On the news this morning I am watching an interview with Grayling. His line is that in the public sector that it's a choice between a decent pay rise, or jobs, you can't have both.
I think there are a number of Tory MPs who are not gainst the amendment - they will not vote for it of course!
That's what the whips are for!
I could never be an MP as there is very little form any of the parties I agree with to vote for!
I would love to be an MP - who knows maybe when I stand I can surprise people.
However the only reason I would want to be an MP is so that I could make my maiden speech and tell all the assembled twats what I really think of them, including some choice words that would likely send the Speaker into meltdown. I would then resign very loudly as I was being lead away by Black Rod.
Tsk tsk.
One cannot resign as an MP. You must accept an appointment to the Chiltern Hundreds should you wish to trigger a by-election.
And it wouldn't be Black Rod as he resides in the House of Lords, the Commons Sergeant-at-Arms would escort you (provided you repeatedly refused to leave of your own accord).
I think there are a number of Tory MPs who are not gainst the amendment - they will not vote for it of course!
That's what the whips are for!
I could never be an MP as there is very little form any of the parties I agree with to vote for!
I would love to be an MP - who knows maybe when I stand I can surprise people.
However the only reason I would want to be an MP is so that I could make my maiden speech and tell all the assembled twats what I really think of them, including some choice words that would likely send the Speaker into meltdown. I would then resign very loudly as I was being lead away by Black Rod.
I guess if you put it like that, being an MP if only for a day would be worthwhile.
We're relying on you Bob, Looking forward to the campaign! @cabbles I can see Bob is going to be hard to control during the campaign, you've got your work cut out......
On Labours requested amendment, we do seem to make hard work of these things whatever the political party, why only help the 17% who work in the public sector (not sure what % of those would be lower earners which I assume is whom labour mainly want to help), what about the lower earners in the private sector who haven't had rises for years?
I can't help but think there is such an easy solution to help ALL lower paid workers, just take them out of all direct employment tax, Income & National Insurance.
Why we charge people earning about £8k a year and above NI and above £11.5k a year income tax is beyond me. Just don't tax people on the first say £20k and amend the other rates accordingly (have 21% band above and then 41% or whatever is needed).
Someone on £20k per year pays circa £1,700 in income tax and £1,500 in national insurance, that's 16% of their gross pay. Even someone on the minimum wage (circa £13k per annum) would be circa £1000 better off a year if they didn't pay Income tax or NI.
Far easier and helps all lower paid workers not just a % based on who you are employed by.
I thought Labours mantra was 'for the many not the few'........
Well @Rob7Lee the government is the one responsible for how the public sector performs or otherwise and is the indirect employer as these services are paid for out of taxes. The Government is therefore (via Local Authorities, the NHS et al) the only organisation that can raise or lower the pay of the people it employs. The NHS in particular is facing a recruitment crisis, whoever is in government needs to tackle that.
Of course Labour's policies also would have helped people in the private sector like banning zero hour contracts, the living wage and free university education etc. On top of that there is the benefit all of society gets from increasing schools budgets, having more police and beefing up the border guard numbers.
The thing with raising the income tax threshold is of course that everybody benefits, even those earning £100k pa. It is a laudable policy on first viewing but I would rather we have progressive taxation that whilst benefiting us all also targeted help where it was most needed and most able to help.
I also think there is an boast to people self-respect when they 'contribute' via taxation. They may get more back than they put in but they are putting into the pot and it gives every chance that in the future they can develop in to net payers. Incidentally despite the rhetoric it is still not 'always' better financially to be in work rather than on benefits, which is a One Nation Tory ideal I support but is just not happening.
The part in bold and italic, on that basis lets scrap the personal allowance altogether then so that everyone pays tax no matter how little they earn so that they feel as if they are contributing
Not really such a stupid idea!
If ALL income is taxed but does NOT affect benefits.
1) Working always means you have more money to spend than if you don't.
2) Working always means you are contributing something back to society.
On the news this morning I am watching an interview with Grayling. His line is that in the public sector that it's a choice between a decent pay rise, or jobs, you can't have both.
So he's suggesting if someone is a civil servant, they could go elsewhere and take a higher-paid job. I wonder what his suggestion will be if the whole civil service did precisely that..?
I would be OK with scrapping the personal allowance @Rob7Lee and replacing it with a living wage and progressive taxation so that if you are in work you contribute. I agree each area needs to be able to do what it needs to do to recruit staff and improve, scrapping the pay freeze would be a start though.
We also need a progressive system that allows people to move from benefits to work without being penalised, I really don't understand why this isn't front and centre of a progressive Tory manifesto (rather than just rhetoric). In work benefits is an imperfect answer, but at least it was an answer.
Typo on my first post it should have boost, not boast.
@Cordoban Addick the benefit system is so over complicated its ridiculous.
i think scrapping the PA and having a living wage would be a mess personally, you'd have to bring in probably at least 2 more income tax bands, it wouldn't help part time employees whom may already earn (by hour) a living wage and would kill a lot of small businesses.
We have a system that needs scrapping and starting again but that's never going to happen so just personally feel to help now those most in need just don't tax them. Having someone earning £20k, taxing them a few thousand and then giving that back in benefits is just one really messed up system and so over complicated.
I would be OK with scrapping the personal allowance @Rob7Lee and replacing it with a living wage and progressive taxation so that if you are in work you contribute. I agree each area needs to be able to do what it needs to do to recruit staff and improve, scrapping the pay freeze would be a start though.
We also need a progressive system that allows people to move from benefits to work without being penalised, I really don't understand why this isn't front and centre of a progressive Tory manifesto (rather than just rhetoric). In work benefits is an imperfect answer, but at least it was an answer.
Typo on my first post it should have boost, not boast.
The funny thing about the personal allowance is that it's actually a "benefit" paid only to people in work.
The more you think about it, the more bizarre the whole idea is. But I guess it's just what we're used to.
The system is a mess and is classic designed by a committee stuff, it is one of those things that I would just like to get all party support to feed the question into a big computer (lets call it Deep Thought) and we will go with whatever comes out. Actually I am leaning toward this method for a number of issues.
But would it be so difficult to have a living wage and then progressively higher taxation? Or does custom and practice make us think it is too difficult? I know next to bugger all on tax law (so stand to be corrected) but as an example what about 5% on the first £10k, 10% on the next £20k, 15% on the next £30k and then an additional 5% for every additional £20k or part of that you earn. Or whatever figures are easy and fair. We would obviously need a special rate for Damo.
I actually quite like the idea of the basic income that everybody gets and then you work to bring in more if you want it, but it will never happen.
The system is a mess and is classic designed by a committee stuff, it is one of those things that I would just like to get all party support to feed the question into a big computer (lets call it Deep Thought) and we will go with whatever comes out. Actually I am leaning toward this method for a number of issues.
But would it be so difficult to have a living wage and then progressively higher taxation? Or does custom and practice make us think it is too difficult? I know next to bugger all on tax law (so stand to be corrected) but as an example what about 5% on the first £10k, 10% on the next £20k, 15% on the next £30k and then an additional 5% for every additional £20k or part of that you earn. Or whatever figures are easy and fair. We would obviously need a special rate for Damo.
I actually quite like the idea of the basic income that everybody gets and then you work to bring in more if you want it, but it will never happen.
YES! - Back to my original point about 200 pages ago, if we were starting again I'd remove the personal allowance and ALL benefits bar a few (like disability) and every person who is of working age receives whatever is deemed the bare minimum to live on from the state and thereafter every penny is taxed. Like you say though, it'll never happen.
There would be so much to untangle, and inevitably it'd be the likes of small businesses and lower earners that suffer if only in the short term. In theory yes a living wage and progressively more tax but I think it would hurt a lot of people, as an example:
I know a guy who runs a small shop and employs 3 people full time, he pays them about £8.50 an hour so about £15.5k a year each (he doesn't take an awful lot more than that himself). Each of those staff will pay around £1600 in tax and NI. If you said to him you would have to pay them an extra £2.50 an hour to be a 'living wage' he'd shut up shop or more likely make one redundant. You can have the same, positive, effect by just not taxing the 3 staff.
