More than half of households get more in benefits than they pay in tax

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And the public sector paves the way for many private sector firms to make money.

This is obvious surely?

There would be a private sector if the public sector closed down. Not the reverse though.

ILW

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am going to call you on this, both my partner and I work in the public sector, and as it is my business mostly does work for the public sector.

Any if both us and (and all like us stopped doing our jobs), you would have nobody educated enough to work in the private sector and many would have trouble getting to there private sector jobs as there would be no public transport.

Yes I agree there is still much waste in the public sector, but its not all a waste!

Only for some, private education and transport would continue.

Percy1983

ILW wrote: »

Only for some, private education and transport would continue.

I will say some of the things already happening due to the privatastion going on in schools is worrying, when I school is more concerned about profit than the children you are heading for failure.

As said there is waste, but can you honestly say we could close all public services and the private sector would be better?

Voyager2002

ILW wrote: »

There would be a private sector if the public sector closed down. Not the reverse though.

Not true. During the twentieth centuries there were plenty of countries where the public sector ran the entire economy (the technical term is 'centrally-planned economy'). Before about 1960 they worked as well or better than the familiar market or 'mixed' economies, although they clearly did not function during the decades before they were abolished.

ILW

Percy1983 wrote: »

I will say some of the things already happening due to the privatastion going on in schools is worrying, when I school is more concerned about profit than the children you are heading for failure.

As said there is waste, but can you honestly say we could close all public services and the private sector would be better?

I never said that, it was in reply to your assertion that there could be no private sector with a public one, which is blatantly untrue.

ILW

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Not true. During the twentieth centuries there were plenty of countries where the public sector ran the entire economy (the technical term is 'centrally-planned economy'). Before about 1960 they worked as well or better than the familiar market or 'mixed' economies, although they clearly did not function during the decades before they were abolished.

They all failed rather quickly and most involved murdering millions.

Voyager2002

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Another benefits thread, but not aimed at a benefits discussion!

I'm wondering, if it's the case that 53% of homes in the UK get more in benefits than they pay in tax.....surely this says something is seriously wrong with the cost of living in the UK?

Bring the cost of living down (easiest way is cheaper homes and rent) and this situation will go into reverse, instead of more and more households needing benefits to get by.

This situation simply isn't sustainable....is it?! The numbers are said to have exploded under Labours reign of the country since 1997. previous to that, the number of households getting more in benefits than paid in tax only increased 0.7% in 20 years. It increased over 10% during labours reign...conincidentally, when HPI went crazy.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article-2214379/Half-homes-burden-state-Benefit-payments-services-outweigh-taxes-53-properties.html

This shows that both wage levels and rates of taxation are unreasonably low.

I question whether the story takes account of the many indirect taxes that account for a hefty proportion of most household budgets. Personally I would like to see much higher rates of income tax but far lower VAT.

FTBFun

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Not true. During the twentieth centuries there were plenty of countries where the public sector ran the entire economy (the technical term is 'centrally-planned economy'). Before about 1960 they worked as well or better than the familiar market or 'mixed' economies, although they clearly did not function during the decades before they were abolished.

Yeah, China were doing much better economically under full blown Communism then they are now.

Gracchus_Babeuf

What we need is a much higher minimum wage and also a much higher income tax threshold. In the USA the threshold before you pay any income tax is a lot higher. Let's make £8 an hour the minimum wage and £15k of earnings free of income tax and NI. Then we need a 50% income rate to start at £70k or so to recoup the lost revenue, and a special higher rate of VAT on luxury goods.

Gracchus_Babeuf

Voyager2002 wrote: »

This shows that both wage levels and rates of taxation are unreasonably low.

I question whether the story takes account of the many indirect taxes that account for a hefty proportion of most household budgets. Personally I would like to see much higher rates of income tax but far lower VAT.

The basic rate of income tax should stay unchanged, but the higher rate needs to start at a much lower level - say £70k. As for VAT, it should be abolished on gas, water and electricity bills and stay at 0% on food, but it needs to be raised to 30% or higher for luxury items. The 3% threshold for stamp duty on house purchases should be raised to £500k, with a 1.5% rate below that figure.