Skip to content

The politics of envy – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,807
edited November 25 in General
The politics of envy – politicalbetting.com

Are you having a Laffer curve? Most Britons think you would raise more money by increasing taxes on the super-rich (55%) than by cutting them (17%)Even if raising taxes on the super-rich LOST revenue, by 44% to 34% Britons would still support doing ityougov.co.uk/politics/art…

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,352
    Cheat! First!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,938
    edited November 25
    Second.

    All dressed up but with nothing to say.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,950
    I preferred LBJ's comments about a speech on economics being like peeing down your leg. It may feel hot to you but it doesn't do much for anybody else.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 21,170
    To the British, sometimes fairness is more important than personal gain. See “that’s just not cricket”.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,393
    MattW said:

    Second.

    All dressed up but with nothing to say.

    I look forward to a new thread, always in the hope I might have some sensible remark to make on the header topic, but it rarely happens. As in this case.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,557
    On topic:

    Greetings from Dubai, where 2026 is looking like a fantastic year for business out here in the sandpit.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,303
    It's the politics of envy

    Same as those who welcome millionaires and billionaires leaving our shores taking their taxes with them

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,303
    edited November 25
    Wes Streeting announcing milk shake tax

    Labour will tax anything and everything
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,072
    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,493
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Wes Streeting announcing milk shake tax announcement

    Labour will tax anything and everything

    Could be seen as an attack on British Muslim success stories like Heavenly Desserts and Creams.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,220
    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    We mainly have loafers that demand Golden eggs. The squeezing thing is right though.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,967
    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    Err. Hens can fly. It's the removal of feathers that prevents them. And nowt will enable them to fly without.
    Am I autistic?
  • trukattrukat Posts: 90
    But if Yougov had simply added "and you would have to pay more tax to make up the shortfall", I think the graph would look very different.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,938
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Wes Streeting announcing milk shake tax

    Labour will tax anything and everything

    I'd disagree on that one.

    The model - a Pigou tax on sweet fizzy drinks - has resulted in a major reduction in sugar therein of nearly half.

    90% of the market now has sugar content below the threshold level.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1w9jg89glro
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,938
    williamglenn said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Wes Streeting announcing milk shake tax announcement

    Labour will tax anything and everything

    Could be seen as an attack on British Muslim success stories like Heavenly Desserts and Creams.
    It's not applied to restaurants ...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,493
    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,557
    FPT: Was there anything in the Labour manifesto regarding a severe restriction in the right to trial by jury?

    One suspects that the Lords will tear apart any attempt by the Commons to do so.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,693
    AnneJGP said:

    MattW said:

    Second.

    All dressed up but with nothing to say.

    I look forward to a new thread, always in the hope I might have some sensible remark to make on the header topic, but it rarely happens. As in this case.
    But you've made a manifestly sensible remark ...

    #logicalparadox
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,072
    dixiedean said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    Err. Hens can fly. It's the removal of feathers that prevents them. And nowt will enable them to fly without.
    Am I autistic?
    Not very far.. I believe that the longest recorded chicken flight was thirteen seconds
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,770
    There was an FT piece by John Burn-Murdoch a few days ago pointing out the wierd effects of the 2010-24 governments.

    The bottom ten percent or so were hit horribly by spending cuts, the top ten percent were hit by tax increases (all those silly kinks, cliff-edges and withdrawls), but the upper-middles did quite nicely, actually. Taxation of income is actually pretty progressive, unlike taxation of wealth.

    Though maybe we shouldn't be surprised, if we think of it as the governing party superserving its core vote.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,057
    edited November 25
    Sandpit said:

    FPT: Was there anything in the Labour manifesto regarding a severe restriction in the right to trial by jury?

    One suspects that the Lords will tear apart any attempt by the Commons to do so.

    I'm struggling to work out which logjam (court, judge, lawyer availability) reducing jury trials solves.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,393
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT: Was there anything in the Labour manifesto regarding a severe restriction in the right to trial by jury?

    One suspects that the Lords will tear apart any attempt by the Commons to do so.

    I'm struggling to work out which logjam (court, judge, lawyer availability) reducing jury trials solves.
    This is something, we must do it.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,057
    AnneJGP said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT: Was there anything in the Labour manifesto regarding a severe restriction in the right to trial by jury?

    One suspects that the Lords will tear apart any attempt by the Commons to do so.

    I'm struggling to work out which logjam (court, judge, lawyer availability) reducing jury trials solves.
    This is something, we must do it.
    I mean there is a question here that I suspect @DavidL is the perfect person to ask, do jury trials take that much longer?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,633
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Wes Streeting announcing milk shake tax

    Labour will tax anything and everything

    It's a tax that will reduce overall taxes significantly. It's expensive funding the NHS when 62% of people are overweight, as they are in Wales.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,599
    "Jury trials could be scrapped except in most serious cases

    Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,477
    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,124
    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,477
    Andy_JS said:

    "Jury trials could be scrapped except in most serious cases

    Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo

    Right now juries trials are effectively limited via sentencing: "sure you can take this prosecution to a Jury, but I should warn you that the magistrates court can only sentence you to a maximum of two years inside, as opposed to five years"

    It's a pretty effective deterrent: even for those who are not guilty.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,002
    The UK is not a particularly unequal society.

