It is Yeats' Irish Airman I think of when thinking about the poor:
My country is Kiltartan Cross, My countrymen Kiltartan's poor, No likely end could bring them loss Or leave them happier than before.
The referendum was the first and only chance the seriously disadvantaged have had to make a serious difference in their own favour - or at least that was the perception that got Leave over the line. Whether it will make much difference other than earning the contempt of the snobbish petite bourgeoisie is of course open to question.
A weak minority government with Brexit on its hands is not going to be able to address anything. However, Cyclefree is right that some fundamental rethinking needs to happen; the next generation of wannabee front-line politicians would be well advised to start now. I don't see much evidence of it happening yet.
A weak minority government with Brexit on its hands is not going to be able to address anything. However, Cyclefree is right that some fundamental rethinking needs to happen; the next generation of wannabee front-line politicians would be well advised to start now. I don't see much evidence of it happening yet.
Indeed. Both the 'right' and 'left' need reforming for the 21st century. I expect if they were loosened from party politics and the tribalism then a lot of new and possible ideas would present themselves.
Correct - it is nearly as nasty as Brian spanner's original tweet. Clearly his only regret is that only the house was ripped apart. Says a whole lot more about him and you than Mr. Yiannapoulos.
A weak minority government with Brexit on its hands is not going to be able to address anything. However, Cyclefree is right that some fundamental rethinking needs to happen; the next generation of wannabee front-line politicians would be well advised to start now. I don't see much evidence of it happening yet.
Indeed. Both the 'right' and 'left' need reforming for the 21st century. I expect if they were loosened from party politics and the tribalism then a lot of new and possible ideas would present themselves.
We need electoral reform. FPTP is what keeping the big two in situ.
@PickardJE: you'll be amazed to hear that Corbyn suggesting we could stay in single market wasn't what he meant - "no change in position" says spokesman
@DPJHodges: Why doesn't Labour just be honest and say "If you back Brexit, Jeremy backs Brexit, and if you oppose, he opposes as well".
WRT point 2, I think the problem is not that our system fails the poor, but that people in the middle think it's not delivering for them.
Is that because the middle see little point in working because the poor are doing nearly as well for little of the effort or the fact the system is failing everyone?
The taxation of tech giants is a thorny problem. The fact that US companies seem to have more than £4trn offshore either lightly taxed or not taxed at all shows what a problem this is for developed economies. If the US, which is never exactly shy about applying their law extraterritorially, has so comprehensively failed what chance is there for the rest of us?
What is required is a change of mindset. Companies and individuals who trade in a society have a responsibility to contribute to the society that allows them to generate their profits. Tax avoidance is immoral and wrong. It is greed and those that use it excessively need to be penalised. A huge simplification of our tax codes (this is an international problem) would be a good start but those who indulge should be pariahs, not thought to be clever.
Regarding universal basic income I always thought the argument for it was that its easier to give money to everyone and collect via tax than it is to means test benefits...
A weak minority government with Brexit on its hands is not going to be able to address anything. However, Cyclefree is right that some fundamental rethinking needs to happen; the next generation of wannabee front-line politicians would be well advised to start now. I don't see much evidence of it happening yet.
Indeed. Both the 'right' and 'left' need reforming for the 21st century. I expect if they were loosened from party politics and the tribalism then a lot of new and possible ideas would present themselves.
We need electoral reform. FPTP is what keeping the big two in situ.
Electoral reform will simply cement the power of the parties over the MPs. What we need is to massively reduce the power of the parties by limiting the power of the whips and making all votes free.
WRT point 2, I think the problem is not that our system fails the poor, but that people in the middle think it's not delivering for them.
Pretty sure that most people at the bottom also think that the system isn't delivering for them. Of course their sense of entitlement that if should be will a great deal more undeveloped.
A weak minority government with Brexit on its hands is not going to be able to address anything. However, Cyclefree is right that some fundamental rethinking needs to happen; the next generation of wannabee front-line politicians would be well advised to start now. I don't see much evidence of it happening yet.
Indeed. Both the 'right' and 'left' need reforming for the 21st century. I expect if they were loosened from party politics and the tribalism then a lot of new and possible ideas would present themselves.
We need electoral reform. FPTP is what keeping the big two in situ.
Electoral reform will simply cement the power of the parties over the MPs. What we need is to massively reduce the power of the parties by limiting the power of the whips and making all votes free.
Thats utterly the definition of Turkey's voting for Xmas.
Just as a small example of this, my wife is a corporate solicitor. She has just completed a £28m deal where, perfectly legally, her firm of solicitors managed to minimise the stamp duty bill on behalf their international client to just over £2,000.
By contrast, I've just bought our main residential home and paid a stamp duty of £28,400. That's more than tenfold more.
That pissed me off.
It might not have escaped everyone's attention that I am a right-wing Tory. When she told me this, even I was dropping like "tax is for the little guy" and moaning about "big corporations demanding much but paying little".
I might suggest that if people of my political persuasion are also saying things like that, as well as those on the Left, then we probably have a problem.
A weak minority government with Brexit on its hands is not going to be able to address anything. However, Cyclefree is right that some fundamental rethinking needs to happen; the next generation of wannabee front-line politicians would be well advised to start now. I don't see much evidence of it happening yet.
Indeed. Both the 'right' and 'left' need reforming for the 21st century. I expect if they were loosened from party politics and the tribalism then a lot of new and possible ideas would present themselves.
We need electoral reform. FPTP is what keeping the big two in situ.
Electoral reform will simply cement the power of the parties over the MPs. What we need is to massively reduce the power of the parties by limiting the power of the whips and making all votes free.
Thats utterly the definition of Turkey's voting for Xmas.
It is utterly the definition of what MPs are supposed to be doing. Voting in the best interests of their constituents rather than the best interests of their party. I would make whipping as illegal as bribery or blackmail - since that is exactly what it is.
A weak minority government with Brexit on its hands is not going to be able to address anything. However, Cyclefree is right that some fundamental rethinking needs to happen; the next generation of wannabee front-line politicians would be well advised to start now. I don't see much evidence of it happening yet.
Indeed. Both the 'right' and 'left' need reforming for the 21st century. I expect if they were loosened from party politics and the tribalism then a lot of new and possible ideas would present themselves.
We need electoral reform. FPTP is what keeping the big two in situ.
Electoral reform will simply cement the power of the parties over the MPs. What we need is to massively reduce the power of the parties by limiting the power of the whips and making all votes free.
Thats utterly the definition of Turkey's voting for Xmas.
It is utterly the definition of what MPs are supposed to be doing. Voting in the best interests of their constituents rather than the best interests of their party. I would make whipping as illegal as bribery or blackmail - since that is exactly what it is.
+1. When you vote you pick the person who you regard best reflects your interests and the manifesto of the party they represent. Your MP should vote with the party on things in the manifesto that they represented but everything else really should be a free vote in which they use their judgement...
Just as a small example of this, my wife is a corporate solicitor. She has just completed a £28m deal where, perfectly legally, her firm of solicitors managed to minimise the stamp duty bill on behalf their international client to just over £2,000.
By contrast, I've just bought our main residential home and paid a stamp duty of £28,400. That's more than tenfold more.
That pissed me off.
It might not have escaped everyone's attention that I am a right-wing Tory. When she told me this, even I was dropping like "tax is for the little guy" and moaning about "big corporations demanding much but paying little".
I might suggest that if people of my political persuasion are also saying things like that, as well as those on the Left, then we probably have a problem.
You really aren't the only one (and I say this as an accountant which does try to limit clients tax, but doesn't and will not do anything questionable of course).
Low but fair taxes should be the aim, and reform should target that. All of us on PAYE and earning an honest wage are used to taxes in the region of say 20-40% (an di'm being very broad here), and that should apply to everyone (apart from the lowest paid).
Regarding universal basic income I always thought the argument for it was that its easier to give money to everyone and collect via tax than it is to means test benefits...
Yes, exactly. As well as being far simpler (and cheaper) to administrate that the current unwieldy system of benefits and tax credits, it would also remove the benefit trap and de-stigmatise those who simply don't have the skills needed to add sufficient value to a company to justify a liveable wage. It would allow us to escape the shackles of those who would force us all to keep beavering away for the benefit of the privileged few and move towards the 1960s ideal of carefree lives in which machines do most of the work.
The Tory answer to poverty is aspiration, Labour 's is more benefits. Neither is close to being the answer. Aspiration completely fails to recognise how the economy is sloped in favour of some and against others to a degree that makes ambition the height of self deception. Benefits are soul destroying, creating and trapping generations into existence rather than living.
Where are the radicals who want to challenge the slopes, to remove built in middle class privilege or really commit to giving everyone a real chance? In active politics the only person who immediately comes to mind is Michael Gove. And yet he was an important part of a government that protected the privileges of the old at the cost of the young. Nick Clegg had some interesting things to say about this and campaigned successfully for the pupil premium. I genuinely can't think of anyone in Labour who has anything serious to say about this.
Regarding universal basic income I always thought the argument for it was that its easier to give money to everyone and collect via tax than it is to means test benefits...
Yes, exactly. As well as being far simpler (and cheaper) to administrate that the current unwieldy system of benefits and tax credits, it would also remove the benefit trap and de-stigmatise those who simply don't have the skills needed to add sufficient value to a company to justify a liveable wage. It would allow us to escape the shackles of those who would force us all to keep beavering away for the benefit of the privileged few and move towards the 1960s dream of carefree lives in which machines do most of the work.
If that was the aim, sure. But in reality it means taxing the rich and middle earners considerable more and making them worse off. There's no way anyone earning a greater than average wage, or even around there would benefit.
The taxation of tech giants is a thorny problem. The fact that US companies seem to have more than £4trn offshore either lightly taxed or not taxed at all shows what a problem this is for developed economies. If the US, which is never exactly shy about applying their law extraterritorially, has so comprehensively failed what chance is there for the rest of us?
What is required is a change of mindset. Companies and individuals who trade in a society have a responsibility to contribute to the society that allows them to generate their profits. Tax avoidance is immoral and wrong. It is greed and those that use it excessively need to be penalised. A huge simplification of our tax codes (this is an international problem) would be a good start but those who indulge should be pariahs, not thought to be clever.
The other issue is that they invest this capital on a gross basis.
For example: say that there is a really exciting UK tech company worth £1bn.
The US company can buy it out of gross capital and let the income roll up outside the scope of US tax (most likely they will buy the IP holding company out of Ireland or Switzerland and the operating business out of the UK) thereby offshoring the most valuable part of the business.
The UK company has to buy out of net capital and has less of an ability to offshore the income.
Result: the US hoovers up a chunk of our intellectual property and then, every 10 years or so, takes a 15% cut to allow the capital balances to be re-onshored into the US.
Regarding universal basic income I always thought the argument for it was that its easier to give money to everyone and collect via tax than it is to means test benefits...
Yes, exactly. As well as being far simpler (and cheaper) to administrate that the current unwieldy system of benefits and tax credits, it would also remove the benefit trap and de-stigmatise those who simply don't have the skills needed to add sufficient value to a company to justify a liveable wage. It would allow us to escape the shackles of those who would force us all to keep beavering away for the benefit of the privileged few and move towards the 1960s dream of carefree lives in which machines do most of the work.
If that was the aim, sure. But in reality it means taxing the rich and middle earners considerable more and making them worse off. There's no way anyone earning a greater than average wage, or even around there would benefit.
That depends entirely on the level at which the UBI is set. There's no particular reason why a UBI should cost any more than the current system of benefits and tax credits.
Edit: As an aside, I'd also like to see some shift of taxation away from income and towards environmentally destructive consumption, thus incentivising work and penalising environmental damage.
Just as a small example of this, my wife is a corporate solicitor. She has just completed a £28m deal where, perfectly legally, her firm of solicitors managed to minimise the stamp duty bill on behalf their international client to just over £2,000.
By contrast, I've just bought our main residential home and paid a stamp duty of £28,400. That's more than tenfold more.
That pissed me off.
It might not have escaped everyone's attention that I am a right-wing Tory. When she told me this, even I was dropping like "tax is for the little guy" and moaning about "big corporations demanding much but paying little".
I might suggest that if people of my political persuasion are also saying things like that, as well as those on the Left, then we probably have a problem.
You really aren't the only one (and I say this as an accountant which does try to limit clients tax, but doesn't and will not do anything questionable of course).
Low but fair taxes should be the aim, and reform should target that. All of us on PAYE and earning an honest wage are used to taxes in the region of say 20-40% (an di'm being very broad here), and that should apply to everyone (apart from the lowest paid).
By the same token, I don't think it's fair that graduates going forwards earning just £42k+ should be paying (effectively) 50%+ marginal tax rate on their incomes with student loans.
Regarding universal basic income I always thought the argument for it was that its easier to give money to everyone and collect via tax than it is to means test benefits...
Yes, exactly. As well as being far simpler (and cheaper) to administrate that the current unwieldy system of benefits and tax credits, it would also remove the benefit trap and de-stigmatise those who simply don't have the skills needed to add sufficient value to a company to justify a liveable wage. It would allow us to escape the shackles of those who would force us all to keep beavering away for the benefit of the privileged few and move towards the 1960s dream of carefree lives in which machines do most of the work.
If that was the aim, sure. But in reality it means taxing the rich and middle earners considerable more and making them worse off. There's no way anyone earning a greater than average wage, or even around there would benefit.
That depends entirely on the level at which the UBI is set. There's no particular reason why a UBI should cost any more than the current system of benefits and tax credits.
Edit: As an aside, I'd also like to see some shift of taxation away from income and towards environmentally destructive consumption, thus incentivising work and penalising environmental damage.
Really? the total cost of UK benefits and tax credits is £217bn. Divide that by 60m in the UK comes to £3,616, well below the current state pension. So if you double that payout to say £7,200 (still below the state pension), you're going to have to remove it from half the people via increased other taxes. Thats still not enough, as many many people get more than that in terms of tax credits, housing benefit, disability allowance etc etc.
The numbers don't add up, unless you start taxing higher and middle earners considerably more.
Where are the radicals who want to challenge the slopes, to remove built in middle class privilege or really commit to giving everyone a real chance? In active politics the only person who immediately comes to mind is Michael Gove. And yet he was an important part of a government that protected the privileges of the old at the cost of the young. Nick Clegg had some interesting things to say about this and campaigned successfully for the pupil premium. I genuinely can't think of anyone in Labour who has anything serious to say about this.
It's a pretty thin harvest.
Both main parties are shell-shocked. Brexit has nonplussed everyone, we simply don't know what our economy and regulatory environment will look like in three years' time. In addition, the Conservatives are shell-shocked by the convulsions of Cameron going, May self-destructing, and the election catastrophe. The sane elements of Labour are shell-shocked by Corbynism, which has overturned everything they thought they knew about politics, and the entryists taking over Labour aren't interested in new thinking, they hark back to 1970s communist-tainted socialism. The smaller parties are in an even worse state; the LibDems are still shell-shocked by getting in 2010 the 'new politics' they'd been seeking for a generation. UKIP are... well, let's not go there. The Greens have had their vegetarian lunch gobbled up by the re-awakening of the 1970s Corbynistic living dead. The commentariat are shell-shocked by getting everything wrong in the last three years.
Notwithstanding all that, there's plenty of talent on the backbenches. Eventually, they'll start doing the serious thinking required for the post-Brexit 21st century, reinventing at least one of the main parties as the New Labour cabal did in the 1990s, and Osborne and Cameron did a decade later, with help from intellectual outriders providing radical new ideas. But we might have to wait some time.
Just as a small example of this, my wife is a corporate solicitor. She has just completed a £28m deal where, perfectly legally, her firm of solicitors managed to minimise the stamp duty bill on behalf their international client to just over £2,000.
By contrast, I've just bought our main residential home and paid a stamp duty of £28,400. That's more than tenfold more.
That pissed me off.
It might not have escaped everyone's attention that I am a right-wing Tory. When she told me this, even I was dropping like "tax is for the little guy" and moaning about "big corporations demanding much but paying little".
I might suggest that if people of my political persuasion are also saying things like that, as well as those on the Left, then we probably have a problem.
You really aren't the only one (and I say this as an accountant which does try to limit clients tax, but doesn't and will not do anything questionable of course).
Low but fair taxes should be the aim, and reform should target that. All of us on PAYE and earning an honest wage are used to taxes in the region of say 20-40% (an di'm being very broad here), and that should apply to everyone (apart from the lowest paid).
By the same token, I don't think it's fair that graduates going forwards earning just £42k+ should be paying (effectively) 50%+ marginal tax rate on their incomes with student loans.
Because they are.
But it's fairer than people which don't go to university paying for people which do....
One of those things where there's no easy decisions.
Regarding universal basic income I always thought the argument for it was that its easier to give money to everyone and collect via tax than it is to means test benefits...
Yes, exactly. As well as being far simpler (and cheaper) to administrate that the current unwieldy system of benefits and tax credits, it would also remove the benefit trap and de-stigmatise those who simply don't have the skills needed to add sufficient value to a company to justify a liveable wage. It would allow us to escape the shackles of those who would force us all to keep beavering away for the benefit of the privileged few and move towards the 1960s ideal of carefree lives in which machines do most of the work.
I must admit some ignorance about what is referred to as Universal Basic Income.
If it means enforcing a minimum wage on companies with the taxpayer only picking up the tab for those out of work then I would agree with it. If it means continuong to allow companies to pay below a living wage whilst the difference is made up by the taxpayer then I would not. The current system of tax credits and benefits is in large part simply a subsidy to big companies who refuse to pay enough for their workforce.
Regarding universal basic income I always thought the argument for it was that its easier to give money to everyone and collect via tax than it is to means test benefits...
Yes, exactly. As well as being far simpler (and cheaper) to administrate that the current unwieldy system of benefits and tax credits, it would also remove the benefit trap and de-stigmatise those who simply don't have the skills needed to add sufficient value to a company to justify a liveable wage. It would allow us to escape the shackles of those who would force us all to keep beavering away for the benefit of the privileged few and move towards the 1960s ideal of carefree lives in which machines do most of the work.
I must admit some ignorance about what is referred to as Universal Basic Income.
If it means enforcing a minimum wage on companies with the taxpayer only picking up the tab for those out of work then I would agree with it. If it means continuong to allow companies to pay below a living wage whilst the difference is made up by the taxpayer then I would not. The current system of tax credits and benefits is in large part simply a subsidy to big companies who refuse to pay enough for their workforce.
No it means that the state pays an amount of money direct to everyone, regardless of their working situation or personal circumstances. It's 'designed' to replace benefits, so no means-testing, but without doubt that would fail at the first impact of with the real-world.
No it means that the state pays an amount of money direct to everyone, regardless of their working situation or personal circumstances. It's 'designed' to replace benefits, so no means-testing, but without doubt that would fail at the first impact of with the real-world.
See here for an account of Finland trying out the concept:
Just as a small example of this, my wife is a corporate solicitor. She has just completed a £28m deal where, perfectly legally, her firm of solicitors managed to minimise the stamp duty bill on behalf their international client to just over £2,000.
By contrast, I've just bought our main residential home and paid a stamp duty of £28,400. That's more than tenfold more.
That pissed me off.
It might not have escaped everyone's attention that I am a right-wing Tory. When she told me this, even I was dropping like "tax is for the little guy" and moaning about "big corporations demanding much but paying little".
I might suggest that if people of my political persuasion are also saying things like that, as well as those on the Left, then we probably have a problem.
The interesting thing is that you have bumped into that example today and it affected you. But you are of a certain economic position (a 1% er, if I may). It is my guess that people lower down the wealth scale have been on the receiving end of such perceived inequities for years.
Put yourself in their shoes and it is little wonder that Jezza did so well. Indeed little wonder that there was Brexit.
The Cons, meanwhile, despite the well-meaning JAMs speech outside No. 10, seem to be abandoning those who are affected and, I'm sorry to say, Brexit is going to make it worse. Not catastrophically so, probably, but worse for the people who, like you, feel aggrieved and angry at today's society.
Regarding universal basic income I always thought the argument for it was that its easier to give money to everyone and collect via tax than it is to means test benefits...
Yes, exactly. As well as being far simpler (and cheaper) to administrate that the current unwieldy system of benefits and tax credits, it would also remove the benefit trap and de-stigmatise those who simply don't have the skills needed to add sufficient value to a company to justify a liveable wage. It would allow us to escape the shackles of those who would force us all to keep beavering away for the benefit of the privileged few and move towards the 1960s ideal of carefree lives in which machines do most of the work.
I must admit some ignorance about what is referred to as Universal Basic Income.
If it means enforcing a minimum wage on companies with the taxpayer only picking up the tab for those out of work then I would agree with it. If it means continuong to allow companies to pay below a living wage whilst the difference is made up by the taxpayer then I would not. The current system of tax credits and benefits is in large part simply a subsidy to big companies who refuse to pay enough for their workforce.
No it means that the state pays an amount of money direct to everyone, regardless of their working situation or personal circumstances. It's 'designed' to replace benefits, so no means-testing, but without doubt that would fail at the first impact of with the real-world.
Ta.
As such it still fails to address the issue of the state subsidising companies who will not pay a basic wage to their workers.
Perhaps we should adopt a system whereby any company paying less than the UBI/ Living wage is taxed the difference. Add on some administration charges and they might soon see the benefit of paying a reasonable rate of pay
Perhaps we should adopt a system whereby any company paying less than the UBI/ Living wage is taxed the difference. Add on some administration charges and they might soon see the benefit of paying a reasonable rate of pay
If you wanted to do this then surely it would be much simpler to increase the hourly minimum wage to the level of the living wage.
Just as a small example of this, my wife is a corporate solicitor. She has just completed a £28m deal where, perfectly legally, her firm of solicitors managed to minimise the stamp duty bill on behalf their international client to just over £2,000.
By contrast, I've just bought our main residential home and paid a stamp duty of £28,400. That's more than tenfold more.
That pissed me off.
It might not have escaped everyone's attention that I am a right-wing Tory. When she told me this, even I was dropping like "tax is for the little guy" and moaning about "big corporations demanding much but paying little".
I might suggest that if people of my political persuasion are also saying things like that, as well as those on the Left, then we probably have a problem.
You really aren't the only one (and I say this as an accountant which does try to limit clients tax, but doesn't and will not do anything questionable of course).
Low but fair taxes should be the aim, and reform should target that. All of us on PAYE and earning an honest wage are used to taxes in the region of say 20-40% (an di'm being very broad here), and that should apply to everyone (apart from the lowest paid).
By the same token, I don't think it's fair that graduates going forwards earning just £42k+ should be paying (effectively) 50%+ marginal tax rate on their incomes with student loans.
Because they are.
But it's fairer than people which don't go to university paying for people which do....
One of those things where there's no easy decisions.
University is too expensive. There's no good reason why most of theoretical courses like maths can't be done online with occasional tutor help and then the exams needing paying for.
Of course those expensive university staff aren't going to pay themselves.
The taxation of tech giants is a thorny problem. The fact that US companies seem to have more than £4trn offshore either lightly taxed or not taxed at all shows what a problem this is for developed economies. If the US, which is never exactly shy about applying their law extraterritorially, has so comprehensively failed what chance is there for the rest of us?
What is required is a change of mindset. Companies and individuals who trade in a society have a responsibility to contribute to the society that allows them to generate their profits. Tax avoidance is immoral and wrong. It is greed and those that use it excessively need to be penalised. A huge simplification of our tax codes (this is an international problem) would be a good start but those who indulge should be pariahs, not thought to be clever.
It's easier than that, surely: if immensely rich companies and individuals do not voluntarily accept that more of what they have but can never hope to spend should be subject to national taxes, then ways will eventually be found to access the money in ways that are far less comfortable. Once a majority feels it no longer has a stake in society that society is ripe for massive and sudden change. That would not suit the very wealthy at all.
No it means that the state pays an amount of money direct to everyone, regardless of their working situation or personal circumstances. It's 'designed' to replace benefits, so no means-testing, but without doubt that would fail at the first impact of with the real-world.
See here for an account of Finland trying out the concept:
Perhaps we should adopt a system whereby any company paying less than the UBI/ Living wage is taxed the difference. Add on some administration charges and they might soon see the benefit of paying a reasonable rate of pay
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = lower bills for consumers = more discretionary consumer spending on other items = higher GDP growth = higher tax receipts
No state subsidy to companies = higher wage bill = higher pricing = higher bills for consumers = less discretionary consumer spending on other items = lower GDP growth = lower tax receipts
People like getting free money, who would have thunk it, and only 2,000 people, which kinda defeats the 'universal' bit.
Well, it's a pilot project, so it's bit unfair to complain that it's not universal. However, as the article points out, there are practical snags:
Not everyone is impressed by the pilot scheme, however. In February, Finland’s biggest union said the experiment was unaffordable and would encourage some people to work less while driving up wages in undesirable professions.
“We think it takes social policy in the wrong direction,” Ilkka Kaukoranta, chief economist of the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), told Bloomberg.
I think it's an interesting idea, but I think that as you said it won't stand up in the real world: it's not affordable, you can't justify paying free money to the well-off, and it creates as many perverse incentives as it solves.
Just as a small example of this, my wife is a corporate solicitor. She has just completed a £28m deal where, perfectly legally, her firm of solicitors managed to minimise the stamp duty bill on behalf their international client to just over £2,000.
By contrast, I've just bought our main residential home and paid a stamp duty of £28,400. That's more than tenfold more.
That pissed me off.
It might not have escaped everyone's attention that I am a right-wing Tory. When she told me this, even I was dropping like "tax is for the little guy" and moaning about "big corporations demanding much but paying little".
I might suggest that if people of my political persuasion are also saying things like that, as well as those on the Left, then we probably have a problem.
You really aren't the only one (and I say this as an accountant which does try to limit clients tax, but doesn't and will not do anything questionable of course).
Low but fair taxes should be the aim, and reform should target that. All of us on PAYE and earning an honest wage are used to taxes in the region of say 20-40% (an di'm being very broad here), and that should apply to everyone (apart from the lowest paid).
By the same token, I don't think it's fair that graduates going forwards earning just £42k+ should be paying (effectively) 50%+ marginal tax rate on their incomes with student loans.
Because they are.
But it's fairer than people which don't go to university paying for people which do....
One of those things where there's no easy decisions.
University is too expensive. There's no good reason why most of theoretical courses like maths can't be done online with occasional tutor help and then the exams needing paying for.
Of course those expensive university staff aren't going to pay themselves.
Also, student loans don't all go on tuition fees. they effectively pay for living for three years, including housing food etc etc.
Again, I don't see why someone not getting that benefit should pay for those which do.
Just as a small example of this, my wife is a corporate solicitor. She has just completed a £28m deal where, perfectly legally, her firm of solicitors managed to minimise the stamp duty bill on behalf their international client to just over £2,000.
By contrast, I've just bought our main residential home and paid a stamp duty of £28,400. That's more than tenfold more.
That pissed me off.
It might not have escaped everyone's attention that I am a right-wing Tory. When she told me this, even I was dropping like "tax is for the little guy" and moaning about "big corporations demanding much but paying little".
I might suggest that if people of my political persuasion are also saying things like that, as well as those on the Left, then we probably have a problem.
You really aren't the only one (and I say this as an accountant which does try to limit clients tax, but doesn't and will not do anything questionable of course).
Low but fair taxes should be the aim, and reform should target that. All of us on PAYE and earning an honest wage are used to taxes in the region of say 20-40% (an di'm being very broad here), and that should apply to everyone (apart from the lowest paid).
By the same token, I don't think it's fair that graduates going forwards earning just £42k+ should be paying (effectively) 50%+ marginal tax rate on their incomes with student loans.
Because they are.
But it's fairer than people which don't go to university paying for people which do....
One of those things where there's no easy decisions.
University is too expensive. There's no good reason why most of theoretical courses like maths can't be done online with occasional tutor help and then the exams needing paying for.
Of course those expensive university staff aren't going to pay themselves.
Also, student loans don't all go on tuition fees. they effectively pay for living for three years, including housing food etc etc.
Again, I don't see why someone not getting that benefit should pay for those which do.
That's true, but if most of the course was online you could do it in 18 months rather than three years because half of that is holiday anyway. You could also live with your parents while you do it.
Perhaps we should adopt a system whereby any company paying less than the UBI/ Living wage is taxed the difference. Add on some administration charges and they might soon see the benefit of paying a reasonable rate of pay
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = lower bills for consumers = more discretionary consumer spending on other items = higher GDP growth = higher tax receipts
No state subsidy to companies = higher wage bill = higher pricing = higher bills for consumers = less discretionary consumer spending on other items = lower GDP growth = lower tax receipts
you pays your money...
Unfortunately I think your model, although elegant, should be more like this:
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = more profits for companies = some more tax (but a lot of leakage) = higher dividends for shareholders = wealth transfer from UK taxpayers to non-UK shareholders
Fundamentally too many companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride
Just as a small example of this, my wife is a corporate solicitor. She has just completed a £28m deal where, perfectly legally, her firm of solicitors managed to minimise the stamp duty bill on behalf their international client to just over £2,000.
By contrast, I've just bought our main residential home and paid a stamp duty of £28,400. That's more than tenfold more.
That pissed me off.
It might not have escaped everyone's attention that I am a right-wing Tory. When she told me this, even I was dropping like "tax is for the little guy" and moaning about "big corporations demanding much but paying little".
I might suggest that if people of my political persuasion are also saying things like that, as well as those on the Left, then we probably have a problem.
You really aren't the only one (and I say this as an accountant which does try to limit clients tax, but doesn't and will not do anything questionable of course).
Low but fair taxes should be the aim, and reform should target that. All of us on PAYE and earning an honest wage are used to taxes in the region of say 20-40% (an di'm being very broad here), and that should apply to everyone (apart from the lowest paid).
By the same token, I don't think it's fair that graduates going forwards earning just £42k+ should be paying (effectively) 50%+ marginal tax rate on their incomes with student loans.
Because they are.
But it's fairer than people which don't go to university paying for people which do....
One of those things where there's no easy decisions.
University is too expensive. There's no good reason why most of theoretical courses like maths can't be done online with occasional tutor help and then the exams needing paying for.
Of course those expensive university staff aren't going to pay themselves.
Also, student loans don't all go on tuition fees. they effectively pay for living for three years, including housing food etc etc.
Again, I don't see why someone not getting that benefit should pay for those which do.
Students learn from interacting with the teachers and also with each other. Teach them remotely and you lose a lot of that.
We all benefit from having a highly-skilled, well-educated population. We get more innovation, more investment and a higher tax take.
