How is robbing the wealth of others to pay for lower paid people 'fair'?

shaven-monkey

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the Govt needs to add up all the money it needs (less borrowing etc) and then divide it by the adult population. that is the charge.

Population of the UK (including children) estimated : 62,041,708
Labor force : 31.25 million (2009 est.) . does not include people over 65.
Government spending last year £620 billion

Per capita citizen charge (levied only on labor force): - £19,840
Labor force is any person between the ages of 15 and 64.

Per capita citizen charge (levied on all citizens over 15) :- £12,000 approximately.

GDP per capita (wildly inaccurate estimate) : £22,878
Figures gathered from CIA world fact book, government national statistics and "where does my money go" websites.

Effectively, the average value generated by a british worker is about £3000 more than the costs of providing services for that citizen.

Pobby

I really do not mind paying tax as long as it is fair. This decade, in the good years I paid tax of £12k per year quite cheerfully. Business was good so fair enough. Currently paying tax at £4k. Business not so good. I might even pay less this year as seeing this as a retirement wind down.

However, what I would like to see is a raising of the basic tax free band. I feel that this would go some way to being an incentive to go to work.P Perhaps, levied at around £10k. This in turn would cut down a lot on the tax credit calculations.

markharding557

StevieJ wrote: »

That would probably make sense if the Socialists weren't part of that rich club themselves

BLAIR SOCIALIST!he is more right wing than cameron,he was george bushes poodle.
You really can not be serious when calling blair multiple mansions a socialist:rotfl:

nickmason

beer_tins wrote: »

Either way, I've got no problem with them earning a high salary. It's the system we've got. But is it "fair" for them to earn so much more? The nurse may have chosen her path in order to help people and benefit society in a way the company director doesn't.

Absolutely - or the charity worker might have chosen to take job satisfaction over a "banker's salary", as I did. And while sometimes I wish I had stayed on and made squillions (selling your soul seems sensible to an atheist) I can't help think it a little spoilt to want the job satisfaction and then later to expect an equivalent pay.
You takes your choices...

As for fairness - it just isn't fair. And it never will be. The closest you get is probably some strange agrarian communitarian existence - but the best example of that ended up with a lot of dead people in "killing fields".
Income inequality isn't fair. Tax isn't fair. Tax, unfair or not, won't right the unfairness of income inequality. This is a logical truism - as long as people are different, or have different skills/resources, you will not be able to make those differences fair.

What that doesn't mean is that it's not worth trying to mitigate unfairness - and I think you should forgive politicians for using "fair" as short-hand for "less unfair".

But when:
1) Doctors are not working 'cos frankly the tax rate's too high
2) Bankers and wealth generators are taking their business or entrepreneurship abroad
3) The incentives to find work are so low because of the tax/tax-credit regime that people look to work the system not the economy

I wonder whether we should resist the clamour to make things "less unfair" still.

nickmason

nickmason wrote: »

But when:
1) Doctors are not working 'cos frankly the tax rate's too high
2) Bankers and wealth generators are taking their business or entrepreneurship abroad
3) The incentives to find work are so low because of the tax/tax-credit regime that people look to work the system not the economy

The problem with all of the above (especially 3) is the effective marginal tax rate being very high.

I'm sure I've heard before of the idea of, instead of having tax credits and personal allowances, giving everyone a certain amount of money - say £5K - and then tax their income at either a flat rate or possibly have a couple of tiers of tax.
Okay it would probably need funding from elsewhere (ie a shift from an employment tax to an indirect tax, but that might not necessarily be a problem - except in the current climate of course!)
It would at least solve the incentive problem. Any of you number crunchers/economists like to tell me why it wouldn't work? I'm just being lazy....

Snooze

Dan: wrote: »

What should happen to the unemployed and pensioners, who have not got the money to contribute their share?