I think there are a number of Tory MPs who are not gainst the amendment - they will not vote for it of course!
That's what the whips are for!
I could never be an MP as there is very little form any of the parties I agree with to vote for!
I would love to be an MP - who knows maybe when I stand I can surprise people.
However the only reason I would want to be an MP is so that I could make my maiden speech and tell all the assembled twats what I really think of them, including some choice words that would likely send the Speaker into meltdown. I would then resign very loudly as I was being lead away by Black Rod.
Tsk tsk.
One cannot resign as an MP. You must accept an appointment to the Chiltern Hundreds should you wish to trigger a by-election.
And it wouldn't be Black Rod as he resides in the House of Lords, the Commons Sergeant-at-Arms would escort you (provided you repeatedly refused to leave of your own accord).
Kids these days don't know nothing.
I'll take him on as well - and trust me in saying that I would repeatedly refuse to leave!!
I think there are a number of Tory MPs who are not gainst the amendment - they will not vote for it of course!
That's what the whips are for!
I could never be an MP as there is very little form any of the parties I agree with to vote for!
I would love to be an MP - who knows maybe when I stand I can surprise people.
However the only reason I would want to be an MP is so that I could make my maiden speech and tell all the assembled twats what I really think of them, including some choice words that would likely send the Speaker into meltdown. I would then resign very loudly as I was being lead away by Black Rod.
Tsk tsk.
One cannot resign as an MP. You must accept an appointment to the Chiltern Hundreds should you wish to trigger a by-election.
And it wouldn't be Black Rod as he resides in the House of Lords, the Commons Sergeant-at-Arms would escort you (provided you repeatedly refused to leave of your own accord).
Kids these days don't know nothing.
I'll take him on as well - and trust me in saying that I would repeatedly refuse to leave!!
I think there are a number of Tory MPs who are not gainst the amendment - they will not vote for it of course!
That's what the whips are for!
I could never be an MP as there is very little form any of the parties I agree with to vote for!
I would love to be an MP - who knows maybe when I stand I can surprise people.
However the only reason I would want to be an MP is so that I could make my maiden speech and tell all the assembled twats what I really think of them, including some choice words that would likely send the Speaker into meltdown. I would then resign very loudly as I was being lead away by Black Rod.
Tsk tsk.
One cannot resign as an MP. You must accept an appointment to the Chiltern Hundreds should you wish to trigger a by-election.
And it wouldn't be Black Rod as he resides in the House of Lords, the Commons Sergeant-at-Arms would escort you (provided you repeatedly refused to leave of your own accord).
Kids these days don't know nothing.
I'll take him on as well - and trust me in saying that I would repeatedly refuse to leave!!
Careful, he carries a ceremonial sword.
Pah - bob's got me and rob7lee in his team. In such a situation if a sergeant at arms came at bob with his big sword, I'd throw rob7lee in the way and escort bob to safety
I would be happy to see my taxes support small business during a transition phase. But don't ask me to come up with any detail on what that would mean!
I don't usually like individual stories as they are just that, individual. But here is one anyway which really isn't uncommon.
I know a women, voted Tory all her life, was married until her husband did the dirty and seemingly took the lot (I don't have the details but it would seem she just wanted to get away). With two incomes everything rosy, she is a very able SEND teaching assistant but that salary is not enough on its own so she survived on in work benefits. She took on another job before school to make ends meet and then took on a third (after school) only to find most of her in work benefits were taken away, so she was worse off than before she took on her third job.
She is locked in this Kafkaesque situation through no fault of her own.