Three of the many pressing problems that Britain won't be looking at for several years because Brexit is going to be all-consuming for that time. A huge opportunity cost for a second order problem: one of the incidental disasters of last year's vote.
Perhaps we should adopt a system whereby any company paying less than the UBI/ Living wage is taxed the difference. Add on some administration charges and they might soon see the benefit of paying a reasonable rate of pay
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = lower bills for consumers = more discretionary consumer spending on other items = higher GDP growth = higher tax receipts
No state subsidy to companies = higher wage bill = higher pricing = higher bills for consumers = less discretionary consumer spending on other items = lower GDP growth = lower tax receipts
you pays your money...
Unfortunately I think your model, although elegant, should be more like this:
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = more profits for companies = some more tax (but a lot of leakage) = higher dividends for shareholders = wealth transfer from UK taxpayers to non-UK shareholders
Fundamentally too many companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride
Well yes but I was thinking more of the places which I think utilise those in-work benefits most eg the supermarkets, etc.
Perhaps we should adopt a system whereby any company paying less than the UBI/ Living wage is taxed the difference. Add on some administration charges and they might soon see the benefit of paying a reasonable rate of pay
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = lower bills for consumers = more discretionary consumer spending on other items = higher GDP growth = higher tax receipts
No state subsidy to companies = higher wage bill = higher pricing = higher bills for consumers = less discretionary consumer spending on other items = lower GDP growth = lower tax receipts
you pays your money...
Unfortunately I think your model, although elegant, should be more like this:
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = more profits for companies = some more tax (but a lot of leakage) = higher dividends for shareholders = wealth transfer from UK taxpayers to non-UK shareholders
Fundamentally too many companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride
Well yes but I was thinking more of the places which I think utilise those in-work benefits most eg the supermarkets, etc.
Perhaps we should adopt a system whereby any company paying less than the UBI/ Living wage is taxed the difference. Add on some administration charges and they might soon see the benefit of paying a reasonable rate of pay
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = lower bills for consumers = more discretionary consumer spending on other items = higher GDP growth = higher tax receipts
No state subsidy to companies = higher wage bill = higher pricing = higher bills for consumers = less discretionary consumer spending on other items = lower GDP growth = lower tax receipts
you pays your money...
Unfortunately I think your model, although elegant, should be more like this:
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = more profits for companies = some more tax (but a lot of leakage) = higher dividends for shareholders = wealth transfer from UK taxpayers to non-UK shareholders
Fundamentally too many companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride
Well yes but I was thinking more of the places which I think utilise those in-work benefits most eg the supermarkets, etc.
Perhaps we should adopt a system whereby any company paying less than the UBI/ Living wage is taxed the difference. Add on some administration charges and they might soon see the benefit of paying a reasonable rate of pay
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = lower bills for consumers = more discretionary consumer spending on other items = higher GDP growth = higher tax receipts
No state subsidy to companies = higher wage bill = higher pricing = higher bills for consumers = less discretionary consumer spending on other items = lower GDP growth = lower tax receipts
you pays your money...
Unfortunately I think your model, although elegant, should be more like this:
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = more profits for companies = some more tax (but a lot of leakage) = higher dividends for shareholders = wealth transfer from UK taxpayers to non-UK shareholders
Fundamentally too many companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride
Well yes but I was thinking more of the places which I think utilise those in-work benefits most eg the supermarkets, etc.
Asda - 0% UK shareholders Sainsbury's - 26% UK shareholders Tesco - 44% UK shareholders Morrison - 57% UK shareholders
Overall only 68.75% of the money is flowing offshore to the likes of Qatar.
Perhaps we should adopt a system whereby any company paying less than the UBI/ Living wage is taxed the difference. Add on some administration charges and they might soon see the benefit of paying a reasonable rate of pay
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = lower bills for consumers = more discretionary consumer spending on other items = higher GDP growth = higher tax receipts
No state subsidy to companies = higher wage bill = higher pricing = higher bills for consumers = less discretionary consumer spending on other items = lower GDP growth = lower tax receipts
you pays your money...
Unfortunately I think your model, although elegant, should be more like this:
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = more profits for companies = some more tax (but a lot of leakage) = higher dividends for shareholders = wealth transfer from UK taxpayers to non-UK shareholders
Fundamentally too many companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride
Well yes but I was thinking more of the places which I think utilise those in-work benefits most eg the supermarkets, etc.
Asda - 0% UK shareholders Sainsbury's - 26% UK shareholders Tesco - 44% UK shareholders Morrison - 57% UK shareholders
Overall only 68.75% of the money is flowing offshore to the likes of Qatar.
Still wanna play?
Tesco - last dividend: 2014 Asda - fair enough Sainsbury (Qatari) - slashing dividend Morrisons - dividend < half what it was three years ago.
Just as a small example of this, my wife is a corporate solicitor. She has just completed a £28m deal where, perfectly legally, her firm of solicitors managed to minimise the stamp duty bill on behalf their international client to just over £2,000. .
You really aren't the only one (and I say this as an accountant which does try to limit clients tax, but doesn't and will not do anything questionable of course).
Low but fair taxes should be the aim, and reform should target that. All of us on PAYE and earning an honest wage are used to taxes in the region of say 20-40% (an di'm being very broad here), and that should apply to everyone (apart from the lowest paid).
By the same token, I don't think it's fair that graduates going forwards earning just £42k+ should be paying (effectively) 50%+ marginal tax rate on their incomes with student loans.
Because they are.
But it's fairer than people which don't go to university paying for people which do....
One of those things where there's no easy decisions.
University is too expensive. There's no good reason why most of theoretical courses like maths can't be done online with occasional tutor help and then the exams needing paying for.
Of course those expensive university staff aren't going to pay themselves.
Also, student loans don't all go on tuition fees. they effectively pay for living for three years, including housing food etc etc.
Again, I don't see why someone not getting that benefit should pay for those which do.
Students learn from interacting with the teachers and also with each other. Teach them remotely and you lose a lot of that.
We all benefit from having a highly-skilled, well-educated population. We get more innovation, more investment and a higher tax take.
During my course the lectures had around 150 people in them so there was very little interaction.
I'm sure there are some benefits to in being in the same place, but not enough for the huge extra costs associated with them.
Also I'm wondering whether every university needs completely different courses for the same subjects. There is a lot of redundancy in the system.
Perhaps we should adopt a system whereby any company paying less than the UBI/ Living wage is taxed the difference. Add on some administration charges and they might soon see the benefit of paying a reasonable rate of pay
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = lower bills for consumers = more discretionary consumer spending on other items = higher GDP growth = higher tax receipts
No state subsidy to companies = higher wage bill = higher pricing = higher bills for consumers = less discretionary consumer spending on other items = lower GDP growth = lower tax receipts
you pays your money...
Unfortunately I think your model, although elegant, should be more like this:
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = more profits for companies = some more tax (but a lot of leakage) = higher dividends for shareholders = wealth transfer from UK taxpayers to non-UK shareholders
Fundamentally too many companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride
Well yes but I was thinking more of the places which I think utilise those in-work benefits most eg the supermarkets, etc.
Asda - 0% UK shareholders Sainsbury's - 26% UK shareholders Tesco - 44% UK shareholders Morrison - 57% UK shareholders
Overall only 68.75% of the money is flowing offshore to the likes of Qatar.
Still wanna play?
Tesco - last dividend: 2014 Asda - fair enough Sainsbury (Qatari) - slashing dividend Morrisons - dividend < half what it was three years ago.
But other than that, yes you're right.
You chose the sector - competition is tough (although Tesco still screwed up).
But why are shareholders getting any dividends if that is coming at the expense of tax payers. We don't get the upside if the shares recover.
Perhaps we should adopt a system whereby any company paying less than the UBI/ Living wage is taxed the difference. Add on some administration charges and they might soon see the benefit of paying a reasonable rate of pay
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = lower bills for consumers = more discretionary consumer spending on other items = higher GDP growth = higher tax receipts
No state subsidy to companies = higher wage bill = higher pricing = higher bills for consumers = less discretionary consumer spending on other items = lower GDP growth = lower tax receipts
you pays your money...
Unfortunately I think your model, although elegant, should be more like this:
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = more profits for companies = some more tax (but a lot of leakage) = higher dividends for shareholders = wealth transfer from UK taxpayers to non-UK shareholders
Fundamentally too many companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride
Well yes but I was thinking more of the places which I think utilise those in-work benefits most eg the supermarkets, etc.
Asda - 0% UK shareholders Sainsbury's - 26% UK shareholders Tesco - 44% UK shareholders Morrison - 57% UK shareholders
Overall only 68.75% of the money is flowing offshore to the likes of Qatar.
Still wanna play?
Tesco - last dividend: 2014 Asda - fair enough Sainsbury (Qatari) - slashing dividend Morrisons - dividend < half what it was three years ago.
But other than that, yes you're right.
You chose the sector - competition is tough (although Tesco still screwed up).
But why are shareholders getting any dividends if that is coming at the expense of tax payers. We don't get the upside if the shares recover.
Well there has to be some incentive to own the shares, as you are well aware plus plenty of people still use a DDM for valuation of companies. For Asda then yes that is pretty shabby; I hope the market will bring them to their senses. But everything is relative. The UK supermarket market is fiercely competitive and, Walmart aside (a trick they can't pull off every year - it was I see the first dividend for years), it is still a Peter and Paul situation with regard to in-work benefits.
People like getting free money, who would have thunk it, and only 2,000 people, which kinda defeats the 'universal' bit.
Well, it's a pilot project, so it's bit unfair to complain that it's not universal. However, as the article points out, there are practical snags:
Not everyone is impressed by the pilot scheme, however. In February, Finland’s biggest union said the experiment was unaffordable and would encourage some people to work less while driving up wages in undesirable professions.
“We think it takes social policy in the wrong direction,” Ilkka Kaukoranta, chief economist of the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), told Bloomberg.
I think it's an interesting idea, but I think that as you said it won't stand up in the real world: it's not affordable, you can't justify paying free money to the well-off, and it creates as many perverse incentives as it solves.
You can make it tax neutral by increasing income taxes at higher levels and introducing a wealth cap. It doesn't need to cost anything.