The pensioners pay nothing as they'll have contributed their share during their working years. For the unemployed, well, it's really simple - get all the public sector lot out of their bullet proof jobs and fill the spaces with the unemployed. In return for emptying bins, gritting roads/paths, cleaning public bogs etc etc, the government pays your tax. I really don't see why people have such a problem with this concept. I can only assume that this forum is full of 'lefties' (as TWH would say) as everyone on here seems to be of the opinion that there's nothing wrong with drinking Stella all day and watching Kyle while the rest of us pay for such people to do so.

And before someone says 'what about the disabled?', that one is easily solved too. A number of rigorous medical examinations to determine who really has a disability and who does not will see 90% of the people currently receiving DLA/incapacity struck off as fit-to-work for a start, and for the remaining 10% I'm sure that the vast majority will have working limbs which means that there is no issue whatsoever with them sitting in front of PC keying in data into a government database of some sort.

LydiaJ

Snooze wrote: »

For the unemployed, well, it's really simple - get all the public sector lot out of their bullet proof jobs and fill the spaces with the unemployed.

I do realise that this suggestion is probably not meant entirely seriously, but I still felt I had to point out just how ludicrous it is.

You take all the people who are currently employed as doctors, teachers, binmen, school cleaners, lollipop people, customs officers, police, armed forces personnel, doctors' secretaries, coastguards, council office receptionists etc, many of whom are highly qualified and almost all of whom are currently demonstrating that they are able and willing to show up for work and earn a living. You sack them all (on what grounds??) and plunge them and their families into unnecessary economic hardship and uncertainty. Do you pay them JSA?

Then you give their jobs to those who are currently unemployed - some of whom are excellent, deserving and unfortunate people who would be great in some of the jobs. However, others are workshy and unreliable, and still others have commitment and skills, but are better suited by inclination, aptitude and experience to jobs that don't exist in the public sector - like our very own Max Headroom who wanted to be a car salesman and eventually got a job as one. You wouldn't get a good match of enough unemployed people to the skills required for jobs like teaching A-level maths, or piloting a search and rescue helicopter, or being a mental health nurse.

You still have the same number of jobs, and you still have the same number of unemployed people, but the work is no longer being done by the best people for the jobs, and people who've already shown some kind of work ethic have all been kicked in the teeth. What exactly have you gained?

hermanmunster_3

hermanmunster wrote: »

The current excess tax rate over 100k is stopping a lot of colleagues from working extra. I have just been texted (happens nearly every day) looking for GPs to work on the out of hours service this evening. We used to do it like a shot but when we are effectively getting less than 40% sitting at home seems preferable.

So I sat at home in the evening and did a 10.5 hour day instead of a 15 hour day.

kennyboy66_2

Pete111 wrote: »

To be fair (and not wishing to denegrate nurses) I imagine plenty of company directors have taken big gambles to launch and run their companies. If their company is successful it will probably employ many others, add wealth & value to the local or national economy and (importantly) generate lots of tax revenues that can then be spend by the government on 'society'

As such I have no beef at all with them earning large salaries.

There is a big distinction between what you descibe which are really the owners of companies (only a tiny percentage of whom will have outside shareholders) who in any case would take their money out of the company in dividends not salaries. These are the Branson / Sugar / james Dyson type of people.

The other set of directors are essentially bureaucrats (or technocrats). They have enriched themselves no end at the expense of shareholders and plundered company pension funds at the same time. In the main they are not risk takers at all - at least they are not risking their own wealth.

There are some excellent ones (Terry Leahy at Tesco for example - not matter what you think of Tesco) but these are well out numbered by the ar*se coverers and greasy pole climbers.

It is the second group which has helped push civil service salaries up as well.

Oink oink

lemonjelly

Haven't read the whole thread, but I am wondering whether anyone has made the arguement that the elites have profited from our sweat & toil for decades & it is merely a process of regaining what is rightfully ours...;)

On a serious note, I was watching It's Only A Theory on BBC4 last night. Some academic from Oxbridge was on. Amazing fact was put forward - regardless of age, the vast majority of state expense spent on a individual is in the last 12 months of their life! Up to that point, there cost is borderline negligable.