This is about three years old but it gives a flavour (but I don't know if it includes NI, I suspect not):
These are average ACTUAL rates of tax paid: basic rate tax payer 11.7%; higher rate 22.8%; and additional rate 39.9%. So @Cordoban Addick 's estimates are not far off. Of course you'd have to stop adding an extra 5% somewhere along the line otherwise some people would be paying more tax than they earned! (Labour tried this sort of thing many years ago with a rate of 83% for earned income and 98% for un-earned income. If nothing else that gave us the album Exile On Main Street, I suppose!)
The same report indicated that 60% of households are net beneficiaries of the tax/benefits system with the tipping point being where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000.
When I was at school so many years ago, the bloke that taught me economics reckoned the way forward was to scrap all benefits and have reverse income tax instead. He claimed the savings of jobs in the civil service would go a long way towards making the benefits more generous. A win-win situation unless you happen to be one of the 88k people currently working for the DWP. I suspect the truth of the matter though is that virtually everyone is an anomaly of some description and it would cause chaos on a grand scale.
I've just qualified for a state pension. I was surprised to learn that this is paid gross. I then have to declare it on my tax return and I think it will mean I'll get tipped into the 40% tax band. But the Govt. won't get their money back until I slap in next year's return sometime in the summer of 2018 when presumably they'll be some hefty change to my tax coding. Now the Govt. in the form of HMRC know that I'm in receipt of an occupational pension. Why don't they just talk to the DWP and pay my state pension net and save all this faffing around?
Watching PMQ's today I am struck by the underlying Tory fight back strategy. It started with complaints about Labour supporters pissing in Tory supporters gardens, ranged through wanting Corbyn to admit the Tories were election victors numerically and in terms of a strengthened mandate, Corbyn wants to make the country militarily unsafe and financially do deals with North Korea, and that Labour shouldn't conflate the fire with public service issues. Basically the Tory strategy today struck me as being very manipulated and very tacky. Their focus wasn't on issues, but on a strategic fight because their electoral power is threatened, and they don't care how absurd they now look. It was Theresa May who linked Jeremy Corbyn with North Korea, not even on a matter of defence. Grubby.
You are being to kind with the word estimate@cafcfan it was more figures pulled out of my...
And on second reading I realised that the 5% would obviously have to stop somewhere.
I met an academic a few years ago who said that the number of people working in the NHS who measured performance (not managers or clinical staff) had now overtaken those that did the actual doing of the work. He might actually have said by a factor of 2 to 1 but I can't remember. This has happened under all parties although took off under the Tories in the eighties.
His thoughts were that no government minister wanted to be the one to cut the monitoring in case something happened on their watch and so then things have just exponentially grown. Madness and another one for Deep Thought.
...I can't help but think there is such an easy solution to help ALL lower paid workers, just take them out of all direct employment tax, Income & National Insurance...
I don't know, but I expect that the reasons that's not already done are to do with continuity, record keeping and control.
From an individual's perspective 'I've paid full stamp' continues to be a powerful argument whenever there is a disagreement about benefits due. If people are effectively taken off the record, how could they prove their entitlement to benefits later down the line?
From the government's perspective, I'd imagine there would be worries about people slipping through the net. If you can disappear off the radar on a low income, it may be quite tempting to not declare the full amount of earnings or to say nothing when your income increases. I'm not certain how that would work, but I bet Government's desire to control such risks is a major part of the answer as to why the system isn't simpler.
Can the DUP £1,000,000,000 not just be taken in additional taxes from the people of N.I?
Sorted. 1,811,000 people paying an extra £552.18 each = £999,997,980.
I agree to the last £2020 being split between the rest of the UK at a cost of around 0.0000321696 per person.
It is a rather curious play from the Tories to the other 3 nations that actually have Tory MPs to force them to pay their taxes to the one part of the UK with no Tory MPs, especially when they were voted in to stop spending more money.
It's almost as if they've written a personalised letter to each Tory voter telling them "Fuck you."
You are being to kind with the word estimate@cafcfan it was more figures pulled out of my...
And on second reading I realised that the 5% would obviously have to stop somewhere.