    The richest 1% own about 10% of net wealth. In the USA, that proportion is 31% (where the UK was 100 years ago). The global average, per country, is 43%.

    The UK is only unequal compared to Scandinavia and the Netherlands.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,493
    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,741
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Jury trials could be scrapped except in most serious cases

    Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo

    Right now juries trials are effectively limited via sentencing: "sure you can take this prosecution to a Jury, but I should warn you that the magistrates court can only sentence you to a maximum of two years inside, as opposed to five years"

    It's a pretty effective deterrent: even for those who are not guilty.
    I propose that we remove the right to a jury trial *for anything* from MPs.

    @Cyclefree gets to decide on whether they are guilt or not.

    The possible verdict are

    1) Death
    2) Death
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,693
    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Who do you think you are, Socrates?

    Do you have any evidence that the ones who are do perform better?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,750
    edited November 25
    Northern_Al said:

    It's worth noting that the poll in the header asks about the super-rich, not the rich. I take this to mean multi-millionaires to billionaires. It may well be that many folk think that these people could afford to pay plenty more tax and still, in fact, be super-rich, without vacating the UK.

    They could afford to, obviously.
    Equally obviously , that's not the same thing as actually putting up with it and hanging around to pay more tax.

    As for the finding about taxing them more even if it were to reduce the tax take, I think that's been a regular polling result for a number of years now ?
    More interesting would be to see how much that number has shifted over time.

    There is also the slightly less obvious point that modern multi-billionaires are accruing far more power than in the past, as mega-corporations have similar heft to some medium sized countries, and huge influence via their media/social media platforms.

    The wish to tax them more is perhaps just a marker of wanting to push back on that power ?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,693
    edited November 25
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It is a truth universally acknowledged on PB that lower income people need to be made poorer in order to motivate them to work, while higher income people need even more money in order to motivate them.
    The corollary is that the proles shouldn't be allowed to combine, to fight the combinations of the rich. (c) The Tolpuddle Landowners. Much repeated on PB.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,741
    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,966
    Andy_JS said:

    "Jury trials could be scrapped except in most serious cases

    Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo

    Huzzah, they are listening to me, next step will be re-introducing Bills of Attainder, the Forfeiture Act of 1870 is utter woke nonsense and needs to go too.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,750
    Malmesbury said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Jury trials could be scrapped except in most serious cases

    Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo

    Right now juries trials are effectively limited via sentencing: "sure you can take this prosecution to a Jury, but I should warn you that the magistrates court can only sentence you to a maximum of two years inside, as opposed to five years"

    It's a pretty effective deterrent: even for those who are not guilty.
    I propose that we remove the right to a jury trial *for anything* from MPs.

    @Cyclefree gets to decide on whether they are guilt or not.

    The possible verdict are

    1) Death
    2) Death
    Aren't those sentences rather than verdicts ?

    Otherwise, they'd be beyond judgment.
    ...Fear no more the frown o’ the great;
    Thou art past the tyrant’s stroke;
    Care no more to clothe and eat;
    To thee the reed is as the oak:
    The scepter, learning, physic, must
    All follow this, and come to dust...
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,393
    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Not evidence, but in my experience private education (and/or the background that enables a private education) produces a person with much more self-confidence, which always gives an advantage especially at interviews.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,741
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It is a truth universally acknowledged on PB that lower income people need to be made poorer in order to motivate them to work, while higher income people need even more money in order to motivate them.
    The corollary is that the proles shouldn't be allowed to combine, to fight the combinations of the rich. (c) The Tolpuddle Landowners. Much repeated on PB.
    I thought the progressive view was that we need to hold down wages so that old people's bums get wiped?

    Not hold down senior NHS consultants wages. Oh dear me, no.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,750
    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
    They aint the super-rich, obvs.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,741
    Nigelb said:

    Malmesbury said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Jury trials could be scrapped except in most serious cases

    Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo

    Right now juries trials are effectively limited via sentencing: "sure you can take this prosecution to a Jury, but I should warn you that the magistrates court can only sentence you to a maximum of two years inside, as opposed to five years"

    It's a pretty effective deterrent: even for those who are not guilty.
    I propose that we remove the right to a jury trial *for anything* from MPs.

    @Cyclefree gets to decide on whether they are guilt or not.

    The possible verdict are

    1) Death
    2) Death
    Aren't those sentences rather than verdicts ?

    Otherwise, they'd be beyond judgment.
    ...Fear no more the frown o’ the great;
    Thou art past the tyrant’s stroke;
    Care no more to clothe and eat;
    To thee the reed is as the oak:
    The scepter, learning, physic, must
    All follow this, and come to dust...
    That's the kind of thinking that makes you suspect. And all suspects are guilty. Period. Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspect, would they?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,966
    Carnyx said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Who do you think you are, Socrates?

