Budget 2010

[PMKeates]

I would agree with you other than the fact that this is GD, hardly anyone ever bothers to get a better knowledge of the issues and just knee jerks away. 8)

True, it is GD. I suspect when SC gets it's thread, we'll have a more intelligent discussion!

My big worry is that people will form a factually invalid opinion of the budget and it's consequences, believe it, and then exercise their democratic responsibility accordingly.

 

[RDM]

All right, how about a system where low paid people aren't punished for being low paid?

And you advocate that by having a system were the high paid are punished for being high paid? Hence why I said fair is really quite subjective when it comes to taxation.

 

[Luseac]

All right, how about a system where low paid people aren't punished for being low paid?

Which they wouldn't be with a high tax free allowance...

 

[RDM]

True, it is GD. I suspect when SC gets it's thread, we'll have a more intelligent discussion!

Considering the quality in SC of late sadly I doubt it.

My big worry is that people will form a factually invalid opinion of the budget and it's consequences, believe it, and then exercise their democratic responsibility accordingly.

Congratulations, the flaw of democracy. Possibly the worst method of government other than all the others we have tried before. To paraphrase Sir Winston.

 

[avec]

Not everyone who is where they are deserves to be where they are. This is true for 100k+ earners and the poorer sides of society. I don't think there's a whole lot of jealousy in this thread, just opinion.

I'd rather we had a fairer tax system where you are rewarded for working hard, not for luck, what family you were born into or for doing nothing.

We need a large dose of reform, but I wont hold my breath.

 

[Andy_82]

The bit he highlighted was:



And while no doubt there are some people that are both rich and successful that did in deed get there by blind luck I really doubt it is the case for the majority.

Sorry I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words and that is not how I meant it to come across, what I mean is that for every 1 person who 'makes it' there are many times more who are just as hard working and intelligent who do not, and just because your one of the ones that do does not make you 'superior' (I'm not talking about anyone in particular) and their opinions means more. I hope that makes more sense.

 

[rypt]

The world doesn't actually change rapidly at all.
What should our political system be?
I'll await your response to the rest of my question also, as you are just spouting nonsense and not actually backing it up with anything. Everyone can say "we need change" but until you outline what that change is and how it's achieved then it means nothing.

System of Government
Two houses of parliament, both elected.
Lower House (call them LHMPs) - Some form of population based representation per county, no more than 3 though.
Upper House (UHMPs) - 1 per county
Parliamentary Elections every 4 years

Every 4 alternate years (so 2 years into the parliamentary election) an election for the "prime minister". PM must be a current UHMP. (if the person gets voted out after 2 years then another election is held and the winner gets to serve until the end of the previous term - so just 2 years)
Winner forms a government, all senior ministers (ie heads of department) have to be from the Upper House.
All other junior ministerial staff have to be from the Lower House.

Elections
Upper House elections are done so that the winner of the popular vote in the county gets the seat.
Lower House elections are done so that the top x people are given the seat.

Prime Minister is elected entirely on the popular vote, has to have at least 50% of the vote OR lead his closet rival by at least 10%.

Eligible candidates
All have to be UK nationals, domiciled in UK
For the lower house the candidate must have lived (main residence) in the county for at least the previous 3 years - and must remain so throughout their term.
For upper house the candidate must live (main residence) in the country post election.

Minimum of a Bachelors degree for both houses.

Laws
Law has to be passed by approval of both houses
In order to pass the law to get at least 60% of the active vote (active = people who have bothered to vote that day) in both houses.







How is that for a start?
I'll write more when/if I have time, need to finish my dissertation right now.

 

[PMKeates]

Congratulations, the flaw of democracy. Possibly the worst method of government other than all the others we have tried before. To paraphrase Sir Winston.

I had that in mind when posting, but I thought it'd be almost too cliché to reference it

 

[scorza]

Which they wouldn't be with a high tax free allowance...

And what would be the required flat income tax rate to keep government revenue neutral? Or are you going to punish the low paid by cutting public services instead?

 

[Luseac]

And what would be the required flat income tax rate to keep government revenue neutral? Or are you going to punish the low paid by cutting public services instead?

Presuming about 25%. But again, tis only a presumption. The point I was making is that to state that a flat rate of tax would punish the poor is just nonsense, many of the poorest would be taken out of the income tax regime entirely.

Edit: But I will concede we could only afford such a measure after about a decade of re-organisation and top down reform of every public service

 

[RDM]

Not everyone who is where they are deserves to be where they are. This is true for 100k+ earners and the poorer sides of society. I don't think there's a whole lot of jealousy in this thread, just opinion.

I'd rather we had a fairer tax system where you are rewarded for working hard, not for luck, what family you were born into or for doing nothing.

We need a large dose of reform, but I wont hold my breath.

You aren't really giving much detail in what you mean by fair and what you want in the way of reform. By the sounds of it you seem to be against inherited wealth, if so could you explain to me why you would think it fair to penalise me for trying to make the best possible chances for my daughter?

Sorry I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words and that is not how I meant it to come across, what I mean is that for every 1 person who 'makes it' there are many times more who are just as hard working and intelligent who do not, and just because your one of the ones that do does not make you 'superior' (I'm not talking about anyone in particular) and their opinions means more. I hope that makes more sense.

S'ok not a problem. While I agree with your sentiment, I would probably disagree on your numbers, but that is by the bye. Our education system is still fairly passable so any child with the right support should be able to make a reasonable success of themselves if they are intelligent and hardworking. If they don't is it fair to then blame others for the success they make for themselves?

 

[RDM]

I had that in mind when posting, but I thought it'd be almost too cliché to reference it

It's GD goddam it! I am going to be as cliched as I want!

 

[Andy_82]

You aren't really giving much detail in what you mean by fair and what you want in the way of reform. By the sounds of it you seem to be against inherited wealth, if so could you explain to me why you would think it fair to penalise me for trying to make the best possible chances for my daughter?



S'ok not a problem. While I agree with your sentiment, I would probably disagree on your numbers, but that is by the bye. Our education system is still fairly passable so any child with the right support should be able to make a reasonable success of themselves if they are intelligent and hardworking. If they don't is it fair to then blame others for the success they make for themselves?

No of course it isn't. I guess what i'm getting is it is much more complicated than things portrayed in this thread.

 

[scorza]

Presuming about 25%. But again, tis only a presumption. The point I was making is that to state that a flat rate of tax would punish the poor is just nonsense, many of the poorest would be taken out of the income tax regime entirely.

Edit: But I will concede we could only afford such a measure after about a decade of re-organisation and top down reform of every public service

Would be interesting if someone actually did the sums, for a 25% rate it might be worth it, personally however I think the required rate would be over 30% for a tax-free allowance of £12k. Ok I concede that the lowest paid workers might be better off on a flat tax, people earning £12k in this example - but what about people earning £15k? £19k? £22k? Why should these people take an unfair tax burden, or "be punished" as it gets termed in this thread (/facepalm)?

The problem is always going to be that if you lower tax for the high earners then you have to put it up for someone who doesn't earn as much. If you're going to "punish" anyone then it should be those who are disproportionately rewarded for their contribution to a company.

 

[clv101]

Sorry I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words and that is not how I meant it to come across, what I mean is that for every 1 person who 'makes it' there are many times more who are just as hard working and intelligent who do not, and just because your one of the ones that do does not make you 'superior' (I'm not talking about anyone in particular) and their opinions means more. I hope that makes more sense.

S'ok not a problem. While I agree with your sentiment, I would probably disagree on your numbers, but that is by the bye. Our education system is still fairly passable so any child with the right support should be able to make a reasonable success of themselves if they are intelligent and hardworking. If they don't is it fair to then blame others for the success they make for themselves?

I'm with Andy - there is FAR more luck involved in these things than many people would like to believe. Read Galdwell's Outliers: The Story of Success or Leonard Mlodinow's The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives to see what the statistics say.

Being 'intelligent and hardworking' is not even half of it.

 

[RDM]

Would be interesting if someone actually did the sums, for a 25% rate it might be worth it, personally however I think the required rate would be over 30% for a tax-free allowance of £12k. Ok I concede that the lowest paid workers might be better off on a flat tax, people earning £12k in this example - but what about people earning £15k? £19k? £22k? Why should these people take an unfair tax burden, or "be punished" as it gets termed in this thread (/facepalm)?

The problem is always going to be that if you lower tax for the high earners then you have to put it up for someone who doesn't earn as much. If you're going to "punish" anyone then it should be those who are disproportionately rewarded for their contribution to a company.

Why the sudden aversion to the word punish?

The problem is how do you define who is being "disporportionately" rewarded for their contribution to a company? There are just so many variables that go in to how much someone gets paid. You get paid for your skills, your get paid for the responsibility you have, you get paid due to any difference in standard terms etc. It seems that you have decided that "disproportionate" is not related to the work they do but how much they actually get paid as you are going to decide tax due to just salary.

Fair seems to mean "What is best for me or my ideology" in most cases it seems.

 

[Luseac]

Ok I concede that the lowest paid workers might be better off on a flat tax, people earning £12k in this example - but what about people earning £15k? £19k? £22k? Why should these people take an unfair tax burden, or "be punished" as it gets termed in this thread (/facepalm)?

But the obvious counter to that would be that as their personal allowance will have doubled, they might not be as worse off as they would were I suggesting a blanket 5% rise in income tax from the present 20%.

But I agree that it is hard to speculate without in depth analysis of the sums...

 

[pzr vr6]

Another quango! This one to look at credit applications that are denied. And then somehow "force" banks to give out credit I guess?

am i missing something here??
isnt the reason most of the banks got shafted because they leant money out to too many people? and have i remembered completely wrongly that the government told said banks to be more carefull how much they lend??

 

[Andy_82]

I'm with Andy - there is FAR more luck involved in these things than many people would like to believe. Read Galdwell's Outliers: The Story of Success or Leonard Mlodinow's The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives to see what the statistics say.

Being 'intelligent and hardworking' is not even half of it.

I though i was the only one who thought like this. All I can really relate to is my situation which i'm don't really want to go into, but I cannot posibly be the only person in a particular situation in this country. From my experience of life, 'luck' plays a huge part, in some respects if you don't have any 'luck' then ou can't get anywhere however hard working and inteligent you are although i admint that is probably an extreme scenario. Its funny sometimes, some people seem to go through life without any difficulties what so ever and others are the exact opposite.

Please don't take this as blamimg someone, believe me i'm not blaming anyone what so ever. But, this is going way off track of this thread.

Tax is one of those things that what ever the government does there will always be one group who looses. Generally its the 'middle' earners. I think it all depends on what you class as 'fair' which will be different for everyone as people generally think of themselves first before others (this isn't a critisism just human nature). So what do you do?

 

[clv101]

Generally its the 'middle' earners.

Yeah, because that's where all the money is. The 'rich' don't actually have that much of the wealth in this county. Sure the top per cent or so are a couple orders of magnitude richer - but most of the wealth is with the middle 50%.

The problem with higher tax rates for the very wealthy is that is doesn't actually raise much money in the grand scheme of things, 'cos they simply don't represent a very large proportion of the nation's wealth.