I met an academic a few years ago who said that the number of people working in the NHS who measured performance (not managers or clinical staff) had now overtaken those that did the actual doing of the work. He might actually have said by a factor of 2 to 1 but I can't remember. This has happened under all parties although took off under the Tories in the eighties.
His thoughts were that no government minister wanted to be the one to cut the monitoring in case something happened on their watch and so then things have just exponentially grown. Madness and another one for Deep Thought.
Well, it's a good point. So many Govt. statistics, so little good news If no one was collecting the figures we'd all be in blissful ignorance and things would seem much better. If things seemed much better they would be.
I can't now remember in what context but someone on the news was talking about insufficient management and having no one to set targets. I wanted to scream Goodhart's Law* at them but it's no use. Targets are screwing us all up, on everything, everywhere but especially in the NHS.
*Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes. Or more commonly, when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
This is about three years old but it gives a flavour (but I don't know if it includes NI, I suspect not):
These are average ACTUAL rates of tax paid: basic rate tax payer 11.7%; higher rate 22.8%; and additional rate 39.9%. So @Cordoban Addick 's estimates are not far off. Of course you'd have to stop adding an extra 5% somewhere along the line otherwise some people would be paying more tax than they earned! (Labour tried this sort of thing many years ago with a rate of 83% for earned income and 98% for un-earned income. If nothing else that gave us the album Exile On Main Street, I suppose!)
The same report indicated that 60% of households are net beneficiaries of the tax/benefits system with the tipping point being where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000.
When I was at school so many years ago, the bloke that taught me economics reckoned the way forward was to scrap all benefits and have reverse income tax instead. He claimed the savings of jobs in the civil service would go a long way towards making the benefits more generous. A win-win situation unless you happen to be one of the 88k people currently working for the DWP. I suspect the truth of the matter though is that virtually everyone is an anomaly of some description and it would cause chaos on a grand scale.
I've just qualified for a state pension. I was surprised to learn that this is paid gross. I then have to declare it on my tax return and I think it will mean I'll get tipped into the 40% tax band. But the Govt. won't get their money back until I slap in next year's return sometime in the summer of 2018 when presumably they'll be some hefty change to my tax coding. Now the Govt. in the form of HMRC know that I'm in receipt of an occupational pension. Why don't they just talk to the DWP and pay my state pension net and save all this faffing around?
It may be the case that hmrc will advise your occupational pension payroll provider that you are in receipt of a state pension and adjust the coding accordingly so more tax is collected off your pension. That's how it used to work and it basically lumbered the pension payroll team having to answer to the unhappy pensioners for the increased tax deductions from their scheme pension. Miserable old buggers!!
This is about three years old but it gives a flavour (but I don't know if it includes NI, I suspect not):
These are average ACTUAL rates of tax paid: basic rate tax payer 11.7%; higher rate 22.8%; and additional rate 39.9%. So @Cordoban Addick 's estimates are not far off. Of course you'd have to stop adding an extra 5% somewhere along the line otherwise some people would be paying more tax than they earned! (Labour tried this sort of thing many years ago with a rate of 83% for earned income and 98% for un-earned income. If nothing else that gave us the album Exile On Main Street, I suppose!)
The same report indicated that 60% of households are net beneficiaries of the tax/benefits system with the tipping point being where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000.
When I was at school so many years ago, the bloke that taught me economics reckoned the way forward was to scrap all benefits and have reverse income tax instead. He claimed the savings of jobs in the civil service would go a long way towards making the benefits more generous. A win-win situation unless you happen to be one of the 88k people currently working for the DWP. I suspect the truth of the matter though is that virtually everyone is an anomaly of some description and it would cause chaos on a grand scale.
I've just qualified for a state pension. I was surprised to learn that this is paid gross. I then have to declare it on my tax return and I think it will mean I'll get tipped into the 40% tax band. But the Govt. won't get their money back until I slap in next year's return sometime in the summer of 2018 when presumably they'll be some hefty change to my tax coding. Now the Govt. in the form of HMRC know that I'm in receipt of an occupational pension. Why don't they just talk to the DWP and pay my state pension net and save all this faffing around?