    Do you have any evidence that the ones who are do perform better?
    Yes, see me, privately educated and I excel in several fields.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,124
    edited November 25
    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,750
    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) often assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work...
    The tendency is at the margin.
    It's not a universal rule.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,207
    edited November 25
    Sean_F said:

    The UK is not a particularly unequal society.

    The richest 1% own about 10% of net wealth. In the USA, that proportion is 31% (where the UK was 100 years ago). The global average, per country, is 43%.

    The UK is only unequal compared to Scandinavia and the Netherlands.

    But also - the top 10% own roughly 43% of net wealth (some sources have this higher).
    The 'bottom' 50% own a mere 9% of net wealth (some sources have this lower).

    I don't think your claim that "The UK is not a particularly unequal society" is supported by the evidence. You're right, of course, that most other countries are even more unequal.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,057
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It is a truth universally acknowledged on PB that lower income people need to be made poorer in order to motivate them to work, while higher income people need even more money in order to motivate them.
    Nope - but it does seem to be something I lot of reform voters want.

    Which is ironic because the people most likely to be impacted are a different set of reform tending (non/rarely) voters.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,968
    edited November 25
    On topic, hypothetical polling about difficult economic and ethical questions is of little value. I remember polls in the 1980s that showed consistent support for higher taxes and higher public spending, but the government that did that the least in our recent history still won four elections on the trot.

    Also, focusing on the government revenue side of things misses a more important point. The real damage high marginal tax rates do is not to government revenues - the effects there are ambiguous. It's to the wealth-creating private sector and the economy as a whole. And there, studies are as conclusive as these things ever are in social science - increasing the tax burden does not simply redistribute wealth, it significantly and chronically reduces the size of the economy overall.

    I doubt the polling would be the same if that crucial point were highlighted.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,736
    Most Labour and Green voters think that increasing tax on the rich and business alone would be enough to sort out the finances on this poll. Ignoring the Ladder curve evidence that increasing tax above a certain piint reduces growth and revenue overall.

    Most Labour and Green and LD voters polled also want to increase tax and public spending. Most Conservative voters want to keep tax and spending as now. Most Reform voters want to cut tax and cut spending
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,750
    Northern_Al said:

    Sean_F said:

    The UK is not a particularly unequal society.

    The richest 1% own about 10% of net wealth. In the USA, that proportion is 31% (where the UK was 100 years ago). The global average, per country, is 43%.

    The UK is only unequal compared to Scandinavia and the Netherlands.

    But also - the top 10% own roughly 43% of net wealth (some sources have this higher).
    The 'bottom' 50% own a mere 9% of net wealth (some sources have this lower).

    I don't think your claim that "The UK is not a particularly unequal society" is supported by the evidence. You're right, of course, that most other countries are even more unequal.
    The corresponding figures for the US are, I think, around 66/67%, and < 2.5%.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,493
    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
    That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,124
    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
    I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.

    But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.

    You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 7,782
    Nigelb said:

    Malmesbury said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Jury trials could be scrapped except in most serious cases

    Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo

    Right now juries trials are effectively limited via sentencing: "sure you can take this prosecution to a Jury, but I should warn you that the magistrates court can only sentence you to a maximum of two years inside, as opposed to five years"

    It's a pretty effective deterrent: even for those who are not guilty.
    I propose that we remove the right to a jury trial *for anything* from MPs.

    @Cyclefree gets to decide on whether they are guilt or not.

    The possible verdict are

    1) Death
    2) Death
    Aren't those sentences rather than verdicts?
    Not quite as separate concepts when delivered by the same person.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 974
    Cookie said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
    I'm a case in point. I dropped down to part time after my wife went back to work after her second maternity leave. Never went back up to full time. Why do 25% more work for 15% more pay? I'm not super rich. But the presence of the 40% tax band is a big disincentive to do any more.
    I fit both sides of that argument. While I'm trying to pay the mortgage off, I need every penny I can earn, and a significant increase in taxation probably makes me look around for a better paid job. Once I pay it off, I will be looking at how much extra I earn on my 5th day of the week and will be thinking 'nah, not worth it'
  • trukattrukat Posts: 90
    Benpointer said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
    I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.

    But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.

    You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
    Or you know claim housing benefit. is that not exactly what it is designed for.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,750
    carnforth said:

    Nigelb said:

    Malmesbury said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Jury trials could be scrapped except in most serious cases

    Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo

    Right now juries trials are effectively limited via sentencing: "sure you can take this prosecution to a Jury, but I should warn you that the magistrates court can only sentence you to a maximum of two years inside, as opposed to five years"

    It's a pretty effective deterrent: even for those who are not guilty.
    I propose that we remove the right to a jury trial *for anything* from MPs.

    @Cyclefree gets to decide on whether they are guilt or not.

    The possible verdict are

    1) Death
    2) Death
    Aren't those sentences rather than verdicts?
    Not quite as separate concepts when delivered by the same person.
    Ah, so 1 and 2 are in sequence, rather than alternatives.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,124
    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
    That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
    Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...

    (*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,750
    This is the sort of thing which the regulatory reform crowd are on about.

    It will cost Chris £15,000 to replace two rotting windows.

    The windows themselves only cost £5,000. So, why so expensive?

