British public wrongly believe rich pay most in tax

[Tefal]

Found this infographic i was looking for. Is higher social mobility in Finland a result of higher tax or better education system?

now that is a change i would support.

increasing the quality of teachers especially. here teaching is basicaly seen as a soft option or what to do once you've ****ed up your career.

make it so they have to have a masters in a real subject not just in "teaching" or "women's studies" and I'd be all for it

 

[anything I don't mind]

I assume this chart was created by an American.....

...who might have a different interpretation of the word 'esteemed' to me.

I don't think UK would be much different than the US in this comparison.

It kind of makes sense, they earn more money for the job because there are barriers to entry for the profession, thus the supply of teachers is restricted and low and at the same time they have a high demand for teachers due to their high requirements for pupil teacher ratio. This results in a higher salary for the teachers and makes teaching more desirable of a job and thus attracts more and more of the best people.

 

[dowie]

Someone who is barely employed and earn 1000 in a year because they worked part time at Tesco's for 2 months and the rest of the year on JSA will likely have a massive tax percentage that drives up the average. Conversely, someone earning 14K a year and has a frugal lifestyle (it is easy to avoid almost all items that require VAT, the few essentials that are left should be made exemptions) will have a relatively low tax take as a percentage.

Moreover, with both people if you include benefits and credits will have a strongly negative income tax.

exactly... you'd get some on the far left of the distribution who could feasibly have >100% tax rates... they're in turn going to seriously skew the bottom 10% bracket

ignoring benefits is rather flawed and doesn't give the full picture - depending how you want to look at it the percentages would either be much lower (lumping benefits together with earned income) or could be negative in a lot of cases (take benefits to be a negative tax and net off the financial contribution paid to the state).

 

[Tunney]

Unfortunately, our education system is going in the opposite direction to Finland at the moment. Michael Gove has made it so that schools can hire teachers with no qualifications at all.

 

[anything I don't mind]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/econo...-capitalist-summit-plots-against-free-markets

See how they use equality to expand the size of government. When the super rich are advocating for wealth redistribution you know something is amok.

The IMF boss also blasted the notion that “ultimately we should care about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.” According to Lagarde, opportunity can never be equal in an unequal society. To deal with what she claims to view as a problem, the increasingly radical figure prescribed classic Marxist “solutions”: more “progressive” income-tax regimes for wealth redistribution, a heavier tax burden on property owners, and more. “Transfers and income taxes have been able to reduce inequality by about a third, on average, among the advanced economies,” she claimed.

 

[dowie]

The Parent's DNA and lifestyle are the 2 biggest factors contributing success and wealth. How do you want to absolve that? Ban people from procreating if their DNA suggests a stronger likely hood of a lower IQ child? Remove all children from households where the parents aren't as devoted and caring? Remove all children at birth and put them in one giant government run child rearing facility to ensure equality?

This is a bit controversial... but, if true, doesn't bode well for the future - if a high IQ correlates with high income and high IQ parents are more likely to have high IQ children then we're not just looking at a rich/poor divide.

The problem for the gene pool as a whole (if the above relationships are true) is when the supposed low income/low IQ population breeds at a younger age and more frequently... Is the benefits system reversing natural selection and encouraging weaker members of the population to thrive?

 

[Destination]

Indeed dowie, natural selection has been removed or modified to a specific variant, thrived upin by the chav, the fatty, and the lazy

When the working class were working the rich, and to a degree the intelligent soared above this level. Its a variation on a theme, the factors which aid survival have changed.

 

[Tefal]

its not against natural selection, remember natural selection favors whatever increases survival AT THAT TIME.

not the future not the past simply at the moment.

 

[Glaucus]

What's our teacher student average? Is it still around 32

 

[D.P.]

This is a bit controversial... but, if true, doesn't bode well for the future - if a high IQ correlates with high income and high IQ parents are more likely to have high IQ children then we're not just looking at a rich/poor divide.

The problem for the gene pool as a whole (if the above relationships are true) is when the supposed low income/low IQ population breeds at a younger age and more frequently... Is the benefits system reversing natural selection and encouraging weaker members of the population to thrive?

The basis it is true and well supported by evidence.
IQ strongly correlates to sociology-economic outcome and is known to be at least 50-60% hereditary (of the remaining outcomes, most of that is explained by parental environmental conditions). There isn't any controversy here or unproven hypotheses, this is well substantiated science that isn't even questioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.8

Heritability in adulthood is likely at the high end of that, e.g.