Perhaps we should adopt a system whereby any company paying less than the UBI/ Living wage is taxed the difference. Add on some administration charges and they might soon see the benefit of paying a reasonable rate of pay
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = lower bills for consumers = more discretionary consumer spending on other items = higher GDP growth = higher tax receipts
No state subsidy to companies = higher wage bill = higher pricing = higher bills for consumers = less discretionary consumer spending on other items = lower GDP growth = lower tax receipts
you pays your money...
Unfortunately I think your model, although elegant, should be more like this:
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = more profits for companies = some more tax (but a lot of leakage) = higher dividends for shareholders = wealth transfer from UK taxpayers to non-UK shareholders
Fundamentally too many companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride
Well yes but I was thinking more of the places which I think utilise those in-work benefits most eg the supermarkets, etc.
Asda - 0% UK shareholders Sainsbury's - 26% UK shareholders Tesco - 44% UK shareholders Morrison - 57% UK shareholders
Overall only 68.75% of the money is flowing offshore to the likes of Qatar.
Still wanna play?
Tesco - last dividend: 2014 Asda - fair enough Sainsbury (Qatari) - slashing dividend Morrisons - dividend < half what it was three years ago.
But other than that, yes you're right.
You chose the sector - competition is tough (although Tesco still screwed up).
But why are shareholders getting any dividends if that is coming at the expense of tax payers. We don't get the upside if the shares recover.
Well there has to be some incentive to own the shares, as you are well aware plus plenty of people still use a DDM for valuation of companies. For Asda then yes that is pretty shabby; I hope the market will bring them to their senses. But everything is relative. The UK supermarket market is fiercely competitive and, Walmart aside (a trick they can't pull off every year - it was I see the first dividend for years), it is still a Peter and Paul situation with regard to in-work benefits.
So in the most favourable sector to you your thesis washes its face?
(Do you have a list of which sectors receive the most?)
Yes he has different opinions so deserves to lose everything.
Look how virtuous I am.
Nobody deserves to have their house flattened by a hurricane, even in a world where hurricanes in general are becoming more powerful because of climate change. Even if they have expressed doubts about climate change.
A weak minority government with Brexit on its hands is not going to be able to address anything. However, Cyclefree is right that some fundamental rethinking needs to happen; the next generation of wannabee front-line politicians would be well advised to start now. I don't see much evidence of it happening yet.
Indeed. Both the 'right' and 'left' need reforming for the 21st century. I expect if they were loosened from party politics and the tribalism then a lot of new and possible ideas would present themselves.
We need electoral reform. FPTP is what keeping the big two in situ.
And the big two have the power to keep FPTP in situ. So it'll never change - it's as unlikely as anyone voluntarily throwing the One Ring into the lava.
While they can say "vote for us or you get Corbyn"/"vote for us or you're stuck with May", then those who think both choices are different flavours of shit are forced into line. Change away from disproportionate representation, and they'd risk losing power.
No monopolists ever voluntarily allow competition, even when it would be better for themselves in the long run.
Perhaps we should adopt a system whereby any company paying less than the UBI/ Living wage is taxed the difference. Add on some administration charges and they might soon see the benefit of paying a reasonable rate of pay
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = lower bills for consumers = more discretionary consumer spending on other items = higher GDP growth = higher tax receipts
No state subsidy to companies = higher wage bill = higher pricing = higher bills for consumers = less discretionary consumer spending on other items = lower GDP growth = lower tax receipts
you pays your money...
Unfortunately I think your model, although elegant, should be more like this:
State subsidy to companies = higher go Fundamentally too many companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride
Well yes but I was thinking more of the places which I think utilise those in-work benefits most eg the supermarkets, etc.
Asda - 0% UK shareholders Sainsbury's - 26% UK shareholders Tesco - 44% UK shareholders Morrison - 57% UK shareholders
Overall only 68.75% of the money is flowing offshore to the likes of Qatar.
Still wanna play?
Tesco - last dividend: 2014 Asda - fair enough Sainsbury (Qatari) - slashing dividend Morrisons - dividend < half what it was three years ago.
But other than that, yes you're right.
You chose the sector - competition is tough (although Tesco still screwed up).
But why are shareholders getting any dividends if that is coming at the expense of tax payers. We don't get the upside if the shares recover.
Well there has to be some incentive to own the shares, as you are well aware plus plenty of people still use a DDM for valuation of companies. For Asda then yes that is pretty shabby; I hope the market will bring them to their senses. But everything is relative. The UK supermarket market is fiercely competitive and, Walmart aside (a trick they can't pull off every year - it was I see the first dividend for years), it is still a Peter and Paul situation with regard to in-work benefits.
So in the most favourable sector to you your thesis washes its face?
Mr. Observer, indeed. The internet and globalisation are changing things, and that shake up has yet to finish.
An interesting header, thank you. Was reading Catastrophe by Max Hastings recently, and he made the point of the sheer amount of technological, and thus societal change in the years leading to WW1. The political class was from another era of Empires, aristocracy and deference and unable to comprehend, let alone deal with new pressures. I fear we are in a similar situation. The 3 issues Ms. Cycle free outlines are linked and symptomatic of technological change. Massive companies with relatively few employees, and little in the way of a physical, taxable presence in any one location. The decline of jobs for life and recognised career progression for the middle classes, replaced by insecure, often short term employment. And thirdly, a highly mobile population of potential workers, who are in possession of knowledge of opportunities overseas. We seem to have responded by going back to 2 parties representing capital and labour, wholly out of tune with the times.
So in the most favourable sector to you your thesis washes its face?
My whole point to start with was precisely that.
Not what I am saying - on the most generous interpretation because of specific challenges over the last couple of years in the supermarket sector - your thesis is just about true. Maybe. Perhaps if you wanted to subsidise food prices there would be an easier way to do this?
In other sectors - such as logistics and distribution (e.g. Amazon) and food retailing (e.g. Starbucks) - there is a massive wealth transfer from the UK taxpayer for low value jobs.
Mr. Dean, crisis of identity is another factor that will cause rather a lot of tension. On a minor note, I wouldn't be surprised to see a UK flag fund-raising effort to counter the swamping of the Proms by freely distributed EU flags. At which point, waving either will have become a political act, which is rather sad.
Mr. Nabavi, the critical top of the market signal is when I buy a new games console, which guarantees an improved version will be released within 6-12 months.
Yes he has different opinions so deserves to lose everything.
Look how virtuous I am.
Nobody deserves to have their house flattened by a hurricane, even in a world where hurricanes in general are becoming more powerful because of climate change. Even if they have expressed doubts about climate change.
So in the most favourable sector to you your thesis washes its face?
My whole point to start with was precisely that.
Not what I am saying - on the most generous interpretation because of specific challenges over the last couple of years in the supermarket sector - your thesis is just about true. Maybe. Perhaps if you wanted to subsidise food prices there would be an easier way to do this?
In other sectors - such as logistics and distribution (e.g. Amazon) and food retailing (e.g. Starbucks) - there is a massive wealth transfer from the UK taxpayer for low value jobs.
So, overall, a massive raspberry to your thesis.
Well Amazon itself employs 14,000 people so f**k all to a jam tart in terms of gobbling up government subsidies, assuming they are all on in-work benefits.
As to the logistics network, so now every distribution and related company is at the same game - remitting dividends earned off the back of hardworking Brits (or Poles) to evil foreign shareholders at the expense of a Sunday afternoon splurge at B&Q by their employees.
People like getting free money, who would have thunk it, and only 2,000 people, which kinda defeats the 'universal' bit.
Well, it's a pilot project, so it's bit unfair to complain that it's not universal. However, as the article points out, there are practical snags:
Not everyone is impressed by the pilot scheme, however. In February, Finland’s biggest union said the experiment was unaffordable and would encourage some people to work less while driving up wages in undesirable professions.
“We think it takes social policy in the wrong direction,” Ilkka Kaukoranta, chief economist of the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), told Bloomberg.
I think it's an interesting idea, but I think that as you said it won't stand up in the real world: it's not affordable, you can't justify paying free money to the well-off, and it creates as many perverse incentives as it solves.
You can make it tax neutral by increasing income taxes at higher levels and introducing a wealth cap. It doesn't need to cost anything.
Err, if you have to increase taxes to pay for it, it does mean it costs more cash than currently.
It's like saying doubling spending on the NHS doesn;t cost anything if we put taxes up 50%.
So in the most favourable sector to you your thesis washes its face?
My whole point to start with was precisely that.
Not what I am saying - on the most generous interpretation because of specific challenges over the last couple of years in the supermarket sector - your thesis is just about true. Maybe. Perhaps if you wanted to subsidise food prices there would be an easier way to do this?
In other sectors - such as logistics and distribution (e.g. Amazon) and food retailing (e.g. Starbucks) - there is a massive wealth transfer from the UK taxpayer for low value jobs.
So, overall, a massive raspberry to your thesis.
Well Amazon itself employs 14,000 people so f**k all to a jam tart in terms of gobbling up government subsidies, assuming they are all on in-work benefits.
As to the logistics network, so now every distribution and related company is at the same game - remitting dividends earned off the back of hardworking Brits (or Poles) to evil foreign shareholders at the expense of a Sunday afternoon splurge at B&Q by their employees.
Is our system really that messed up, Charles?
Yes. If companies can't afford to make a good return for their shareholders while paying a living wage and contributing to the costs of the societies in which they operate then they need to revisit their business model.
The obsession with shareholder rather than stakeholder interests is the heart of darkness in the Anglo-Saxon capitalist model.
Yes. If companies can't afford to make a good return for their shareholders while paying a living wage and contributing to the costs of the societies in which they operate then they need to revisit their business model.
Not so sure about that. If, for example, all courier companies in the UK had to pay their staff a lot more, all that would happen is that the price consumers would pay for deliveries would be higher. As far as the companies are concerned, state subsidy of wages through in-work benefits is actually pretty much neutral; it's effectively a subsidy for consumers, with any benefits to the companies competed away. Of course, it favours sectors employing a lot of people at the relative expense of more productive sectors. Indeed that is explicitly the idea: to lower unemployment. (I'm not saying that's sensible in the long term, mind you.)
People like getting free money, who would have thunk it, and only 2,000 people, which kinda defeats the 'universal' bit.
Well, it's a pilot project, so it's bit unfair to complain that it's not universal. However, as the article points out, there are practical snags:
Not everyone is impressed by the pilot scheme, however. In February, Finland’s biggest union said the experiment was unaffordable and would encourage some people to work less while driving up wages in undesirable professions.
“We think it takes social policy in the wrong direction,” Ilkka Kaukoranta, chief economist of the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), told Bloomberg.
I think it's an interesting idea, but I think that as you said it won't stand up in the real world: it's not affordable, you can't justify paying free money to the well-off, and it creates as many perverse incentives as it solves.
You can make it tax neutral by increasing income taxes at higher levels and introducing a wealth cap. It doesn't need to cost anything.
Err, if you have to increase taxes to pay for it, it does mean it costs more cash than currently.
It's like saying doubling spending on the NHS doesn;t cost anything if we put taxes up 50%.
What I meant is that you are not paying anything to the well-off because their extra income is balanced by extra taxation on them. Also it would replace a lot of benefits that currently exist and reduce the administration required.
What other solution exists for when most jobs are automated in the future?
So in the most favourable sector to you your thesis washes its face?
My whole point to start with was precisely that.
Not what I am saying - on the most generous interpretation because of specific challenges over the last couple of years in the supermarket sector - your thesis is just about true. Maybe. Perhaps if you wanted to subsidise food prices there would be an easier way to do this?
In other sectors - such as logistics and distribution (e.g. Amazon) and food retailing (e.g. Starbucks) - there is a massive wealth transfer from the UK taxpayer for low value jobs.
So, overall, a massive raspberry to your thesis.
Well Amazon itself employs 14,000 people so f**k all to a jam tart in terms of gobbling up government subsidies, assuming they are all on in-work benefits.
As to the logistics network, so now every distribution and related company is at the same game - remitting dividends earned off the back of hardworking Brits (or Poles) to evil foreign shareholders at the expense of a Sunday afternoon splurge at B&Q by their employees.
Is our system really that messed up, Charles?
Yes. If companies can't afford to make a good return for their shareholders while paying a living wage and contributing to the costs of the societies in which they operate then they need to revisit their business model.
The obsession with shareholder rather than stakeholder interests is the heart of darkness in the Anglo-Saxon capitalist model.
I'm surprised you haven't dropped out and relocated to a Buddhist retreat with that attitude, Charles.
There are of course abuses throughout our current system, and there has been progress with the minimum and living wage legislation and initiatives. But you seem to be looking to set into law a moral view of the world which is something quite different altogether plus what on earth would your system look like. Are in-work benefits really the root of all evil? They seem wrong in principle but as my initial musings might suggest, it is a Peter and Paul situation.
As the man didn't quite say, capitalism is the worst form of economic and political system, apart from...
The taxation of tech giants is a thorny problem. The fact that US companies seem to have more than £4trn offshore either lightly taxed or not taxed at all shows what a problem this is for developed economies. If the US, which is never exactly shy about applying their law extraterritorially, has so comprehensively failed what chance is there for the rest of us?
What is required is a change of mindset. Companies and individuals who trade in a society have a responsibility to contribute to the society that allows them to generate their profits. Tax avoidance is immoral and wrong. It is greed and those that use it excessively need to be penalised. A huge simplification of our tax codes (this is an international problem) would be a good start but those who indulge should be pariahs, not thought to be clever.
It's easier than that, surely: if immensely rich companies and individuals do not voluntarily accept that more of what they have but can never hope to spend should be subject to national taxes, then ways will eventually be found to access the money in ways that are far less comfortable. Once a majority feels it no longer has a stake in society that society is ripe for massive and sudden change. That would not suit the very wealthy at all.
Didn't prevent big Oil from ruling the roost for many decades. I suspect we do have a majority for this already but signs of action, there are few.
Yes he has different opinions so deserves to lose everything.
Look how virtuous I am.
Nobody deserves to have their house flattened by a hurricane, even in a world where hurricanes in general are becoming more powerful because of climate change. Even if they have expressed doubts about climate change.
It's like saying that it would be funny if someone who believes that crime has gone down gets stabbed.
"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."
Yes. If companies can't afford to make a good return for their shareholders while paying a living wage and contributing to the costs of the societies in which they operate then they need to revisit their business model.
Not so sure about that. If, for example, all courier companies in the UK had to pay their staff a lot more, all that would happen is that the price consumers would pay for deliveries would be higher. As far as the companies are concerned, state subsidy of wages through in-work benefits is actually pretty much neutral; it's effectively a subsidy for consumers, with any benefits to the companies competed away. Of course, it favours sectors employing a lot of people at the relative expense of more productive sectors. Indeed that is explicitly the idea: to lower unemployment. (I'm not saying that's sensible in the long term, mind you.)
I'm not a fan of consumer subsidies. If they spent more on food perhaps we'd import less crap from China?
So in the most favourable sector to you your thesis washes its face?
My whole point to start with was precisely that.
Not what I am saying - on the most generous interpretation because of specific challenges over the last couple of years in the supermarket sector - your thesis is just about true. Maybe. Perhaps if you wanted to subsidise food prices there would be an easier way to do this?
In other sectors - such as logistics and distribution (e.g. Amazon) and food retailing (e.g. Starbucks) - there is a massive wealth transfer from the UK taxpayer for low value jobs.
So, overall, a massive raspberry to your thesis.
Well Amazon itself employs 14,000 people so f**k all to a jam tart in terms of gobbling up government subsidies, assuming they are all on in-work benefits.
As to the logistics network, so now every distribution and related company is at the same game - remitting dividends earned off the back of hardworking Brits (or Poles) to evil foreign shareholders at the expense of a Sunday afternoon splurge at B&Q by their employees.
Is our system really that messed up, Charles?
Yes. If companies can't afford to make a good return for their shareholders while paying a living wage and contributing to the costs of the societies in which they operate then they need to revisit their business model.
The obsession with shareholder rather than stakeholder interests is the heart of darkness in the Anglo-Saxon capitalist model.
The situation becomes particularly iniquitous where the shareholders are in very large part not a part of the society where the money is being made. At that point the incentive to bleed money out of the system becomes irresistible.
So in the most favourable sector to you your thesis washes its face?
My whole point to start with was precisely that.
Not what I am saying - on the most generous interpretation because of specific challenges over the last couple of years in the supermarket sector - your thesis is just about true. Maybe. Perhaps if you wanted to subsidise food prices there would be an easier way to do this?
In other sectors - such as logistics and distribution (e.g. Amazon) and food retailing (e.g. Starbucks) - there is a massive wealth transfer from the UK taxpayer for low value jobs.
So, overall, a massive raspberry to your thesis.
Well Amazon itself employs 14,000 people so f**k all to a jam tart in terms of gobbling up government subsidies, assuming they are all on in-work benefits.
As to the logistics network, so now every distribution and related company is at the same game - remitting dividends earned off the back of hardworking Brits (or Poles) to evil foreign shareholders at the expense of a Sunday afternoon splurge at B&Q by their employees.
Is our system really that messed up, Charles?
Yes. If companies can't afford to make a good return for their shareholders while paying a living wage and contributing to the costs of the societies in which they operate then they need to revisit their business model.
The obsession with shareholder rather than stakeholder interests is the heart of darkness in the Anglo-Saxon capitalist model.
I'm surprised you haven't dropped out and relocated to a Buddhist retreat with that attitude, Charles.
There are of course abuses throughout our current system, and there has been progress with the minimum and living wage legislation and initiatives. But you seem to be looking to set into law a moral view of the world which is something quite different altogether plus what on earth would your system look like. Are in-work benefits really the root of all evil? They seem wrong in principle but as my initial musings might suggest, it is a Peter and Paul situation.
As the man didn't quite say, capitalism is the worst form of economic and political system, apart from...
Yes he has different opinions so deserves to lose everything.
Look how virtuous I am.
Nobody deserves to have their house flattened by a hurricane, even in a world where hurricanes in general are becoming more powerful because of climate change. Even if they have expressed doubts about climate change.
It's like saying that it would be funny if someone who believes that crime has gone down gets stabbed.
"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."
So you are attributing the intensity of the storms now to the possibility of an increase which if it happens could be as low as 2% at the end of the century.
I'm not a fan of consumer subsidies. If they spent more on food perhaps we'd import less crap from China?
Well I'm not a fan either, but I don't think that your characterisation of in-work benefits as a subsidy to (foreign) shareholders stands up very well.
Yes he has different opinions so deserves to lose everything.
Look how virtuous I am.
Nobody deserves to have their house flattened by a hurricane, even in a world where hurricanes in general are becoming more powerful because of climate change. Even if they have expressed doubts about climate change.
It's like saying that it would be funny if someone who believes that crime has gone down gets stabbed.
"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."
Off topic: My wife's hairdresser has been buying Bitcoins.
A classic top-of-the-market signal?
Difficult to say - anyway, hasn't Bitcoin dropped back a bit anyway because China shut down virtual currency trading in its jurisdiction ?
I posted a link to this paper a couple of days back, which provides a decent overview of the rationale of Bitcoin:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jl4130/BTC.pdf The blockchain design enables Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies to function similarly to conventional payment systems such as Fed Wire, Swift, Visa, and PayPal. These payment systems are natural monopolies in that they enjoy economies of scale and network effects. Each of them is operated by an organization that determines its rules and modifies them as circumstances change. These rules include how and how much participants pay for using the system. The governing organization ensures the system is trusted and is responsible for maintain the required infrastructure for the system. Payment systems are often regulated (or outright owned by government agencies) in order to mitigate the welfare loss associated with their monopolistic positions. The innovation in Bitcoin’s blockchain design is in the absence of a governing organization. Rather, a protocol sets the system’s rules, by which all constituents abide. Absent is a central entity that maintains the infrastructure. Rather, Bitcoin’s infrastruc- ture consists of computer servers (called “miners”) which enter and exit the system at will, responding to perceived profit opportunities.1 Participants follow the protocol because it is in their best interest to do so, assuming the other participants follow the protocol. Thus, the protocol-derived rules are practically fixed and binding on all parties. The blockchain design carries an economic innovation. Unlike other payment systems, Bitcoin is a two-sided platform with rules that are pre-specified by a computer protocol. No participant has power to set or modify fees or rules of conduct or otherwise control the system. Each participant in the market place, users and miners alike, is a price taker.…
Three of the many pressing problems that Britain won't be looking at for several years because Brexit is going to be all-consuming for that time. A huge opportunity cost for a second order problem: one of the incidental disasters of last year's vote.
That (and the inevitable loss of Cameron as PM) were by far the most compelling reasons for voting remain last year. It was a close run thing in my case. The EU was and is an irritant and is heading in the wrong direction for us but we have plenty of more important things to worry about.
Yes he has different opinions so deserves to lose everything.
Look how virtuous I am.
Nobody deserves to have their house flattened by a hurricane, even in a world where hurricanes in general are becoming more powerful because of climate change. Even if they have expressed doubts about climate change.
It's like saying that it would be funny if someone who believes that crime has gone down gets stabbed.
"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."
So you are attributing the intensity of the storms now to the possibility of an increase which if it happens could be as low as 2% at the end of the century.
Can you see how crazy that sounds?
It's a quote from the site that you referenced, did you read it? How about trying to get at the facts rather than trying to score silly points.
“Hurricane Irma, following so closely after Tropical Storm Harvey and other extreme weather emergencies, has prompted questions about the role of climate change." said Dann Mitchell, NERC Research Fellow at the University of Bristol’s Cabot Institute. "The question of whether climate change 'caused' any particular weather event is the wrong one; instead, we must probe how climate change alters extreme weather. Aside from the warming atmosphere, rising sea level and surface ocean warming have likely contributed to the impact of both Irma and Harvey." http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/irma-climate-change-what-cause-hurricane-global-warming-caribbean-florida-a7933721.html
Entirely off topic, but definitely the sort of thing PBers would know the answer to:
How can I honestly reference/quote/ideally picture, for PR purposes, references of mine and my company's in a recent Times newspaper editorial - given the paywall? Screenshots? Photos of the relevant bits of the newspaper article? Not at all?
I'm not a fan of consumer subsidies. If they spent more on food perhaps we'd import less crap from China?
Well I'm not a fan either, but I don't think that your characterisation of in-work benefits as a subsidy to (foreign) shareholders stands up very well.
I was challenging @Topping argument that it results in lower prices. I don't think it does - we don't have an efficient market.
Yes he has different opinions so deserves to lose everything.
Look how virtuous I am.
Nobody deserves to have their house flattened by a hurricane, even in a world where hurricanes in general are becoming more powerful because of climate change. Even if they have expressed doubts about climate change.
It's like saying that it would be funny if someone who believes that crime has gone down gets stabbed.
"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."
We spent quite a while on this on Sunday. The data about storms from the NOAA does not support the hypothesis. The hypothesis of more energy in the system= more violence seems logically sound but the outcomes over a very extended period does not support it. The last decade in which the number of category 3+ hurricanes coming onshore in the US exceeded the long term average of 6 was the 1970s.
I'm not a fan of consumer subsidies. If they spent more on food perhaps we'd import less crap from China?
Well I'm not a fan either, but I don't think that your characterisation of in-work benefits as a subsidy to (foreign) shareholders stands up very well.
I was challenging @Topping argument that it results in lower prices. I don't think it does - we don't have an efficient market.
In most of the sectors which employ lots of low-paid workers, the market is efficient, surely? Gross margins in courier companies, food producers, supermarkets, adult care etc etc are generally slim to extremely slim.
Three of the many pressing problems that Britain won't be looking at for several years because Brexit is going to be all-consuming for that time. A huge opportunity cost for a second order problem: one of the incidental disasters of last year's vote.
Well two, anyway.
The taxation of international corporations is likely to be one of the items which gets quite a lot of attention at some point in the Brexit negotiations, surely ? Whether we'll be doing anything useful about it is, of course, another matter,
I'm not a fan of consumer subsidies. If they spent more on food perhaps we'd import less crap from China?
Well I'm not a fan either, but I don't think that your characterisation of in-work benefits as a subsidy to (foreign) shareholders stands up very well.
I was challenging @Topping argument that it results in lower prices. I don't think it does - we don't have an efficient market.
In most of the sectors which employ lots of low-paid workers, the market is efficient, surely? Gross margins in courier companies, food producers, supermarkets, adult care etc etc are generally slim to extremely slim.
I actually suspect their are often too slim, damaged by zombie companies fighting to keep cashflow going....
Pubs are a prime example where over supply may be doing more harm than good....
Yes he has different opinions so deserves to lose everything.
Look how virtuous I am.
Nobody deserves to have their house flattened by a hurricane, even in a world where hurricanes in general are becoming more powerful because of climate change. Even if they have expressed doubts about climate change.
It's like saying that it would be funny if someone who believes that crime has gone down gets stabbed.
"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."
So according to observational data no impact; yet according to forecasts, huge impact.
I mean we've had global warming for a long time, right? How come no observational data confirming an impact?
Hmm.
This is the Scott P expert = soothsayer fallacy. It is almost impossible to convey how little weight can rationally be attached to the statement that in 83 years time some parameter "will likely" differ by 2-11% according to one version of one model, supported by a link which does not actually contain the claim, the whole posted by someone with so little knowledge of the field that yesterday he was unaware of the huge and irreparable damage which has been done to the world's rain forests by misguided warmist projects to up the world's usage of bio fuels. The actual, knowable, happened-in-the-past data say one thing, some of the models project, in the future, something else. Which to believe?
It's like saying that it would be funny if someone who believes that crime has gone down gets stabbed.
"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."
So you are attributing the intensity of the storms now to the possibility of an increase which if it happens could be as low as 2% at the end of the century.
Can you see how crazy that sounds?
It's a quote from the site that you referenced, did you read it? How about trying to get at the facts rather than trying to score silly points.
“Hurricane Irma, following so closely after Tropical Storm Harvey and other extreme weather emergencies, has prompted questions about the role of climate change." said Dann Mitchell, NERC Research Fellow at the University of Bristol’s Cabot Institute. "The question of whether climate change 'caused' any particular weather event is the wrong one; instead, we must probe how climate change alters extreme weather. Aside from the warming atmosphere, rising sea level and surface ocean warming have likely contributed to the impact of both Irma and Harvey." http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/irma-climate-change-what-cause-hurricane-global-warming-caribbean-florida-a7933721.html
If it contributed it did so by far less than 2% going by their own figures. So very negligible.
Recent hurricane activity is not out of the normal for the last 100 years.
Entirely off topic, but definitely the sort of thing PBers would know the answer to:
How can I honestly reference/quote/ideally picture, for PR purposes, references of mine and my company's in a recent Times newspaper editorial - given the paywall? Screenshots? Photos of the relevant bits of the newspaper article? Not at all?
Quotes are fine, under a "fair use" policy - don't know the rules (you should check) but I would have thought a couple of sentences, appropriately referenced, would be ok.
You can also get reprints of the article for a bigger mailshot (you have to pay for that) but it may not be relevant given it sounds like a small part of a story
Just as a small example of this, my wife is a corporate solicitor. She has just completed a £28m deal where, perfectly legally, her firm of solicitors managed to minimise the stamp duty bill on behalf their international client to just over £2,000.
By contrast, I've just bought our main residential home and paid a stamp duty of £28,400. That's more than tenfold more.
That pissed me off.
It might not have escaped everyone's attention that I am a right-wing Tory. When she told me this, even I was dropping like "tax is for the little guy" and moaning about "big corporations demanding much but paying little".
I might suggest that if people of my political persuasion are also saying things like that, as well as those on the Left, then we probably have a problem.
You really aren't the only one (and I say this as an accountant which does try to limit clients tax, but doesn't and will not do anything questionable of course).
Low but fair taxes should be the aim, and reform should target that. All of us on PAYE and earning an honest wage are used to taxes in the region of say 20-40% (an di'm being very broad here), and that should apply to everyone (apart from the lowest paid).
By the same token, I don't think it's fair that graduates going forwards earning just £42k+ should be paying (effectively) 50%+ marginal tax rate on their incomes with student loans.
Because they are.
But it's fairer than people which don't go to university paying for people which do....
One of those things where there's no easy decisions.
University is too expensive. There's no good reason why most of theoretical courses like maths can't be done online with occasional tutor help and then the exams needing paying for.
Of course those expensive university staff aren't going to pay themselves.
Also, student loans don't all go on tuition fees. they effectively pay for living for three years, including housing food etc etc.
Again, I don't see why someone not getting that benefit should pay for those which do.
Next time you see the doctor, be sure to remind him/her how their degree hasn't helped you at all.
long time, no time to even read the site, let alone post on it but
UBI is the equivalent of the giant rat of Sumatra. Something, to quote Conan Doyle "for which the world is not yet prepared"
It just seems a crazy use of resources. As daft as giving pensioners who are higher rate taxpayers a winter fuel allowance or a bus pass. We need to be more focussed on whom the taxpayer helps not less.
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Talking to ourselves
Comments
WRT point 2, I think the problem is not that our system fails the poor, but that people in the middle think it's not delivering for them.
It is Yeats' Irish Airman I think of when thinking about the poor:
My country is Kiltartan Cross,
My countrymen Kiltartan's poor,
No likely end could bring them loss
Or leave them happier than before.
The referendum was the first and only chance the seriously disadvantaged have had to make a serious difference in their own favour - or at least that was the perception that got Leave over the line. Whether it will make much difference other than earning the contempt of the snobbish petite bourgeoisie is of course open to question.
@BrianSpanner1: Every hurricane has an hilarious lining.
https://twitter.com/MirrorCeleb/status/907202641331093504
@DPJHodges: Why doesn't Labour just be honest and say "If you back Brexit, Jeremy backs Brexit, and if you oppose, he opposes as well".
The taxation of tech giants is a thorny problem. The fact that US companies seem to have more than £4trn offshore either lightly taxed or not taxed at all shows what a problem this is for developed economies. If the US, which is never exactly shy about applying their law extraterritorially, has so comprehensively failed what chance is there for the rest of us?
What is required is a change of mindset. Companies and individuals who trade in a society have a responsibility to contribute to the society that allows them to generate their profits. Tax avoidance is immoral and wrong. It is greed and those that use it excessively need to be penalised. A huge simplification of our tax codes (this is an international problem) would be a good start but those who indulge should be pariahs, not thought to be clever.
Cyclefree for PM.
Is there anyone else out there who does such clear and deep thinking as she does?
By contrast, I've just bought our main residential home and paid a stamp duty of £28,400. That's more than tenfold more.
That pissed me off.