    Answer: Chris needs to get approval from Westminster Council and the Building Safety Regulator.
    https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1993236534926229951
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,124
    trukat said:

    Benpointer said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
    I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.

    But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.

    You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
    Or you know claim housing benefit. is that not exactly what it is designed for.
    Oh yes, because they only think to claim HB when the rent goes up?

    You do realise that HB only pays a set amount regardless of the actual rent. Rent goes up - HB stays the same.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 83,750
    EXCLUSIVE: The British Army has been forced to stop the use of its Ajax armoured fighting vehicle after dozens of soldiers fell ill due to vibration and hearing problems
    https://thetimes.com/article/b2433e5a-92ff-462e-9fd1-5073ac875fc1?shareToken=68cab80614e1522e445ff740f763e57f

    It's only a week or so back that potential leadership "dark horse" John Healey was describing these as "world beating".
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 7,782
    Nigelb said:

    carnforth said:

    Nigelb said:

    Malmesbury said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Jury trials could be scrapped except in most serious cases

    Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo

    Right now juries trials are effectively limited via sentencing: "sure you can take this prosecution to a Jury, but I should warn you that the magistrates court can only sentence you to a maximum of two years inside, as opposed to five years"

    It's a pretty effective deterrent: even for those who are not guilty.
    I propose that we remove the right to a jury trial *for anything* from MPs.

    @Cyclefree gets to decide on whether they are guilt or not.

    The possible verdict are

    1) Death
    2) Death
    Aren't those sentences rather than verdicts?
    Not quite as separate concepts when delivered by the same person.
    Ah, so 1 and 2 are in sequence, rather than alternatives.
    Deaths to run consecutively is quite the concept!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,002
    Northern_Al said:

    Sean_F said:

    The UK is not a particularly unequal society.

    The richest 1% own about 10% of net wealth. In the USA, that proportion is 31% (where the UK was 100 years ago). The global average, per country, is 43%.

    The UK is only unequal compared to Scandinavia and the Netherlands.

    But also - the top 10% own roughly 43% of net wealth (some sources have this higher).
    The 'bottom' 50% own a mere 9% of net wealth (some sources have this lower).

    I don't think your claim that "The UK is not a particularly unequal society" is supported by the evidence. You're right, of course, that most other countries are even more unequal.
    What made me think about this was the Guardian’s claim today, that excessive concentration of wealth leads to societal collapse.

    That’s true, looking from a military history viewpoint. Societies with lots of landholding peasants were more militarily robust than those where the population was divided between a tiny elite and a vast head count. The Gracchi brothers understood this, more than two thousand years ago. People fight harder for their own land.

    But, the effect of the Industrial Revolution has been not to make the rich poorer (they got richer), but vastly to enrich the elite-adjacent, and middling population. Most rich world democracies would be close to Karl Marx’s ideal.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,493
    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
    That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
    Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...

    (*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
    Equality of opportunity is as unrealistic as equality of outcome because you can't prevent parents from doing things to improve their children's life chances. Even if you banned private education, you can't stop parents teaching them or passing on domain knowledge.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,317
    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
    That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
    Know your place, proles.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,057
    edited November 25
    trukat said:

    Benpointer said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
    I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.

    But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.

    You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
    Or you know claim housing benefit. is that not exactly what it is designed for.
    If they are on Universal Credit they will already be receiving the housing side of it - the point of universal credit was to merge all the benefit payments into a single payment.

    And that usually lags well behind current market rents especially private sector rents.
  • trukattrukat Posts: 90
    Benpointer said:

    trukat said:

    Benpointer said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
    I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.

    But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.

    You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
    Or you know claim housing benefit. is that not exactly what it is designed for.
    Oh yes, because they only think to claim HB when the rent goes up?

    You do realise that HB only pays a set amount regardless of the actual rent. Rent goes up - HB stays the same.
    only if you are over the maximum allowed surely? so you are saying this guy is already getting maximum housing benefit, then a big rent rise, so then he has to work extra. But he is still not eligible for any kind of tax credit or UC. Sucks to be him.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 17,174
    People spend maybe 5 seconds on polling questions like this. They're not thinking
  • eekeek Posts: 32,057
    edited November 25
    bondegezou said:

    People spend maybe 5 seconds on polling questions like this. They're not thinking

    which is why, as has been pointed multiple times below already, the answer is what it is and why if you said the shortfall would have to be paid by you the answer would be very different.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,686
    bondegezou said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    bondegezou said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    bondegezou said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    bondegezou said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    bondegezou said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Sky reporting Ukraine agrees the peace proposal

    Which one though !!!

    The Washington Post say it is a 19 point plan that European leaders have proposed and that Russia is likely to reject the deal.

    Starmer and the EU have played a blinder if the reports are true.
    Why do we need 19 points?

    1) Ukraine and Russia withdraw back to their respective 1991 boundaries.
    2) Russia pays compensation to Ukraine.
    3) Putin and his leadership face justice.

    What are the other 16 points required?
    I've got a proposed 3-point peace deal as well.

