Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

always_sunny

economic wrote: »

when i was working i was in the 40% tax bracket. i certainly dont want to pay more then that. in fact one of the reasons for me not working is that i paid too much tax to make it worthwhile.

yes there are poor people but thats just part of life. i certainly dont want to have to pay for them to sacrifice my quality of life.

That's a another big problem though, the distorted perception of cost of live vs tax paid.
In the UK tax is too low for the quality of life that is expected and there are too many allowances that make not working worthwhile (like you're highlighting).

Rusty_Shackleton

economic wrote: »

when i was working i was in the 40% tax bracket. i certainly dont want to pay more then that. in fact one of the reasons for me not working is that i paid too much tax to make it worthwhile.

yes there are poor people but thats just part of life. i certainly dont want to have to pay for them to sacrifice my quality of life.

Sorry, just to get this straight - you stopped working... As in left your job... because of the amount of tax you were paying? There werent other real reasons at all? Like family, career change, early retirement or something? Because under a progressive tax system, you can only have taken home less by doing so.... It seems incredibly unlikely anyone would leave a job and make themselves poorer because of tax, its a very odd and pointless protest.

Well I guess its a good thing that they'll be somebody else willing to take your job then! No shortage of people after high paying jobs, 40pc tax rate or not!

Rusty_Shackleton

always_sunny wrote: »

That's a another big problem though, the distorted perception of cost of live vs tax paid.
In the UK tax is too low for the quality of life that is expected and there are too many allowances that make not working worthwhile (like you're highlighting).

What allowances? The pittance that is jobseekers allowance?

Thrugelmir

always_sunny wrote: »

In the UK tax is too low for the quality of life that is expected .

Do all public sector services offer value for money though.

Is there adequate control over those responsible for spending tax payers money.

There's many perceptions that require a very thorough review and overhaul.

Herzlos

economic wrote: »

its only 260 jobs. end of.

How many job losses are needed before we go from "only" to "oh, we have a problem? "

economic

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Sorry, just to get this straight - you stopped working... As in left your job... because of the amount of tax you were paying? There werent other real reasons at all? Like family, career change, early retirement or something? Because under a progressive tax system, you can only have taken home less by doing so.... It seems incredibly unlikely anyone would leave a job and make themselves poorer because of tax, its a very odd and pointless protest.

Well I guess its a good thing that they'll be somebody else willing to take your job then! No shortage of people after high paying jobs, 40pc tax rate or not!

i never said that. i said its one of the reasons.

Rusty_Shackleton

economic wrote: »

i never said that. i said its one of the reasons.

I just think youre being rather disingenuous. I think whatever reasons you had would have been just as important if you were in a lower tax band, and youd have taken the same course of action, simply because no matter your feelings on tax, to leave your job over it would jist make you poorer, that makes no sense.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Because I don't agree that public services are adequate relative to the wealth of this country.

How do you come to that conclusion, and specifically want do we need more of?

I think a lot of northern European countries are far more progressive and serve their citizens better in numerous ways - they all spend a higher proportion of GDP than the UK.

Which countries are you talking about and why/how are they better

The proportion of GDP spent by the government is largely irrelevant

Why?

If you agree with the tories about having a small state for ideological reasons, say so

I have already said I think the uk is around where it should be not much more or much less government expenditure. If I had to lean either way I would say slightly less taxes would be preferable

but I think your earlier comments about the reasons for poverty in this country were pretty shameful, I really hope it's through genuine ignorance.

Could your experiences of the world be the limited version?
For instance how many true drunks or gambling addicts do you know?

There is real poverty and real suffering in this country

Yes and mostly inflected by drugs gambling and alcohol things that everyone wants solved but no one has really been able to find a way to solve it

and there's plenty we, as a society, could choose to do about it.

Like what?

give more tax credits to fat single women with four kids lying about starving while feeding and maintaining two large dogs and collecting tax credits for a front business and going on TV programs to berate the Tories for cutting her tax credits fake business and getting a job with momentum 18 months later?

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

How many job losses are needed before we go from "only" to "oh, we have a problem? "

If the UK follows US trends, as it normally does. The high street retail sector is heading for some major turbulence in the years to come.

GreatApe

Rinoa wrote: »

Not sure. Maybe their maths isn't up to scratch

If migrants pay their way fine, but I don't see why they should be subsidised. Although I acknowledge the way our benefits system works doesn't help.

The problem is, and I have talked about this elsewhere on this thread, its difficult to allocate true economic value by just looking at someones income tax payments.

For instance lets pretend there are no foreigners in this country. Lets look at bin men a job that is clearly vital and needs doing. Well they get paid about £17k a year and thus pay very little in income tax the family with a bin man as the bread winner is on first accounting a huge drain on the public purse they pay very little in taxes and get lots in services and likely benefits too

But how can a job that is vital for society also be a drain to society. Clearly things do not add up. The way it works is imagine every single bin man and his family dies today all of them English remember our model is no migrants. Well that is maybe 10,000 families now gone and 10,000 bin men roles need filling. Since we are at full employment the way that happens is 10,000 people with jobs elsewhere in the economy lose their jobs (everything from the teachers that were teaching the kids in those 10,000 families to doctors that were treating them to everything else in the economy) and will have to become the bin men.

I think a fair accounting would be that people on the bottom effectively push up everyone above them to higher skilled jobs and wages so some of the higher wages and taxes should be accounted to them. I would say a bin man although he earns only £17k and pay only about £1.5k in income/NI his actual tax construction is closer to £20k a year which is more than he earns

In many ways the value of work to a society is closer to the number of hours someone puts in rather than the sum they are paid. In this regard, low paid people, uk born or migrants contribute more than their payslips show. Simply put if you dont want the migrants to pick the strawberries and wait the tables and wipe the old age bums then our own kids are going to have to do that (rather than work higher up the pyramid providing the higher goods and services the migrants need)