A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older

A meta-analysis is basically advanced statistical techniques that combine the result of numerous individual published experiments and should provide more accurate results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq#Reliability_and_validity

Intelligence is a better predictor of educational and work success than any other single score[80]:

for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."[80] The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6

references:
[80]Schmidt, Frank L.; Hunter, John E. (1998). "The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings". Psychological Bulletin 124 (2): 262–74. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262

Income is positively correlated but is not as strong as job performance due to various factors: many very high IQ people work in academia and in general areas that aren't well funded. The findings seem to support that having a high IQ is important for jobs that pay well but there is no benefits of having an IQ higher than some threshold. e.g. people with an IQ of 125 are much more likely to get jobs paying 6 figures than people with an IQ of 90, but people with an IQ of 150 are no more likely to do any better than the group at 125.

So income is a function of IQ but it isn't a linear correlate.

Now I will probably be lambasted with hateful comments for posting such facts!



My view is you should never generalize anything from such statistics or treat indivudals based upon any generalizations. These findings shouldn't be used for discrimination, but realizing there are underlying fundamental differences between people that government and society can never rectify through simple robin hood taxes. I am moderately left leaning and do want better equality for the low income population but I want improved of opportunity. Invest more in education, both to children and to parents (e.g. simply reading books to your children instead of sitting them in front of the TV makes a big difference).

As for your point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

Its is not so clear cut. Poorer people have more children but have a lower survival rate.

 

[Tefal]

Its is not so clear cut. Poorer people have more children but have a lower survival rate.

i'd question that the lower breeding age and higher breeding rate, means that more make it to breeding age and succeffuly reproduce and in greater number.

it doesn't matter if they live to 60 and rich live to 80 if they have on average 3 kinds and the rich have 1.5

 

[drakioned]

My arguments are based on a sense of moral good and charity. Not on whether or not a wealthy person gets as much out in public services as they pay in. The whole point of progressive taxation is about redistribution. It is intended that the wealthy pay in more and get less out.

I think you're missing the point of charity somewhat.

charity
noun: charity; plural noun: charities
1.
an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.
2.
the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
3.
kindness and tolerance in judging others.

I've always never found a good justification for why the wealthy get taxed more by virtue of being wealthy. The answer seems to be universally "because the wealthy can afford it".

I don't necessarily disagree that people should participate in making life better for others, and arguably wealthy people can do more of that than non-wealthy people, but I don't really understand why the government is the default route for this. It's not like our government has exactly proven itself as the most competent... also I disagree with the notion that if it wasn't mandatory, nobody would do it.

 

[D.P.]

There is a movement in the US where people don't pay tax, they donate the equivalent to charities of their choice because they don't agree with the way the US spends the tax revenue (military vs education). Illegal sadly.

Most wealthy people don't mind paying large amount in tax if they know they money is well spent, sadly that is never the case. Governments are incredibly inefficient and invest massive amount in military rather than areas that could actually have an impact.

 

[Amp34]

What utter rubbish. It's attitude. Plenty of people with rubbish start in life who are good parents and plenty of rich people who are rubbish parents.

Interesting article in the Guardian today suggesting that wealth is certainly not the main reason for educational ability.

http://gu.com/p/3q7z3

The report came as the Ofsted chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, warned that the gap between white British children from poorer families and those from other ethnic groups must be closed to catch up with the world's leading nations.

"Immigrant communities are doing very well educationally and it should be recognised that they've added value to this country's performance," he said in an interview with the Times.

Poverty was all too often used as an excuse for failure by white working-class families, he added, saying: "It's not about income or poverty. Where families believe in education they do well. If they love their children they should support them in schools."

It's more about the attitude of the parent than the wealth. It likely that someone well off is likely to have been more driven than someone in the poorest 10%. How do you break the chain? Remove kids and put them elsewhere?

 

[elmarko]

Interesting article in the Guardian today suggesting that wealth is certainly not the main reason for educational ability.

http://gu.com/p/3q7z3

It's more about the attitude of the parent than the wealth. It likely that someone well off is likely to have been more driven than someone in the poorest 10%. How do you break the chain? Remove kids and put them elsewhere?

This seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room.

Regardless as to if it's genetics or environment, neither of which are the objective fault of the person in question & both undermine any aspect of equality of opportunity & both lend an argument towards polices which ensure equality of outcome (as the previous is unachievable, better to have no game than a rigged one).

Regarding the hereditary aspect of IQ & intelligence posted earlier.

The evidence isn't that great, as to make a reasonable judgement call you need to compare children who had been adopted (twins being perfect) but even they have shared the same experiences during conception (in which parental stresses, toxicity, addiction, nutrition/malnutrition rates & will have a notable impact on a child's development.