    1) Israel and Syria withdraw back to their respective 2024 boundaries.
    2) Israel pays compensation to Syria.
    3) Netanyahu and his leadership face justice.
    Who started the 2024 Israel/Syria conflict again?

    It wasn't Israel, was it?

    Don't attack another country if you aren't prepared to lose the war you start.
    Israel started the 2024 Israel/Syria conflict. The Assad regime fell. Syria was not attacking Israel. Israel marched through a UN buffer zone and took Syrian territory, while also bombing Syria.
    Syria started the war with Israel and Hezbollah and Hamas both started fighting Israel and Hezbollah were operating within Syria even prior to the fall of Assad. The Assad regime fell to be replaced with proscribed Islamists terrorists* that supported wiping out Israel too.

    * The UK Government's definition at the time, not even counting Israel's views.

    Your repeated, false, insinuations that Syria is a poor defenceless nation attacked unprovoked, are entirely fallacious and false.
    List attacks by Syrian military on Israel in 2024 or 2023. Oh, there aren't any.

    OK, list attacks by the Syrian opposition (who took over Syria in 2024) on Israel in 2024 or 2023. Still none.

    Even the Israeli government makes no claims of Syrian attacks as being the casus belli.

    Yes, the Assad government had been supporting Hezbollah, who have periodically attacked Israel, but the Assad regime had just fallen. Israel attacked the new government, who had been fighting against Hezbollah, who supported Assad.
    You need a casus belli to start a war, Syria and Israel are already at war, so no casus belli required.

    There were many strikes from within Syria to Israel, here is just one source listing some of the incidents prior to Israel's major operations: https://israel-alma.org/weekend-update-july-12-14-2024-0200-pm-northern-arena/

    Yes Israel took advantage of their enemy falling to secure a better footing, that's just smart, when you're at war and your enemy shows a weakness during the conflict. If Putin fell and Ukraine reacted to take some land to help them with the war, would you object to that?

    You are again, falsely, insinuating that the new regime is peaceful. This is a new regime we proscribed as terrorists.
    The attacks were by Hezbollah. The new regime are Hezbollah's enemy. Israel and Syria had been at war and technically there had never been a peace treaty, but there had been no significant fighting for years. The Israeli/Syrian border had a UN buffer zone that was working very well, and the Israeli military just took it over, f*** the UN, and grabbed territory.

    The Israeli rationale is that they need to occupy the Golan Heights so that their opponents can't attack them from there. But then it was they need to occupy the UN zone to protect their occupation of the Golan Heights. And now they need to occupy deep into Syria to protect their occupation of the UN zone, to protect their occupation of the Golan Heights, to protect actual Israeli territory. It's just expansionism, a desire for a greater Israel, very similar to Putin's desire for a greater Russia.

    We have proscribed the new Syrian regime as terrorists, but we haven't bombed them. You are allowed to dislike your neighbours. You should not invade your neighbours except for a very limited set of circumstances.

    But you think Israel is "more important" than other countries, so the rules don't apply to them.
    BiB 1 - Yes, by Hezbollah, from within Syria.

    BiB 2: Technicalities matter. There was no peace treaty, they are at war.

    BiB 3: No, we haven't bombed them, but we (and the USA including under Clinton, Obama and others) and other developed nations have bombed other terrorists.

    BiB 4: There are no rules against fighting nations you are at war with. Please find me any rule against that, ever ratified, by anyone.
    All this “technically, they were still at war” is posturing because you think Israel shouldn’t be held to the same standards as other countries. In your earlier post, you said a peace treaty should see Russia AND Ukraine withdraw to their 1991 boundaries. I suggest a similar peace deal for Israel and Syria, both withdrawing to their 2024 boundaries, and you are utterly horrified by the suggestion.
    You are wrong. Again.

    I do think Israel should be held to the same standards as we are actually. I do not think they should be held to different standards.

    So as we (and America and France and other democracies) are willing and able to bomb terrorists, I think Israel has that right too. That was my point three.

    As for your false comparison between Ukraine/Russia and Israel/Syria, I chose the 1991 borders for a reason. 1991 borders are internationally agreed and respected borders they both agreed would be there borders, with a peace agreement, prior to any conflict. I did not choose ceasefire borders.

    Why 2024 for you? Was there an agreed and mutually respected peace agreement in 2024? No.

    When was the last mutually agreed and respected peace agreement between Israel and Syria? Oh, there never has been one. Never.
  • strawbrickstrawbrick Posts: 24
    I once got a "merit" pay-rise which, when combined with my "cost of living increase" took me just into the next tax band. Can't say that it changed my attitude to work or the effort I put in, I was still happy to have had the increases.
    We could solve the problem of higher taxation "forcing people to go abroad to avoid tax", i.e. non-doms, by adopting what I believe is the USA approach and say that if you want a UK Passport, then you pay UK Income Tax and NI contributions.
    Concerning the so-called Mansion Tax, tinkering at the top fringe is futile. What is needed is a proper valuation done properly, not by a "Wind-screen" survey. I would suggest valuations based recent local purchase costs assisted by reference to actual Planning Consents.
    Finally, there clearly works that local Councils do not have the funds to carry out. I would suggest offering unemployed people extra money to do some of them.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,557
    Cookie said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
    I'm a case in point. I dropped down to part time after my wife went back to work after her second maternity leave. Never went back up to full time. Why do 25% more work for 15% more pay? I'm not super rich. But the presence of the 40% tax band is a big disincentive to do any more.
    That got me as a keen young and single worker in my 20s. I was working for an IT firm with basically unlimited overtime available, doing helpdesk and hardware site visit support stuff evenings and weekends all of the time, saving up for house deposit and having fun.

    Until one day I got hit by the 40% bug, and it was immediately “I’m not working Sundays for £7 an hour, or being on call when visiting my parents for lunch”, and after that hours were adjusted carefully to stay under the limit.

    Apply the same to those comfortably off on £100k in their fifties, and it’s not surprising that many of them decide to take Fridays off unpaid.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,930
    On topic, there are very few data points for the Laffer curve. I'd applaud govt measures that provide some as I'm sure those who support it would.

    The question is really, "Very rich people get commentators to write articles saying that there'll be less tax revenue if they have to pay higher tax rates. Do you believe them?" 44% have answered "No"/"Let's prove the hypothesis" in the interest of advancing human understanding I think that is laudable.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,872
    The politics of dancing

    https://youtu.be/TpU0-dJ0HP4?si=KVVfQWnZTIebtqtx
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,557
    strawbrick said:

    I once got a "merit" pay-rise which, when combined with my "cost of living increase" took me just into the next tax band. Can't say that it changed my attitude to work or the effort I put in, I was still happy to have had the increases.
    We could solve the problem of higher taxation "forcing people to go abroad to avoid tax", i.e. non-doms, by adopting what I believe is the USA approach and say that if you want a UK Passport, then you pay UK Income Tax and NI contributions.
    Concerning the so-called Mansion Tax, tinkering at the top fringe is futile. What is needed is a proper valuation done properly, not by a "Wind-screen" survey. I would suggest valuations based recent local purchase costs assisted by reference to actual Planning Consents.
    Finally, there clearly works that local Councils do not have the funds to carry out. I would suggest offering unemployed people extra money to do some of them.

    The “Non-Doms” are not British citizens, they are foreigners resident in the UK.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,093
    Fishing said:

    On topic, hypothetical polling about difficult economic and ethical questions is of little value. I remember polls in the 1980s that showed consistent support for higher taxes and higher public spending, but the government that did that the least in our recent history still won four elections on the trot.

    Also, focusing on the government revenue side of things misses a more important point. The real damage high marginal tax rates do is not to government revenues - the effects there are ambiguous. It's to the wealth-creating private sector and the economy as a whole. And there, studies are as conclusive as these things ever are in social science - increasing the tax burden does not simply redistribute wealth, it significantly and chronically reduces the size of the economy overall.

    I doubt the polling would be the same if that crucial point were highlighted.

    Though during the decades of post war prosperity and growth from the 1950's onwards we (and the USA, France, Germany, Italy etc) had income tax rates significantly higher than current levels,
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,493
    rcs1000 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
    That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
    For your average successful Barrister or Advocate, becoming a Judge means a significant drop in income.

    I suspect that those who are privately educated are more likely to come from relatively well off backgrounds, and are therefore better able to weather the income drop. While those who are state educated are more likely to still be paying off the mortgage.
    Obviously the answer to improve equality is to pay all the top people much better!
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,634
    Nigelb said:

    Northern_Al said:

    Sean_F said:

    The UK is not a particularly unequal society.

    The richest 1% own about 10% of net wealth. In the USA, that proportion is 31% (where the UK was 100 years ago). The global average, per country, is 43%.

    The UK is only unequal compared to Scandinavia and the Netherlands.

    But also - the top 10% own roughly 43% of net wealth (some sources have this higher).
    The 'bottom' 50% own a mere 9% of net wealth (some sources have this lower).

    I don't think your claim that "The UK is not a particularly unequal society" is supported by the evidence. You're right, of course, that most other countries are even more unequal.
    The corresponding figures for the US are, I think, around 66/67%, and < 2.5%.
    I do wonder if the levels of inequality in the US are a politically sustainable equilibrium.

    If I was rich in the US, I'd be looking at ways to reform to reduce inequality and increases tax on wealth. Before someone gets elected who does it in a more confiscatory way.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,686
    Sandpit said:

    Cookie said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
    I'm a case in point. I dropped down to part time after my wife went back to work after her second maternity leave. Never went back up to full time. Why do 25% more work for 15% more pay? I'm not super rich. But the presence of the 40% tax band is a big disincentive to do any more.
    That got me as a keen young and single worker in my 20s. I was working for an IT firm with basically unlimited overtime available, doing helpdesk and hardware site visit support stuff evenings and weekends all of the time, saving up for house deposit and having fun.

    Until one day I got hit by the 40% bug, and it was immediately “I’m not working Sundays for £7 an hour, or being on call when visiting my parents for lunch”, and after that hours were adjusted carefully to stay under the limit.

    Apply the same to those comfortably off on £100k in their fifties, and it’s not surprising that many of them decide to take Fridays off unpaid.
    The key point, as always, is the cliff edges.

    People will take a pay rise and happily (within reason) pay extra tax that is due at their rate of tax they are on.

    Where people change behaviour is the cliff edges.

    Especially those stupidly designed cliff edges that leave people worse off for getting more.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,879
    Cookie said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
    I'm a case in point. I dropped down to part time after my wife went back to work after her second maternity leave. Never went back up to full time. Why do 25% more work for 15% more pay? I'm not super rich. But the presence of the 40% tax band is a big disincentive to do any more.
    Doesn't it depend a bit on how much people (dis)like their work? I'm 75 and gave up work a couple of years ago after a second (mild) stroke. I miss it a bit and would certainly go back to work if I had to, though I probably need to give up sometime - literally earning nothing still feels odd. I'm fortunate to have enough to live on so it's a fortunate choice rather than a necessity.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,950
    rcs1000 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
    That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
    For your average successful Barrister or Advocate, becoming a Judge means a significant drop in income.

    I suspect that those who are privately educated are more likely to come from relatively well off backgrounds, and are therefore better able to weather the income drop. While those who are state educated are more likely to still be paying off the mortgage.
    rcs1000 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
    That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
    For your average successful Barrister or Advocate, becoming a Judge means a significant drop in income.

    I suspect that those who are privately educated are more likely to come from relatively well off backgrounds, and are therefore better able to weather the income drop. While those who are state educated are more likely to still be paying off the mortgage.
    Never underestimate the greed of the upper middle class, especially in Edinburgh!
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,633
    edited November 25
    Benpointer said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
    I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.

    But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.

    You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
    And don't forget the UC sanctions regime if you don't take up work. There's plenty of stick, even when there isn't any carrot. That's why you occasionally come across UC recipients working on 100%+ effective marginal tax rates.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,455
    Not been on here much but why is @Leon banned again?

    I'm just back from Thailand and want to thank him for the excellent travel advice he gave me, which was very valuable.

    Can I PM him even though he is banned??
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 58,741
    a
    Foxy said:

    Fishing said:

    On topic, hypothetical polling about difficult economic and ethical questions is of little value. I remember polls in the 1980s that showed consistent support for higher taxes and higher public spending, but the government that did that the least in our recent history still won four elections on the trot.

    Also, focusing on the government revenue side of things misses a more important point. The real damage high marginal tax rates do is not to government revenues - the effects there are ambiguous. It's to the wealth-creating private sector and the economy as a whole. And there, studies are as conclusive as these things ever are in social science - increasing the tax burden does not simply redistribute wealth, it significantly and chronically reduces the size of the economy overall.

    I doubt the polling would be the same if that crucial point were highlighted.

    Though during the decades of post war prosperity and growth from the 1950's onwards we (and the USA, France, Germany, Italy etc) had income tax rates significantly higher than current levels,
    Then got upset when people moved into Tax Exile......
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,770
    PJH said:

    Cookie said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
    I'm a case in point. I dropped down to part time after my wife went back to work after her second maternity leave. Never went back up to full time. Why do 25% more work for 15% more pay? I'm not super rich. But the presence of the 40% tax band is a big disincentive to do any more.
    I fit both sides of that argument. While I'm trying to pay the mortgage off, I need every penny I can earn, and a significant increase in taxation probably makes me look around for a better paid job. Once I pay it off, I will be looking at how much extra I earn on my 5th day of the week and will be thinking 'nah, not worth it'
    Tax is only part of the polygon, after all.

    The other corners include:

    Amount of pay
    Amount of income needed to have enough plus a bit
    Agreeableness of the work

    Going from paying a mortgage to not shifts one of them massively, which affects the importance of the others massively.

    Even without the tax distortions, it's reasonably normal to take increased personal productivity as more time off, rather than less money. That's fine and normal- though I'm not sure so many of us should find it as easy as we do.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,477
    Sandpit said:

    strawbrick said:

    I once got a "merit" pay-rise which, when combined with my "cost of living increase" took me just into the next tax band. Can't say that it changed my attitude to work or the effort I put in, I was still happy to have had the increases.
    We could solve the problem of higher taxation "forcing people to go abroad to avoid tax", i.e. non-doms, by adopting what I believe is the USA approach and say that if you want a UK Passport, then you pay UK Income Tax and NI contributions.
    Concerning the so-called Mansion Tax, tinkering at the top fringe is futile. What is needed is a proper valuation done properly, not by a "Wind-screen" survey. I would suggest valuations based recent local purchase costs assisted by reference to actual Planning Consents.
    Finally, there clearly works that local Councils do not have the funds to carry out. I would suggest offering unemployed people extra money to do some of them.

    The “Non-Doms” are not British citizens, they are foreigners resident in the UK.
    It used to be the case that British Citizens with other passports could be non-doms: if you could demonstrate that - irrespective of whether you held a British passport or not - that the UK would not be your long-term home, you could be a non-dom.

    That may have changed, but that used to be the case.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,686
    Sean_F said:

    The UK is not a particularly unequal society.

