm reasonably well read, keep up to date on current affairs, listen to talk radio stations as a preference etc. so I'm hardly some Luddite who never looks past the garden gate. Don't you dare assume that because someone hasn't heard of every government quango that they are somehow not entitled to an opinion or allowed to doubt the civil servants' towing of the establishment line. You pompous arse
Edited by Greg_D on Friday 3rd June 23:32
Eric Mc said:
I reckon it's an impossible thing to evaluate numerically. Many people make contributions that have no obvious economic return but which is invaluable from a human point of view.
How do you value inspiration, for instance?
exactly , and in PH terms it always ends up as the powerfully built , be goatteed, redbull swiggers trying to prove they are a net contributor and how they should be treated differently by public services becasue ' i pay your wages ' ... How do you value inspiration, for instance?
t on this.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff