How are we affording all this welfare?

ok I've not thought this through, but how about this for an idea. Move income tax to the employeer.

You have various bands depending on how much your employee earns. The low earners in a band are taxed say 10%. Now that 10% comes from the employeer, but is taken from payroll, split equally between the employees. So if you employ 50 people in that band, it's 10% of those 50 split equally. However, if you only employ 10 people, it's the same amount split between 10 people. So in effect those 10 people are worse off than if they worked for an employeer with 50 staff. It would make employeers want to hire more people, as nobody would want to work somewhere when they might be worse off than somewhere else.

It basically taxes the employeer hard, but they have the option of offset it by hiring more people.

or something like that
 
TheOracle said:
ok I've not thought this through, but how about this for an idea. Move income tax to the employeer.

You have various bands depending on how much your employee earns. The low earners in a band are taxed say 10%. Now that 10% comes from the employeer, but is taken from payroll, split equally between the employees. So if you employ 50 people in that band, it's 10% of those 50 split equally. However, if you only employ 10 people, it's the same amount split between 10 people. So in effect those 10 people are worse off than if they worked for an employeer with 50 staff. It would make employeers want to hire more people, as nobody would want to work somewhere when they might be worse off than somewhere else.

It basically taxes the employeer hard, but they have the option of offset it by hiring more people.

or something like that
Click to expand...

Okay...

First off, any tax will get passed on to the employee. It's not as if most employers have stacks of cash sitting around that they're going to allocate to paying that tax.

I'm sure I'm missing something re the bit about how much tax is applied - 10% of what? If it's 10% of the salaries of the employees, it doesn't matter how many employees you have. Besides, punishing a company for having few employees is a terrible idea in principle anyway, unless you want only huge corporations to succeed going forward.

Edit: I agree with the first 6 words of your post though :p
 
jsmoke said:
Welfare everywhere, basically encouraging people to take it now, here's a new one I noticed from Scotland for example, maybe that's just a drop in the ocean but over last 20 years plenty of new welfare. Are we going to go bankrupt one day or is it just a case of how it's all managed and just a small percentage of people on it?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifest...amilies-receive-invitation-apply-22428263.amp
Click to expand...

Scotland has all the oil, all the whisky, shortbread, irn bru and porridge.

They can afford it.
 
Trusty said:
Then you won't be very rich for very long..

The top 1% of income tax payers are not a stable group – a quarter of those in the top 1% in one year will not be there the next. After five years, only half will still be in the top 1%.
Click to expand...

That's because of two main things. First one being that at that level, small things result in large, short term effects. Secondly, the tax payments are no way to measure "rich". Being tax efficient over a long period (which most rich people are) means tax payments will bear little relation to each year's actual income.
 
R.P.L said:
It's not just a case of the total money supply. An increase in spending causes price inflation in whatever's being bought, so throwing a wad of cash (I assume roughly the amount that people need for whatever's deemed essential) at everyone each month will just cause those items to become more expensive. Once prices have caught up you're back to square one, so you can either keep increasing UBI each time inflation happens (clearly not sustainable) or accept that you achieved at best a temporary increase in spending for poor people and a long term reduction in spending power for everyone else, and then look for a real solution.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you could replace benefits and the tax allowance with an equivalent UBI without doing any of this.

And like I said, UBI should be part of a fundamental rework of the whole tax system aimed at generally lower hour jobs and collecting and spending taxes differently. Of course without that, you'd be right.
 
inogen said:
That's because of two main things. First one being that at that level, small things result in large, short term effects. Secondly, the tax payments are no way to measure "rich". Being tax efficient over a long period (which most rich people are) means tax payments will bear little relation to each year's actual income.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point really, whats wrong with being tax efficient? are you not? Do you want to comment on the fact that the top 1% contribute 33% to the tax burden? to be in the top 1% in this country, you have to earning over 150k pa (i think)

Paying their fair share? or scroungers that are sucking the blood out of the people?
 
inogen said:
Like I said, you could replace benefits and the tax allowance with an equivalent UBI without doing any of this.

And like I said, UBI should be part of a fundamental rework of the whole tax system aimed at generally lower hour jobs and collecting and spending taxes differently. Of course without that, you'd be right.
Click to expand...

UBI would cause inflation, the result is those who are poor would be poorer, those invested into assets that do well against inflation would become richer.

Giving everyone £????? per year is the same as giving everyone £0.

I have a suspicion that a lot of people supporting or suggesting UBI think it would benefit the poorest.

Personally i think UBI will happen because you can easily sell it to those with low and high incomes.
 
platinum87 said:
UBI would cause inflation, the result is those who are poor would be poorer, those invested into assets that do well against inflation would become richer.

Giving everyone £????? per year is the same as giving everyone £0.

I have a suspicion that a lot of people supporting or suggesting UBI think it would benefit the poorest.

Personally i think UBI will happen because you can easily sell it to those with low and high incomes.
Click to expand...

It will only cause inflation if the source of the funds is new money generation. If the source is taxation, then it won't change the supply of money, and won't have an effect on inflation.

A few studies suggested that a proper implementation of UBI means the break-even point would be at around £40k, people below will have slightly more money and people earning above it will pay more in new taxes than they get from UBI.
 
You guys do realise we've had 10 years of austerity right? Major cut backs in government spending which has not resulted in reducing the debt at all, we've had the opposite, also major increases in poverty and lower living standards in the mean time. There is no future in which the we are going to be able to reduce our living standards much further and survive all the coming disasters. Things like ongoing Covid, maybe there's other virus outbreaks but who cares about them we wont spend any money preparing for them because we can't afford it but then we end up spending more money in the end. Like we are one of the worst economic performing country's because of our inept government. When exactly is this wave of disastrous inflation going to hit, we've had massive debt for years and they barely correlate.
 
All this effort and outrage gets poured into "how are we going to pay for it" with nothing about "why do we need it in the first place".

It's easier to look down on someone than it is to empathise, that's what's really broken.
 
How are we affording all this welfare?

We pay a basic rate of 43% tax on income via income tax, employees NI contributions and employers NI contributions.

We then pay 20% vat and 19% corporation tax on almost everything we buy. Then we also pay huge duties and excise taxes on things like fuel and alcohol.
 
Calabi said:
You guys do realise we've had 10 years of austerity right? Major cut backs in government spending which has not resulted in reducing the debt at all, we've had the opposite, also major increases in poverty and lower living standards in the mean time.
Click to expand...

That’s because it wasn’t meant to reduce debt, it was meant to reduce the deficit which isn’t the same thing.
 
Dirk Diggler said:
So they increased the savings. And now they're spending them, and the debt is getting larger.

Genius Government.
Click to expand...

I don’t really have a problem with it, the other option was to not support people’s jobs and let them all go on job seekers and let companies go to the wall.
 
Bear said:
I don’t really have a problem with it, the other option was to not support people’s jobs and let them all go on job seekers and let companies go to the wall.
Click to expand...

Yea proper Doomsday stuff. :rolleyes:

It should be the next Cummings slogan, "Cheer up, it could be worse". A little jingle to the sound of the till closing on their fingers.
 
Dirk Diggler said:
Yea proper Doomsday stuff. :rolleyes:

It should be the next Cummings slogan, "Cheer up, it could be worse". A little jingle to the sound of the till closing on their fingers.
Click to expand...

I don’t really understand what you are whining about.
 
As if the current generation already didn't feel the burden of the previous financial collapses from the banks, now they and the future generations are going to have to suffer more.

Its really sad honestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom