The Budget

michaels

My heart is in favour of inheritance tax to increase equality of opportunity, my brain says people pay tax on their income, why tax them again on the same money when they die - after all if they pass on the money while they are still alive they don't pay tax on it.

Don't forget that the policy will actually increase tax on estates over 2 million.

A lot of the reason that work doesn't pay is that housing costs much more than build costs which is all the evidence you need that supply is restricted otherwise why wouldn't supply increase until prices were pushed down to the point where houses sold for what it costs to build them? If housing costs were more realistic then wages would go far enough and there would be no need for top-ups.

Eg 100k to build a 3 bed house can home 3 people on average for their lifetimes (80 years, assuming on average 3 people live in the house as for some periofd their will be kids) works out out at 400 per person per YEAR. Add in financing costs and repairs and you are still looking at less than 1000 per year to house the population excluding land cost!

Mistermeaner

lvader wrote: »

I'm sure the 100k civil servants being affected will survive. The vast majority of them will be on salaries well above the average and will most likely be re-employed in the private sector in no time at all.

In my limited experience in private industry the people I've seen come from public sector have flopped big time. Couldn't cope with the hours, the pressure, lack of structure and generally just having to get stuff done. Imo public sector people aren't very employable.

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Been effective so far. The cull has reduced costs and a lot of dead wood.

Probably true, but where will another 100000 come from?

How many people are employed in administering IHT, WTCs?


Agencies being privatised?

BobQ

lvader wrote: »

I'm sure the 100k civil servants being affected will survive. The vast majority of them will be on salaries well above the average and will most likely be re-employed in the private sector in no time at all.

Some may be re-employed at twice the pay by the civil service!

[Deleted User]

ggb1979 wrote: »

In my limited experience in private industry the people I've seen come from public sector have flopped big time. Couldn't cope with the hours, the pressure, lack of structure and generally just having to get stuff done. Imo public sector people aren't very employable.

I'm just going out, but didn't someone post relatively recently a graph showing that the majority of the CS job cuts had come at the coal face level and far fewer at the "mandarin" level?

My perception - and I agree, it's an opinion - is that when organisations downsize (public or private) it is the lower grades that go first. Wealth and income ineqaulity is only going one way - there is a continuing flow of funds from the poorer to the less poor as a matter of state policy. The consequence of the coming budget will be to increase it, I have no doubt about that. Which, of course, will be fine, as long as those affected sit quietly and accept it. I'm not convinced they will though.

WR

stator

michaels wrote: »

My heart is in favour of inheritance tax to increase equality of opportunity, my brain says people pay tax on their income, why tax them again on the same money when they die - after all if they pass on the money while they are still alive they don't pay tax on it.

Dead people don't need money, it's the fairest and most harmless point to tax someone.
If I could defer all my taxes until death I would.

As for the 'double taxation' that happens all the time. Your salary is taxes twice before you receive, then when you spend it you have to pay VAT or duty or stamp duty etc.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

Probably true, but where will another 100000 come from?

How many people are employed in administering IHT, WTCs?


Agencies being privatised?

Public sector is very inefficient compared to the private operationally. Be a combination of restructuring, outsourcing and investment in technology.

BobQ

ggb1979 wrote: »

In my limited experience in private industry the people I've seen come from public sector have flopped big time. Couldn't cope with the hours, the pressure, lack of structure and generally just having to get stuff done. Imo public sector people aren't very employable.

I think this is a wild generalisation.

I think some have got used to better employment conditions and less aggressive management practices and do not transition well. But there are many who work very hard given clear objectives. So it is unfair to generalise.

The civil service is quite diverse. Many of the job losses will simply be in functions that no longer need to be done (eg managing WTC).

I am told that there are loads of people in some areas of the civil service who are queuing up for voluntary exit schemes.I suspect they will be the ones who are well qualified, young enough to change career or close enough to a pension not to care.

Mistermeaner

BobQ wrote: »

I think this is a wild generalisation.

You are of course entitled to your opinion but what I posted was a fact

BobQ

ggb1979 wrote: »

You are of course entitled to your opinion but what I posted was a fact

A fact?

No it was an opinion. In fact to quote you directly "IMO public sector people aren't very employable". IMO presumably means In My Opinion?

Lets not fall out about it, its a valid opinion based on your limited experience and cannot be fact unless supported by evidence.:)