Not to mention the studies simply show that it indicates a link, it doesn't conclusively prove anything - they also stress that environment is a very strong influence also (cases of children adopted by middle class/high IQ parents & ending up with IQ's 10/15% higher than the average - the uplift from the environment).

http://www.education.com/reference/article/effects-heredity-environment-intelligence/

The pretty obvious likely conclusion is that it's a combination of both which determines an individuals chance to succeed.

 

[Tunney]

There is a movement in the US where people don't pay tax, they donate the equivalent to charities of their choice because they don't agree with the way the US spends the tax revenue (military vs education). Illegal sadly.

The problem with charity donations is that they often go to political or particularly emotive causes rather than where the money is actually needed.

Britons give more money to donkey sanctuaries than abuse charities.

 

[Stretch]

now that is a change i would support.

increasing the quality of teachers especially. here teaching is basicaly seen as a soft option or what to do once you've ****ed up your career.

make it so they have to have a masters in a real subject not just in "teaching" or "women's studies" and I'd be all for it

Would you be all for funding the masters and paying the additional salary required to make teachers as "esteemed" as doctors as lawyers?

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

There is a movement in the US where people don't pay tax, they donate the equivalent to charities of their choice because they don't agree with the way the US spends the tax revenue (military vs education). Illegal sadly.

Great idea, gotta pay for that "charity" CEO's salary + bonus somehow.

 

[Amp34]

Children in the UK have great equality of opportunity though. All have to go to school between the ages of three and 18 and will spend the same amount of time there. While there are poor and good schools the fact those in similar economic situations score much better than others would suggest that isn't necessarily as important as parental drive. Poor Asian kids and poor white kids generally live together, go to the same schools so the o.my distinguishing factor is their parents and background. What makes poor white kids achieve so much less than poor immigrant kids or more affluent kids?

The major argument for increasing school hours is to try and remove the main issue, parents, from the equation and increasing equality of outcome. Very little of that however has anything to do with money and income (in)equality.

 

[D.P.]

This seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room.

Regardless as to if it's genetics or environment, neither of which are the objective fault of the person in question & both undermine any aspect of equality of opportunity & both lend an argument towards polices which ensure equality of outcome (as the previous is unachievable, better to have no game than a rigged one).

Regarding the hereditary aspect of IQ & intelligence posted earlier.

The evidence isn't that great, as to make a reasonable judgement call you need to compare children who had been adopted (twins being perfect) but even they have shared the same experiences during conception (in which parental stresses, toxicity, addiction, nutrition/malnutrition rates & will have a notable impact on a child's development.

Not to mention the studies simply show that it indicates a link, it doesn't conclusively prove anything - they also stress that environment is a very strong influence also (cases of children adopted by middle class/high IQ parents & ending up with IQ's 10/15% higher than the average - the uplift from the environment).

http://www.education.com/reference/article/effects-heredity-environment-intelligence/

The pretty obvious likely conclusion is that it's a combination of both which determines an individuals chance to succeed.

I never said that environment didn't have a significant effect (in fact I said quite the opposite, the remaining variances is almost totally explained by the family environment


these results predominantly come about by twin studies, comparing identical and non-identical twins, and the holy grail, twins that were separated at birth (or later in childhood).There are frequently conferences set up where twins are specially invited (and paid reasonable money) so researchers can apply various psychometric tests to understand heritability.

You seems to be weary of the results but that is your personal opinion not supported by the evidence. The science is settled on this, the data is very clear, the results are very repeatable, there is simply no substantive evidence of minor heritability of intelligence. Moreover, intelligence has proven biological underpinnings (IQ and brain mass correlate strongly), and DNA markers that tend towards higher or lower intelligence have been well studied. But then you wouldn't expect anything different. people's eyes or skin colour is mostly determined by their genetics, intelligence is no different.


50-60%, perhaps up to 80-85% of adult intelligence is explained by genetic and the rest is environmental conditions of the family and upbringing. Even if these numbers were reversed, or 100% of intelligence variance was explained by family environment, this doesn't really change the reality of the outcome. Someone's parents are the biggest factor in shaping their intelligence, and many other psychological traits like attitudes:
http://www18.homepage.villanova.edu...hology/zCurrDir4200/CurrDirGeneticsTraits.pdf


So what you do do with children born to parent's who do not value education? Take them out of that family environment into some government run child home? Put all children into a giant social child rearing system that provides an eqaully good/bad environment for all? Require parent hood to be licensed and only suitable couples are allowed to give birth?


There is no easy solution to improve equality, and the only sure fire methods are completely abhorrent.



We should definitely improve the quality of education provided by schools, scarp university tuition fees, have a much better system of apprenticeships and internships and above all try to educate parents on the important of child care. Perhaps we should also take steps to try to ensure that couples planning on having a child are in an economic situation where it is viable without government subsidy.