It may be the case that hmrc will advise your occupational pension payroll provider that you are in receipt of a state pension and adjust the coding accordingly so more tax is collected off your pension. That's how it used to work and it basically lumbered the pension payroll team having to answer to the unhappy pensioners for the increased tax deductions from their scheme pension. Miserable old buggers!!
You might well be right. I'll find out sometime soon I guess.
I think there are a number of Tory MPs who are not gainst the amendment - they will not vote for it of course!
That's what the whips are for!
I could never be an MP as there is very little form any of the parties I agree with to vote for!
I would love to be an MP - who knows maybe when I stand I can surprise people.
However the only reason I would want to be an MP is so that I could make my maiden speech and tell all the assembled twats what I really think of them, including some choice words that would likely send the Speaker into meltdown. I would then resign very loudly as I was being lead away by Black Rod.
Tsk tsk.
One cannot resign as an MP. You must accept an appointment to the Chiltern Hundreds should you wish to trigger a by-election.
And it wouldn't be Black Rod as he resides in the House of Lords, the Commons Sergeant-at-Arms would escort you (provided you repeatedly refused to leave of your own accord).
Kids these days don't know nothing.
I'll take him on as well - and trust me in saying that I would repeatedly refuse to leave!!
Careful, he carries a ceremonial sword.
Pah - bob's got me and rob7lee in his team. In such a situation if a sergeant at arms came at bob with his big sword, I'd throw rob7lee in the way and escort bob to safety
This is about three years old but it gives a flavour (but I don't know if it includes NI, I suspect not):
These are average ACTUAL rates of tax paid: basic rate tax payer 11.7%; higher rate 22.8%; and additional rate 39.9%. So @Cordoban Addick 's estimates are not far off. Of course you'd have to stop adding an extra 5% somewhere along the line otherwise some people would be paying more tax than they earned! (Labour tried this sort of thing many years ago with a rate of 83% for earned income and 98% for un-earned income. If nothing else that gave us the album Exile On Main Street, I suppose!)
The same report indicated that 60% of households are net beneficiaries of the tax/benefits system with the tipping point being where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000.
When I was at school so many years ago, the bloke that taught me economics reckoned the way forward was to scrap all benefits and have reverse income tax instead. He claimed the savings of jobs in the civil service would go a long way towards making the benefits more generous. A win-win situation unless you happen to be one of the 88k people currently working for the DWP. I suspect the truth of the matter though is that virtually everyone is an anomaly of some description and it would cause chaos on a grand scale.
I've just qualified for a state pension. I was surprised to learn that this is paid gross. I then have to declare it on my tax return and I think it will mean I'll get tipped into the 40% tax band. But the Govt. won't get their money back until I slap in next year's return sometime in the summer of 2018 when presumably they'll be some hefty change to my tax coding. Now the Govt. in the form of HMRC know that I'm in receipt of an occupational pension. Why don't they just talk to the DWP and pay my state pension net and save all this faffing around?
It may be the case that hmrc will advise your occupational pension payroll provider that you are in receipt of a state pension and adjust the coding accordingly so more tax is collected off your pension. That's how it used to work and it basically lumbered the pension payroll team having to answer to the unhappy pensioners for the increased tax deductions from their scheme pension. Miserable old buggers!!
That's how it works for my dads pension, he gets the state pension gross but they tax his private pensions to recoup the tax on the state pension. It's basically done through your tax coding.
This is about three years old but it gives a flavour (but I don't know if it includes NI, I suspect not):
These are average ACTUAL rates of tax paid: basic rate tax payer 11.7%; higher rate 22.8%; and additional rate 39.9%. So @Cordoban Addick 's estimates are not far off. Of course you'd have to stop adding an extra 5% somewhere along the line otherwise some people would be paying more tax than they earned! (Labour tried this sort of thing many years ago with a rate of 83% for earned income and 98% for un-earned income. If nothing else that gave us the album Exile On Main Street, I suppose!)
The same report indicated that 60% of households are net beneficiaries of the tax/benefits system with the tipping point being where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000.
When I was at school so many years ago, the bloke that taught me economics reckoned the way forward was to scrap all benefits and have reverse income tax instead. He claimed the savings of jobs in the civil service would go a long way towards making the benefits more generous. A win-win situation unless you happen to be one of the 88k people currently working for the DWP. I suspect the truth of the matter though is that virtually everyone is an anomaly of some description and it would cause chaos on a grand scale.
I've just qualified for a state pension. I was surprised to learn that this is paid gross. I then have to declare it on my tax return and I think it will mean I'll get tipped into the 40% tax band. But the Govt. won't get their money back until I slap in next year's return sometime in the summer of 2018 when presumably they'll be some hefty change to my tax coding. Now the Govt. in the form of HMRC know that I'm in receipt of an occupational pension. Why don't they just talk to the DWP and pay my state pension net and save all this faffing around?
It may be the case that hmrc will advise your occupational pension payroll provider that you are in receipt of a state pension and adjust the coding accordingly so more tax is collected off your pension. That's how it used to work and it basically lumbered the pension payroll team having to answer to the unhappy pensioners for the increased tax deductions from their scheme pension. Miserable old buggers!!
That's how it works for my dads pension, he gets the state pension gross but they tax his private pensions to recoup the tax on the state pension. It's basically done through your tax coding.
Comments
One cannot resign as an MP. You must accept an appointment to the Chiltern Hundreds should you wish to trigger a by-election.
And it wouldn't be Black Rod as he resides in the House of Lords, the Commons Sergeant-at-Arms would escort you (provided you repeatedly refused to leave of your own accord).
Kids these days don't know nothing.
If ALL income is taxed but does NOT affect benefits.
1) Working always means you have more money to spend than if you don't.
2) Working always means you are contributing something back to society.
We also need a progressive system that allows people to move from benefits to work without being penalised, I really don't understand why this isn't front and centre of a progressive Tory manifesto (rather than just rhetoric). In work benefits is an imperfect answer, but at least it was an answer.
Typo on my first post it should have boost, not boast.
i think scrapping the PA and having a living wage would be a mess personally, you'd have to bring in probably at least 2 more income tax bands, it wouldn't help part time employees whom may already earn (by hour) a living wage and would kill a lot of small businesses.
We have a system that needs scrapping and starting again but that's never going to happen so just personally feel to help now those most in need just don't tax them. Having someone earning £20k, taxing them a few thousand and then giving that back in benefits is just one really messed up system and so over complicated.
The more you think about it, the more bizarre the whole idea is. But I guess it's just what we're used to.
The system is a mess and is classic designed by a committee stuff, it is one of those things that I would just like to get all party support to feed the question into a big computer (lets call it Deep Thought) and we will go with whatever comes out. Actually I am leaning toward this method for a number of issues.
But would it be so difficult to have a living wage and then progressively higher taxation? Or does custom and practice make us think it is too difficult? I know next to bugger all on tax law (so stand to be corrected) but as an example what about 5% on the first £10k, 10% on the next £20k, 15% on the next £30k and then an additional 5% for every additional £20k or part of that you earn. Or whatever figures are easy and fair. We would obviously need a special rate for Damo.
I actually quite like the idea of the basic income that everybody gets and then you work to bring in more if you want it, but it will never happen.
YES! - Back to my original point about 200 pages ago, if we were starting again I'd remove the personal allowance and ALL benefits bar a few (like disability) and every person who is of working age receives whatever is deemed the bare minimum to live on from the state and thereafter every penny is taxed. Like you say though, it'll never happen.
There would be so much to untangle, and inevitably it'd be the likes of small businesses and lower earners that suffer if only in the short term. In theory yes a living wage and progressively more tax but I think it would hurt a lot of people, as an example:
I know a guy who runs a small shop and employs 3 people full time, he pays them about £8.50 an hour so about £15.5k a year each (he doesn't take an awful lot more than that himself). Each of those staff will pay around £1600 in tax and NI. If you said to him you would have to pay them an extra £2.50 an hour to be a 'living wage' he'd shut up shop or more likely make one redundant. You can have the same, positive, effect by just not taxing the 3 staff.
