People Begging for a House Price Crash

I'm pretty up on the whole thing (applied sociologist) and that's new to me. Could you cite one paper that's more or less accepted as authoritative on this issue?

Thanks, Rob

Mmmm. Very few new service jobs have opened up in the UK over the last

20 years. Which makes me think that even if most have gone to 'foreigners' (non-UK passport holders then?) it's a bit of a non-story.

OK, maybe crossed wires here. I maintain, through my experience of people on benefits (thousands now, known to me by name) almost all want a job. My experience is in adult ed and vocational courses.

Saying 'it's not worth working' can be taken a number of ways.

Yes quite. But it's often more serious than 'not worth' - child care being the key issue IME.

Rob

Here's the APA report:

FoFP

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Yep, of course.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

They already do, through their taxes.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

It's only "at other's expense" if their own taxes don't cover it, which we can consider means that they "can't afford" it.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

That's irrelevant - I pay for them through my taxes.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

*Extremely* rarely ;-).

"Andy Pandy" wrote

So in other words, we accept that some people are "selfish" / "evil", but set up the system to cope with them. Can't argue with that!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Interesting idea - has anyone done any sample calcs to see what level of tax would be required for a reasonable "citizen's income"?

Why? They might have inherited 300,000, then get cancer which requires expensive treatment - more than they pay in taxes. They can then afford to pay for the treatment, yet they are being subsidised by the taxpayer. Is that "wrong"?

Quite. If it seems people are taking an unfair advantage, then change the system to stop them doing so rather than a futile attempt at moral judgement.

I did a while ago - probably around 45%. Sounds high but that incorporates NI as well as income tax and you get the "citizen's income" to offset some (or all) of the extra tax. Basically benefit withdrawal rates are incorporated into income tax. You'd also get rid of all the bureaucracy and fraud associated with means testing.

No comments on all the cites in the above articles then?

Have you not noticed lots more people speaking Eastern European languages on buses, trains, in the high street etc? IIRC it was the OEDC who reported that most new jobs in the UK went to foreigners.

So that's a bit like a ski instructor saying it's "very rare" that people aren't interested in skiing.

Of course. The structure of the tax credits system, with no WTC at all if you work less than 16 hours, doesn't help. This will be fixed in the new system.

In addition, despite all their schemes to help with childcare, the last government completely failed to recognise the (arguably) best form of childcare ie a parent looking after their own child. Most other countries recognise this through (eg) joint assessment for tax, so a stay at home parent can use their tax allowance against the income which supports them.

That's why the UK has such a sharp divide between no-earner households and two earner households, and why the UK has the highest rate of children growing up in workless households in the EU, despite having lower unemployment than the EU average.

If the income was high enough, who would be bothered to go out to work? And wouldn't most people's taxes simply go to paying their own citizen's income, assuming everyone was entitled?

And, because this would mean wages didn't have to be so high, people would earn less taxable income.

It would be high enough so that no-one starved, but not the sort of income anyone would want to live on. Maybe 5-6k per person, inc housing costs, with additions for disabilites but only to reflect any higher cost of living. It could even be conditional on working or seeking work (for those who can) like JSA now. But it probably wouldn't be necessary as they'd only get taxed at 45% at the lower end instead of 95-100% now.

Yes, so? Less of their taxes would be spent dealing the bureaucratic nightmare and fraud associated with means testing. Everyone's entitled, simple!

Why would wages "not have to be so high"? I didn't say anything about abolishing the minimum wage.

In message , Andy Pandy writes

You haven't mentioned the tax threshold. Anything less than about £15/16K and you've lost my vote, and I'm a pensioner!

"Gordon H" wrote

Yes he did! - He said "a flat tax rate with **no allowance**"

"Gordon H" wrote

So he's lost your vote, then?

My mistake, I forgot about the higher tax rate. So someone earning £25000 now, would need to earn nearly £30000 to end up with the same net pay (ignoring NI), as I assume the 45% is a flat rate with no allowances.

So wages would have to rise just to stay where you are. Or a lot of people will suddenly become a lot poorer, especially if various benefits disappear.

In message , Tim writes

Yep, any suggestion of a flat rate of tax is not on without a tax free allowance, I've never heard it suggested before, and 45% is too high.

You don't understand. You don't need an allowance, you get the "citizen's income" instead!

Even a 15k allowance is only worth 3000 to a basic rate taxpayer pensioner, the citizen's income will be about 5-6k (tax free of course).

Someone on 25k pays about 5700 in tax/NI now, with a flat 45% tax and one 5k CI it'd be 6250, so a bit more tax than now.

A family on that income would be much better off than now as they'd get a CI each.

A single person on 20k would be better off. Basically the winners would families except the very highly paid, the losers would be single people on over about 20k, couples on over 40k.

Anyone working in a low paid job will be much better off, that's the main advantage of this system. No silly 95-100% effective tax rates (benefit withdrawal rates).

Those who don't work will probably be worse off.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Probably ought to restrict the CI to those over (say) 16/18?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Surely the "very highly paid" (whether or not they're families or single) would be winners?

Current marginal tax rate (on most of their earnings if they are "very highly paid") of 50% reducing to 45% under your system?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Unless they're on **well over** 20K/40K !!

Nope, could have a smaller CI though eg 4k.

I'm assuming the 50% rate is temporary (as it'd probably cost the treasury rather than benefit it if it stayed permanent - even the Labour shadow chancellor said it should be temporary).

"Andy Pandy" wrote

How much inheritance tax was paid so they could get that 300K? How much tax did the deceased pay on earnings so they could amass the wealth to be passed down the line?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

It can either be paid out of the taxes (if they cover it), or we can consider that they "can't afford it" (in which case we said they don't need to pay).

"Andy Pandy" wrote

But you said previously "If it seems people are taking an unfair advantage, then change the system to stop them doing so..."

So, to stop (some) people just having children in order to receive more CI, you'd need to restrict the child's CI to much less than 4K (eg zero).

None. That's about the threshold (IIRC).

Irrelavent. You may as well ask how much taxes were paid on the money used to pay your wages.

They can afford to pay for the treatment but their taxes don't cover it.