    The richest 1% own about 10% of net wealth. In the USA, that proportion is 31% (where the UK was 100 years ago). The global average, per country, is 43%.

    The UK is only unequal compared to Scandinavia and the Netherlands.

    The UK is a very unequal society.

    But we are not unequal by top/bottom percentages.

    We are unequal by age.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,477
    Stocky said:

    Not been on here much but why is @Leon banned again?

    I'm just back from Thailand and want to thank him for the excellent travel advice he gave me, which was very valuable.

    Can I PM him even though he is banned??

    I don't think he's banned any more.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,930
    Nigelb said:

    This is the sort of thing which the regulatory reform crowd are on about.

    It will cost Chris £15,000 to replace two rotting windows.

    The windows themselves only cost £5,000. So, why so expensive?

    Answer: Chris needs to get approval from Westminster Council and the Building Safety Regulator.
    https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1993236534926229951

    Having watched the video, it's because the planning consultants are screwing him for £6k to fill out 2 standard planning applications and Westminster will probably require alu frames in keeping with the buildings appearance rather than uPVC (£10k for alu vs £5k for uPVC).
    Actual Westminster Council costs look to be less than £1k.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,155
    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
    That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
    Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...

    (*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
    Equality of opportunity is as unrealistic as equality of outcome because you can't prevent parents from doing things to improve their children's life chances. Even if you banned private education, you can't stop parents teaching them or passing on domain knowledge.
    You're doing reductibus ex absurdium. Inequality being inevitable (which it is) doesn't mean it's not a feasible objective to reduce it. You wouldn't want to trash overall prosperity or fundamental human rights in pursuit of this - but I think we have the scope to do a few things without approaching that sort of PolPotian tyranny.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,124
    kinabalu said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
    That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
    Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...

    (*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
    Equality of opportunity is as unrealistic as equality of outcome because you can't prevent parents from doing things to improve their children's life chances. Even if you banned private education, you can't stop parents teaching them or passing on domain knowledge.
    You're doing reductibus ex absurdium. Inequality being inevitable (which it is) doesn't mean it's not a feasible objective to reduce it. You wouldn't want to trash overall prosperity or fundamental human rights in pursuit of this - but I think we have the scope to do a few things without approaching that sort of PolPotian tyranny.
    Indeed, see e.g. Finland
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,427
    NickPalmer said:

    Cookie said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BlancheLivermore said:

    If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly

    So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
    It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).

    But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
    I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.

    Laffer Curve in action.

    Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
    I'm a case in point. I dropped down to part time after my wife went back to work after her second maternity leave. Never went back up to full time. Why do 25% more work for 15% more pay? I'm not super rich. But the presence of the 40% tax band is a big disincentive to do any more.
    Doesn't it depend a bit on how much people (dis)like their work? I'm 75 and gave up work a couple of years ago after a second (mild) stroke. I miss it a bit and would certainly go back to work if I had to, though I probably need to give up sometime - literally earning nothing still feels odd. I'm fortunate to have enough to live on so it's a fortunate choice rather than a necessity.
    Well quite, but I suspect the number of people who would work regardless is relatively small. That's why they have to give you money to get you to do it.
    I like my job, but if I had the means not to do it I can think of a hundred things I would rather be doing with my time.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,220
    kinabalu said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
    That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
    Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...

    (*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
    Equality of opportunity is as unrealistic as equality of outcome because you can't prevent parents from doing things to improve their children's life chances. Even if you banned private education, you can't stop parents teaching them or passing on domain knowledge.
    You're doing reductibus ex absurdium. Inequality being inevitable (which it is) doesn't mean it's not a feasible objective to reduce it. You wouldn't want to trash overall prosperity or fundamental human rights in pursuit of this - but I think we have the scope to do a few things without approaching that sort of PolPotian tyranny.
    "reductibus"

    If you say so
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,961
    rcs1000 said:

    Stocky said:

    Not been on here much but why is @Leon banned again?

    I'm just back from Thailand and want to thank him for the excellent travel advice he gave me, which was very valuable.

    Can I PM him even though he is banned??

    I don't think he's banned any more.
    Oh.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,493
    kinabalu said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    williamglenn said:

    Benpointer said:

    Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.

    The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.

    How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
    Typically narrow thinking on your part.

    This illustrates the issue:

    Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated.
    Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated.
    Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too.
    Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage.
    Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.

    https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/
    https://elitistbritain.suttontrust.com

    Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
    Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
    That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
    Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...

    (*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
    Equality of opportunity is as unrealistic as equality of outcome because you can't prevent parents from doing things to improve their children's life chances. Even if you banned private education, you can't stop parents teaching them or passing on domain knowledge.
    You're doing reductibus ex absurdium. Inequality being inevitable (which it is) doesn't mean it's not a feasible objective to reduce it. You wouldn't want to trash overall prosperity or fundamental human rights in pursuit of this - but I think we have the scope to do a few things without approaching that sort of PolPotian tyranny.
    But maybe reducing inequality is the wrong goal? It can become a a distraction from solving real problems because policy becomes focused on manipulating an arbitrary statistic.
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025