Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 29 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 860

Thread: GE2017 take 2

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    I would look at how much more the top 5% are earning as a factor in the raised tax take...
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39829723

    HMRC figures show that the top 5% of earners pay almost half (47.1%) of all income tax.

    The figure for the top 1% is 27%, with the top 10% paying 59% of all income tax.

    The poorest half of the country pays only 10% of all tax.
    I'm not saying the 'rich' couldn't stand paying a bit more tax but when I saw these figures the other day I was surprised just how much of the total for Income Tax the 'rich' do pay...

    ...plus they'll pay considerably more in VAT, Inheritance Tax and Stamp Duty too.
    WA$.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,086
    Depends how you measure it - and who's doing the measuring.

    What is interesting is that when all taxes, duties and levies are included the Guardian (yes, I know) suggest the bottom 10% pay 41% of their income back to the state, and the top 10% under 5%. So what this shows is just how much more cash the top have than the bottom, and that Tax is nevertheless currently regressive.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    Meanwhile money spent on a nurses wages gets spent by that nurse - and taxed. It does not disappear. This is why you cannot equate running a nation with running a business. The people who work for UK plc give their money (apart from what they spend on holiday) back to the business!
    No, no, no, no ,no.....the people who work for the UK PLC do NOT 'give their money back to the business'!

    Yes, a proportion of a public sector worker's wages will be recovered in tax but it can never be 100% (or even 50%?) can it? Every public sector worker is an additional cost to the government and it is a cost that CANNOT be paid with the tax paid by other public sector workers!

    If this 'perpetual motion' model of taxation actually worked you could solve any economic crisis just by the government employing everybody to sit on their arses!
    WA$.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,086
    No no no. I am talking about money in the system. Follow that money around.
    Not just nurses, anyone's. It is no more 'lost' when it is paid to a nurse than when it is paid to someone who works in Aldi or Price Waterhouse. Unless the latter moves it offshore.

    It might be a cost to the treasury (not the government) but that is not the same as the country. It is a tory-perpetuated myth that the two are the same. Look at the money in the UK, the shop the nurse buys her food in, the car dealership she has her car on hp from. All her wage goes elsewhere in the country.


    I agree just nurses would be 'perpetual motion'. In fact, so would just service industries, when you think about it. Production is what adds value to the system. That's why Marx was so hot on it.
    Everything else is the Bagpuss choccy biccie factory.
    Last edited by Beermat; 13th May 2017 at 22:48.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    What is interesting is that when all taxes, duties and levies are included the Guardian (yes, I know) suggest the bottom 10% pay 41% of their income back to the state, and the top 10% under 5%.
    And who are this 'bottom' 10%? When you've taken out the unemployed, those solely on state pensions or disability allowance, I wonder how much of the bottom 10% would be left?

    The percentages skew the figures; the bottom 10% aren't taxed heavily, they just don't have much to live on anyway.
    WA$.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    It is no more 'lost' when it is paid to a nurse than when it is paid to someone who works in Aldi or Price Waterhouse...
    Yes, it is.....because the government doesn't pay the wages at Aldi with your taxes!

    Let's say the government gets 30% in total taxes from somebody on £30,000 a year:

    A manager at Aldi on £30,000 pays the government £9000 in tax.

    An NHS nurse on £30,000 costs the government £30,000 in wages less £9000 paid in tax.
    WA$.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    It might be a cost to the treasury (not the government) but that is not the same as the country. It is a tory-perpetuated myth that the two are the same.
    You've lost me now; why is there a distinction between costs to the Treasury and the Government? These are the same thing surely; unless you mean the 'government' as simply the party in power?

    Agreed, money going in and out of the Treasury is not the same as money going in and out of the country; but there is a connection with regards to taxation, GDP and national debt.

    Look at the money in the UK, the shop the nurse buys her food in, the car dealership she has her car on hp from. All her wage goes elsewhere in the country.
    And abroad, if she buys a German car for example...

    ...but what is important is where her wages come from; 100% of her wages are paid by the state (Treasury) and they are paid for by taxation (and quite a lot of borrowing).
    WA$.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    I agree just nurses would be 'perpetual motion'. In fact, so would just service industries, when you think about it.
    No, there is no difference between a service-industry or traditional manufacturing really; you are seeing service-industry in a negative way because they were championed by the Thatcher government (probably)!

    It makes no difference if you buy a jet-wash to clean your car (supporting manufacturing) or you pay somebody to come and clean it with a bucket and sponge (supporting service-industry); what matters is where the money comes from and where it goes.

    Nothing wrong with supporting manufacturing unless it is a 'knee-jerk' support in the mistaken belief that any manufacturing job is better than any service-industry job; the manufacture of the jet-wash (or bucket and sponge) probably took place in China or Germany but the bloke that sold it to you in B&Q, the bloke that stacked it in the warehouse and the bloke that drove it in the truck from the docks are all working service-industry jobs.
    WA$.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,086
    It is hard to see sometimes.

    It needs a person to take one step back, one to the left, and then look at it again.

    A nurse is paid with our taxes, and an Aldi worker isn't, but the money goes the same way wherever it comes from. Why is it 'lost' when given to the former, but not the latter, just because of where it comes from?

    Ok.. the sponge the nurse uses, the cardigraph, the disposable gloves. All industry supported by an apparently non-productive activity. Why is that different because of where the money comes from?

    You are right, one needs to look at where the money goes and be empirical. Think of it like energy conservation in a Newtonian sense. The result of doing this makes the idea that the treasury is the country and we will be better off if it spends less on nurses something of a simplification at best and a fallacy at worst.

    Or look at it another way. One can put money into a private healthcare plan or use the money you are already putting into your public healthcare plan - the NHS. Both in fact subcontract to the same industries, employ the same consultants and agencies, buy their disposable gloves from the same supplier and in fact use the same buildings. The money that comes from your tax to pay for the NHS is no more 'lost' than money you might give to BUPA to jump the queue. Except with BUPA you are also paying shareholders - and so a post-Thatcher conservative would call it a better system.

    And there is a very real difference between service and adding value. How has each century in the west for the last 500 years been more comfortable and materially rich than the previous? Clue - it wasn't the hairdressers. Yes we can afford more haircuts, so there are more haidressers. But it works that way around. The wealth of nations does not spring from more entrepreknobs saying they want to open more hairdressers. Another peice of backwards logic we have apparently swallowed whole.
    Last edited by Beermat; 14th May 2017 at 08:55.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    A nurse is paid with our taxes, and an Aldi worker isn't, but the money goes the same way wherever it comes from. Why is it 'lost' when given to the former, but not the latter, just because of where it comes from?
    Perhaps 'lost' isn't the right term to use; 'loss' (as opposed to profit) is probably a better term but this is also problematic as the notion of 'profit' on any government spending is meaningless. Government is not a business but it cannot just ignore basic rules of 'economics', or rather 'cash-flow'. Again the terminology is problematic!

    What is important about where the money comes from for the nurse is that it has to be raised, through taxation and borrowing; the real problem for government is not what you spend it is how you pay for it!

    'Spent' is a better term than 'lost' for the nurses wages (and the gloves, sponge, cardiograph, etc)!

    And I'm not opposed to more nurses or doctors, and the NHS is the best healthcare system in the world, but all of this has to be paid for, and it has to be affordable!
    WA$.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,879
    A couple of points - and sorry CD, I cant be bothered to quote!

    Firstly, many shares are not specifically owned by pensioners, but by everybody who has a pension plan; no matter how old they are. Its part of the mechanism of deriving added value to our investments. Of course, anyone who has only a state pension on which to fall back has a different arrangement.

    BM - the idea that in buying a service that we are also paying shareholders is slightly askew. As a shareholder, to make money on your holdings, you are betting on that business performing well, and the value of your investment going up. That is the primary driver in investment, and it costs anyone buying a service nothing at all. However, many companies (not all by any means) also pay a Dividend per share issued, which is on a per share basis. That will lead to a slight cost on the consumer, but based on turnover, and profit, it is pretty small.

    As we discussed previously, I am in favour of a social revolution, but it needs to take into account the way the world actually works from the start, before you begin to change it. Thus, the current Labour 'Good Idea' is to go back to the idea of a financial transactions tax. In theory, this all sounds very nice, and will raise a significant amount of money. But all that will happen is that the companies affected will move their operations to a jurisdiction that doesn't tax them, or their customers, and we lose not only that proportion of the tax, but also the benefit from having the companies here in the first place.