I don't usually like individual stories as they are just that, individual. But here is one anyway which really isn't uncommon.
I know a women, voted Tory all her life, was married until her husband did the dirty and seemingly took the lot (I don't have the details but it would seem she just wanted to get away).
With two incomes everything rosy, she is a very able SEND teaching assistant but that salary is not enough on its own so she survived on in work benefits.
She took on another job before school to make ends meet and then took on a third (after school) only to find most of her in work benefits were taken away, so she was worse off than before she took on her third job.
She is locked in this Kafkaesque situation through no fault of her own.
These are average ACTUAL rates of tax paid: basic rate tax payer 11.7%; higher rate 22.8%; and additional rate 39.9%. So @Cordoban Addick 's estimates are not far off. Of course you'd have to stop adding an extra 5% somewhere along the line otherwise some people would be paying more tax than they earned! (Labour tried this sort of thing many years ago with a rate of 83% for earned income and 98% for un-earned income. If nothing else that gave us the album Exile On Main Street, I suppose!)
The same report indicated that 60% of households are net beneficiaries of the tax/benefits system with the tipping point being where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000.
When I was at school so many years ago, the bloke that taught me economics reckoned the way forward was to scrap all benefits and have reverse income tax instead. He claimed the savings of jobs in the civil service would go a long way towards making the benefits more generous. A win-win situation unless you happen to be one of the 88k people currently working for the DWP. I suspect the truth of the matter though is that virtually everyone is an anomaly of some description and it would cause chaos on a grand scale.
I've just qualified for a state pension. I was surprised to learn that this is paid gross. I then have to declare it on my tax return and I think it will mean I'll get tipped into the 40% tax band. But the Govt. won't get their money back until I slap in next year's return sometime in the summer of 2018 when presumably they'll be some hefty change to my tax coding. Now the Govt. in the form of HMRC know that I'm in receipt of an occupational pension. Why don't they just talk to the DWP and pay my state pension net and save all this faffing around?
Basically the Tory strategy today struck me as being very manipulated and very tacky. Their focus wasn't on issues, but on a strategic fight because their electoral power is threatened, and they don't care how absurd they now look.
It was Theresa May who linked Jeremy Corbyn with North Korea, not even on a matter of defence.
Grubby.
And on second reading I realised that the 5% would obviously have to stop somewhere.
I met an academic a few years ago who said that the number of people working in the NHS who measured performance (not managers or clinical staff) had now overtaken those that did the actual doing of the work. He might actually have said by a factor of 2 to 1 but I can't remember. This has happened under all parties although took off under the Tories in the eighties.
His thoughts were that no government minister wanted to be the one to cut the monitoring in case something happened on their watch and so then things have just exponentially grown. Madness and another one for Deep Thought.
Sorted. 1,811,000 people paying an extra £552.18 each = £999,997,980.
I agree to the last £2020 being split between the rest of the UK at a cost of around 0.0000321696 per person.
From an individual's perspective 'I've paid full stamp' continues to be a powerful argument whenever there is a disagreement about benefits due. If people are effectively taken off the record, how could they prove their entitlement to benefits later down the line?
From the government's perspective, I'd imagine there would be worries about people slipping through the net. If you can disappear off the radar on a low income, it may be quite tempting to not declare the full amount of earnings or to say nothing when your income increases. I'm not certain how that would work, but I bet Government's desire to control such risks is a major part of the answer as to why the system isn't simpler.
It's almost as if they've written a personalised letter to each Tory voter telling them "Fuck you."
I can't now remember in what context but someone on the news was talking about insufficient management and having no one to set targets. I wanted to scream Goodhart's Law* at them but it's no use. Targets are screwing us all up, on everything, everywhere but especially in the NHS.
*Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes. Or more commonly, when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
Can't find it on the net yet.
Makro's it is.