A slight variance on the NIT then, but explain, since I guess this would also be getting rid of the minimum wage, if the citizens income is for example 10k (still under a living income), and basic menial jobs pay much less, then isn't this leading to just as much disincentive to work as the benefit traps we have now?
Poll: General election voting intentions poll
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
- Status
A slight variance on the NIT then, but explain, since I guess this would also be getting rid of the minimum wage, if the citizens income is for example 10k (still under a living income), and basic menial jobs pay much less, then isn't this leading to just as much disincentive to work as the benefit traps we have now?
No, because you would end up with (wages - tax)+citizens income, as opposed to just citizens income.
So if a part time job payed £5k, and the tax rate was 20% (just because the math is easier), and the income was £10k, taking the job means you would go home with £14k instead of the £10k.
The way my system is structured, taking even one hour of paid work benefits (ignoring opportunity costs)
Nah, none of Dolphs ideas actually factor in people, come on now.
Ok, thanks
True, but his focus on administrative and regulatory reduction is second to none
The easiest way to see the true incentives behind a proposed change to our economic system is to examine who exactly would be better/worse off.
In the system that Dolph proposes which social group end up worse off?, which services will be cut if the taxation received is no longer high enough to sustain existing responsibilities?.
Which group/groups will be the net beneficiaries (I stress net, as giving somebody an extra 2k PA in income, but removing services & safety nets they rely on, isn't a net benefit). Once you examine these factors I'm fairly certain he will confirm the beneficiaries are those earning significantly above the average & those losing out would be most of the population.
While the administration cost would indeed be a saving, this can be achieved without having a flat tax system, or setting the 'lowest guaranteed income' at such a level - these aspects are not connected.
In the system that Dolph proposes which social group end up worse off?, which services will be cut if the taxation received is no longer high enough to sustain existing responsibilities?.
Which group/groups will be the net beneficiaries (I stress net, as giving somebody an extra 2k PA in income, but removing services & safety nets they rely on, isn't a net benefit). Once you examine these factors I'm fairly certain he will confirm the beneficiaries are those earning significantly above the average & those losing out would be most of the population.
While the administration cost would indeed be a saving, this can be achieved without having a flat tax system, or setting the 'lowest guaranteed income' at such a level - these aspects are not connected.
Last edited:
The driving incentive is equality under the law, once the framework is in place, then working out how the taxation, spending and so on interacts becomes much easier. Hence a clear, democratic discussion about services, costs and so on can take place.
You also seem to be arguing that the status quo should be considered as a starting position, regardless of the flaws and unintended consequences of the existing system. I don't agree. While there is an argument to protect people who made choices based on the existing system in the short term, it doesn't follow that we have to perpetuate the outcome of poor decision making ad infinitum.
The government can't even implement universal tax credits properly, how would they cope with a whole new taxation system?
They'd outsource it to someone like Accenture and eat up billions of pounds before being declared a disaster.
Sometimes it's better to stick with the devil you know.
They'd outsource it to someone like Accenture and eat up billions of pounds before being declared a disaster.
Sometimes it's better to stick with the devil you know.
The issues with the current tax and benefit system stem at least in part from the massive complexity and piece meal nature of the current system. The system I advocate is orders of magnitude simpler than the current one.
Economic self-interest masquerading as equality.
Never change Dolph.
But in all seriousness, I'm not advocating maintaining anything, I'm simply pushing for you to clarify which groups will benefit & which will suffer as a result of these changes - ie, the actual impact.
I also notice that your driving stance on equality only applies to taxation, not equality related to income/reward for labour.
Slightly off topic but every single project I've worked on which they've been involved with has been an unmitigated train-wreck.
Economic self-interest masquerading as equality.
Never change Dolph.
But in all seriousness, I'm not advocating maintaining anything, I'm simply pushing for you to clarify which groups will benefit & which will suffer as a result of these changes - ie, the actual impact.
I also notice that your driving stance on equality only applies to taxation, not equality related to income/reward for labour.
Which groups will benefit depend entirely on the tax rates and citizen income level set. There is nothing to stop the system being used to drive a high tax/high state spending model apart from the tax rate has to be one the whole population will tolerate.
With regards to the second point, you appear to be trying to conflate equality under the law (equal treatment from the state) with equality in private contracts (wages and labour between employer and employee). They aren't the same thing at all.
It's pretty clear to everybody here you are advocating a low flat tax rate (coming from the hilarious 'tax is theft' stance you do).
Ergo the population likely to suffer would be the majority & more specifically the poorest, with the population most likely to gain the wealthiest & most able to handle the burden.
I'm not conflating anything, we are talking about legislative changes - a number of which could be considered to flatten the income distribution of private companies (as for one the minimum wage attempts to).
You appear to care about a form of equality regarding a number of existing & specific laws when it would be economically beneficial to you. But, you seem to have no care for equality as an ethical concept overall regarding the impact of imbalances of other issues.
This doesn't impress me.
I agree with Elmarko, the state regulates in plenty of aspects of private employment, why shouldn't wage disparity just be another one?
The often cited is where a CEO can't earn more than say 20x the lowest paid in the company.
And don't come back with market rates dictate etc etc as we all know we don't live within a free market, it's already a rigged one.
There's no way these figures could possibly add up. At £10k given only to every adult you'd need to raise tax revenues of roughly £500bn just to service the citizen's income, yet alone other aspects of state and whatever provision you wish to make for children. Accordingly, you'd need sharply higher tax rates to pay for it. I remember going through all the numbers with you before - although I can't be bothered to track down the post now - and I seem to remember that the implied tax rate required to support a citizen's income sits somewhere in the 50-60% bracket under anything remotely approaching reasonable assumptions.
I like the idea of a citizen's income but I think it would turn out to be deeply impractical in practice and actually offers very little benefit over sensibly tapered, needs-based, welfare systems. The biggest flaw it has is the difference in requirements based on regional variations in cost. If it is to replace benefits it must provide people with enough to live on, but how much you need to live on varies enormously in different parts of the country. Set it for London and you'll end up giving hugely generously to people in Yorkshire or Liverpool; set it for Yorkshire or Liverpool and it won't work in London.
I am advocating a flat tax rate, it doesn't have to be low. The important part is that if the state wants to tax income at, for example, 50%, it should apply that rate equally. That is the consequence of the risk to rights that is inherent in taxation.
There is no requirement for the state to get involved in contract terms to the level that you suggest, there is no rights abuse to be corrected, you do not have a right to have an amount of property relative to another individual, and indeed such a position can only be achieved by violating the rights of the other individual.
I care about rights abuses, and ensuring the state treats everyone equally without discrimination on arbitrary factors. Not about trying to enforce some sort or ideal world beyond that, and certainly not trying to enforce it by breaching those rules.
Why should I minimum income guarantee the ability to live where you choose? Work doesn't create that scenario, only the current broken benefits system does.
As for the costs and rates, that is for the country to determine, given that both rate and benefit will impact everyone, it is a good situation for democracy to determine as rights are intrinsically protected by the system.
Because if it doesn't then it doesn't provide a safety net and thus fails in one of the key roles of a welfare system. It will also fail because moving is costly both in terms of direct costs (new deposits, actual transit costs, etc.) but also in terms of the impact of lost support networks. Breaking up those networks imposes substantial costs on individuals and also, most likely, on the state further down the road in terms of delinquency, lost work hours, higher care costs and higher medical costs.
Work does to a reasonable degree because local wages are sensitive to local costs. Even jobs with national pay bargaining typically allow an additional sum in "London weighting"
That's nice but since you're putting forth the proposal it's rather ridiculous to ignore the costs that reasonable implementations entail: you've previously claimed it could replace the benefits system. If it is to do so that places minimum requirements on it. Your example was a £10k income and a 33% tax rate - the sums just plain don't add up on that kind of arrangement.
So would you support a 50% flat tax rate over our current system (which obviously applied to all forms of income, not just standard income)?.
It would mean that the state would be treating everybody equally yes?, which is your key motivation here.
The additional taxation could be used to give everybody in the UK a base low income (instead of welfare) - which would also tick off the 'equal treatment' aspect if I'm not mistaken?.
If it's a 'rights abuse' or not would be dependant on the law, which is another factor which can change.
Besides, I don't even accept the assumption that people have fixed 'economic rights' when the economy is a concept open to change & challenge.
Ability to pay isn't an arbitrary factor.
Taxing those who benefit from society, more than those who benefit less - isn't fundamentally 'unfair', it's simply a matter of perspective. In a graduating taxation system taxation increases along with income due to the fact that once incomes breaches certain thresh-holds the remainder is no longer associated with 'a cost of reasonable living'.
Last edited:
Biggest problem I can see here is if you're giving people £10k tax free and then taxing them 50% on what they earn at work, a lot of people at the bottom of the pile will simply choose not to work. This already happens where people earn close to the tax-free threshold; you ask them if they want overtime and they decline because it isn't 'worth it'. In order to motivate people to work, you have to ensure that work pays enough to be worth the effort/time commitment.
If Mr Brown earns a reasonable wage, is Mrs Brown really going to bother working 20 hours a week for a ~£60/week net gain? In a lot of cases, I expect the answer is no.
If Mr Brown earns a reasonable wage, is Mrs Brown really going to bother working 20 hours a week for a ~£60/week net gain? In a lot of cases, I expect the answer is no.
Last edited:
Which is where a few may swoop in suggesting a flat 20% rate with a £4k tax free 'payment' for all. (which I was I was getting at)
Resulting in reduced services, greater poverty & the only net beneficiaries are those who were previously on higher than 20%.
- Status