It might not have escaped everyone's attention that I am a right-wing Tory. When she told me this, even I was dropping like "tax is for the little guy" and moaning about "big corporations demanding much but paying little".
I might suggest that if people of my political persuasion are also saying things like that, as well as those on the Left, then we probably have a problem.
Low but fair taxes should be the aim, and reform should target that. All of us on PAYE and earning an honest wage are used to taxes in the region of say 20-40% (an di'm being very broad here), and that should apply to everyone (apart from the lowest paid).
Where are the radicals who want to challenge the slopes, to remove built in middle class privilege or really commit to giving everyone a real chance? In active politics the only person who immediately comes to mind is Michael Gove. And yet he was an important part of a government that protected the privileges of the old at the cost of the young.
Nick Clegg had some interesting things to say about this and campaigned successfully for the pupil premium. I genuinely can't think of anyone in Labour who has anything serious to say about this.
It's a pretty thin harvest.
For example: say that there is a really exciting UK tech company worth £1bn.
The US company can buy it out of gross capital and let the income roll up outside the scope of US tax (most likely they will buy the IP holding company out of Ireland or Switzerland and the operating business out of the UK) thereby offshoring the most valuable part of the business.
The UK company has to buy out of net capital and has less of an ability to offshore the income.
Result: the US hoovers up a chunk of our intellectual property and then, every 10 years or so, takes a 15% cut to allow the capital balances to be re-onshored into the US.
Edit: As an aside, I'd also like to see some shift of taxation away from income and towards environmentally destructive consumption, thus incentivising work and penalising environmental damage.
Because they are.
The numbers don't add up, unless you start taxing higher and middle earners considerably more.
Notwithstanding all that, there's plenty of talent on the backbenches. Eventually, they'll start doing the serious thinking required for the post-Brexit 21st century, reinventing at least one of the main parties as the New Labour cabal did in the 1990s, and Osborne and Cameron did a decade later, with help from intellectual outriders providing radical new ideas. But we might have to wait some time.
One of those things where there's no easy decisions.
If it means enforcing a minimum wage on companies with the taxpayer only picking up the tab for those out of work then I would agree with it. If it means continuong to allow companies to pay below a living wage whilst the difference is made up by the taxpayer then I would not. The current system of tax credits and benefits is in large part simply a subsidy to big companies who refuse to pay enough for their workforce.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/finland-universal-basic-income-lower-stress-better-motivation-work-wages-salary-a7800741.html
Put yourself in their shoes and it is little wonder that Jezza did so well. Indeed little wonder that there was Brexit.
The Cons, meanwhile, despite the well-meaning JAMs speech outside No. 10, seem to be abandoning those who are affected and, I'm sorry to say, Brexit is going to make it worse. Not catastrophically so, probably, but worse for the people who, like you, feel aggrieved and angry at today's society.
As such it still fails to address the issue of the state subsidising companies who will not pay a basic wage to their workers.
Of course those expensive university staff aren't going to pay themselves.
Look how virtuous I am.
No state subsidy to companies = higher wage bill = higher pricing = higher bills for consumers = less discretionary consumer spending on other items = lower GDP growth = lower tax receipts
you pays your money...
Not everyone is impressed by the pilot scheme, however. In February, Finland’s biggest union said the experiment was unaffordable and would encourage some people to work less while driving up wages in undesirable professions.
“We think it takes social policy in the wrong direction,” Ilkka Kaukoranta, chief economist of the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), told Bloomberg.
I think it's an interesting idea, but I think that as you said it won't stand up in the real world: it's not affordable, you can't justify paying free money to the well-off, and it creates as many perverse incentives as it solves.
Again, I don't see why someone not getting that benefit should pay for those which do.
State subsidy to companies = higher government borrowing = lower wage bill for companies = more competitive pricing = more profits for companies = some more tax (but a lot of leakage) = higher dividends for shareholders = wealth transfer from UK taxpayers to non-UK shareholders
Fundamentally too many companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride
We all benefit from having a highly-skilled, well-educated population. We get more innovation, more investment and a higher tax take.
Sainsbury's - 26% UK shareholders
Tesco - 44% UK shareholders
Morrison - 57% UK shareholders
Overall only 68.75% of the money is flowing offshore to the likes of Qatar.
Still wanna play?
Asda - fair enough
Sainsbury (Qatari) - slashing dividend
Morrisons - dividend < half what it was three years ago.
But other than that, yes you're right.
I'm sure there are some benefits to in being in the same place, but not enough for the huge extra costs associated with them.
Also I'm wondering whether every university needs completely different courses for the same subjects. There is a lot of redundancy in the system.
But why are shareholders getting any dividends if that is coming at the expense of tax payers. We don't get the upside if the shares recover.
(Do you have a list of which sectors receive the most?)
"In January this year, Yiannopoulos wrote a column for Breitbart decrying hypocritical “climate alarmists”. "
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/who-is-milo-yiannopoulos-everything-you-need-to-know-about-donald-trumps-altright-poster-boy-a3404921.html
So it'll never change - it's as unlikely as anyone voluntarily throwing the One Ring into the lava.
While they can say "vote for us or you get Corbyn"/"vote for us or you're stuck with May", then those who think both choices are different flavours of shit are forced into line. Change away from disproportionate representation, and they'd risk losing power.
No monopolists ever voluntarily allow competition, even when it would be better for themselves in the long run.
@JohnRentoul: Oh. Just listened back to it. That was indeed what he was saying.
@JohnRentoul: @ColDuGrinton They've said Labour's policy hasn't changed. All I'm doing is smearing Corbyn by quoting what he said.
I fear we are in a similar situation. The 3 issues Ms. Cycle free outlines are linked and symptomatic of technological change. Massive companies with relatively few employees, and little in the way of a physical, taxable presence in any one location. The decline of jobs for life and recognised career progression for the middle classes, replaced by insecure, often short term employment. And thirdly, a highly mobile population of potential workers, who are in possession of knowledge of opportunities overseas.
We seem to have responded by going back to 2 parties representing capital and labour, wholly out of tune with the times.
A classic top-of-the-market signal?
In other sectors - such as logistics and distribution (e.g. Amazon) and food retailing (e.g. Starbucks) - there is a massive wealth transfer from the UK taxpayer for low value jobs.
So, overall, a massive raspberry to your thesis.
Mr. Nabavi, the critical top of the market signal is when I buy a new games console, which guarantees an improved version will be released within 6-12 months.
https://twitter.com/tradegovuk/status/906581383065341953
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
It's like saying that it would be funny if someone who believes that crime has gone down gets stabbed.
As to the logistics network, so now every distribution and related company is at the same game - remitting dividends earned off the back of hardworking Brits (or Poles) to evil foreign shareholders at the expense of a Sunday afternoon splurge at B&Q by their employees.
Is our system really that messed up, Charles?
It's like saying doubling spending on the NHS doesn;t cost anything if we put taxes up 50%.
The obsession with shareholder rather than stakeholder interests is the heart of darkness in the Anglo-Saxon capitalist model.
What other solution exists for when most jobs are automated in the future?
There are of course abuses throughout our current system, and there has been progress with the minimum and living wage legislation and initiatives. But you seem to be looking to set into law a moral view of the world which is something quite different altogether plus what on earth would your system look like. Are in-work benefits really the root of all evil? They seem wrong in principle but as my initial musings might suggest, it is a Peter and Paul situation.
As the man didn't quite say, capitalism is the worst form of economic and political system, apart from...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2146562-hurricane-irmas-epic-size-is-being-fuelled-by-global-warming/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_economics
Can you see how crazy that sounds?
I mean we've had global warming for a long time, right? How come no observational data confirming an impact?
Hmm.
I posted a link to this paper a couple of days back, which provides a decent overview of the rationale of Bitcoin:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jl4130/BTC.pdf
The blockchain design enables Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies to function similarly to conventional payment systems such as Fed Wire, Swift, Visa, and PayPal. These payment systems are natural monopolies in that they enjoy economies of scale and network effects. Each of them is operated by an organization that determines its rules and modifies them as circumstances change. These rules include how and how much participants pay for using the system. The governing organization ensures the system is trusted and is responsible for maintain the required infrastructure for the system. Payment systems are often regulated (or outright owned by government agencies) in order to mitigate the welfare loss associated with their monopolistic positions.
The innovation in Bitcoin’s blockchain design is in the absence of a governing organization. Rather, a protocol sets the system’s rules, by which all constituents abide. Absent is a central entity that maintains the infrastructure. Rather, Bitcoin’s infrastruc- ture consists of computer servers (called “miners”) which enter and exit the system at will, responding to perceived profit opportunities.1 Participants follow the protocol because it is in their best interest to do so, assuming the other participants follow the protocol. Thus, the protocol-derived rules are practically fixed and binding on all parties.
The blockchain design carries an economic innovation. Unlike other payment systems, Bitcoin is a two-sided platform with rules that are pre-specified by a computer protocol. No participant has power to set or modify fees or rules of conduct or otherwise control the system. Each participant in the market place, users and miners alike, is a price taker.…
How about trying to get at the facts rather than trying to score silly points.
“Hurricane Irma, following so closely after Tropical Storm Harvey and other extreme weather emergencies, has prompted questions about the role of climate change." said Dann Mitchell, NERC Research Fellow at the University of Bristol’s Cabot Institute. "The question of whether climate change 'caused' any particular weather event is the wrong one; instead, we must probe how climate change alters extreme weather. Aside from the warming atmosphere, rising sea level and surface ocean warming have likely contributed to the impact of both Irma and Harvey."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/irma-climate-change-what-cause-hurricane-global-warming-caribbean-florida-a7933721.html
How can I honestly reference/quote/ideally picture, for PR purposes, references of mine and my company's in a recent Times newspaper editorial - given the paywall? Screenshots? Photos of the relevant bits of the newspaper article? Not at all?
The taxation of international corporations is likely to be one of the items which gets quite a lot of attention at some point in the Brexit negotiations, surely ?
Whether we'll be doing anything useful about it is, of course, another matter,
Pubs are a prime example where over supply may be doing more harm than good....
Recent hurricane activity is not out of the normal for the last 100 years.
You can also get reprints of the article for a bigger mailshot (you have to pay for that) but it may not be relevant given it sounds like a small part of a story
UBI is the equivalent of the giant rat of Sumatra. Something, to quote Conan Doyle "for which the world is not yet prepared"
Welcome back by the way.