    Taxation is a very tricky balancing act. There will be little to be gained from looking for the so called unpaid billions that Labour claim they will find (clue, its been done; it wasn't there). If you overtax the rich, they will always find a way to push it down the line - whether in reduced wages, in reduced employee benefits or whatever.

    I accept that some of what I have referred to in the past in this thread will have a right wing bias - but many on the left are too accepting of ideas that give hope to the masses, without thinking them through properly. Rightly or wrongly, it always comes down to money.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    No, I understood the pensioners / pension plan thing; I just wanted to dispel the myth that all shareholders were 'super-rich' ne'er-do-wells who were profiting from the poor!

    I take your point - with the reminder of my bit about shares making free money for the holder or they wouldn't happen. They certainly wouldn't form pension plans! It's a reward, but only for having the capital to invest, not effort. Some of us have to work for money. We would be better rewarded for the work if shareholders didn't expect their 'reward' for.. um.. already having money.
    But those putting money into their work pension-plan have worked for their money; you really must get away from this notion that anything with any remotely 'capitalist' whiff is somehow evil!

    And how do you suggest companies that need to raise money do so if shares were made illegal; they'd go to the bank and get a loan and pay interest? And where does the bank get the money from? And who does the bank pay interest to for 'lending' the money to the bank?

    Shareholders provide a service, they take a risk with the money they have earned (mostly), they lower the costs for industry (by providing affordable capital) so they deserve a modest reward!
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 14th May 2017 at 10:48.
    WA$.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,879
    Yes, this is a potentially quite serious issue when trying to in effect devalue industry - the less well off are affected exponentially more than the wealthy.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    Thus, the current Labour 'Good Idea' is to go back to the idea of a financial transactions tax. In theory, this all sounds very nice, and will raise a significant amount of money. But all that will happen is that the companies affected will move their operations to a jurisdiction that doesn't tax them, or their customers, and we lose not only that proportion of the tax, but also the benefit from having the companies here in the first place.
    Exactly. Business (as well as wealthy individuals) have a choice as to where they base themselves and what tax-regime they pay their taxes into; both are a useful commodity that governments go out of their way to attract.

    And there is already a 'financial transaction tax' that raises billions on every transaction in the United Kingdom.

    I am sorry but Labour do not seem to appreciate this; sure, they can control the level of corporation-tax in the United Kingdom but what they manifestly fail to appreciate is that they cannot control the level of corporation-tax in Luxembourg or the Republic of Ireland! This is why when I buy something on eBay or Amazon (I never use Amazon!) my corporation-tax gets paid to the Luxembourg government!

    This is wrong (and could be easily 'fixed' by making tax payable to the country that the product is dispatched to)!

    The same is true for the Labour thinking on minimum-wage; they can control the minimum-wage in the United Kingdom but not the minimum-wage (?) in China (or more rightly the huge level of capital ('capitalist!') investment in Chinese manufacturing).

    Worryingly too, the Conservatives now seem to have jumped on the Labour bandwagon by suggesting that they can somehow 'cap' energy bills; how is this even possible? Would we be so taken-in if they suggested that they were going to 'cap' the prices of iPhones or a new Mercedes-Benz? 'Energy' has to be made; coal, gas, woodchip, oil and uranium have to be imported (for the most part) and so are subject to the global marketplace. An energy 'cap' should really be termed an energy 'subsidisation' either by the taxpayer (or more likely other consumers)!

    And how would an energy cap work in practice? A larger energy user, with a six-bedroom house with a swimming-pool to heat, is likely to be the consumer that benefits the most; a nurse living in a bed-sit, the least. Or is the nurse going to end-up subsidising the guy with the swimming-pool? I cannot believe that a Labour opposition (and now a Conservative government) thought-through how this 'sound-bite' policy would actually work in practice?

    Government couldn't possibly 'cap' everybody's energy bills; who will actually subsidise this majority, surely not government taxation?
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 14th May 2017 at 13:24.
    WA$.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    And there is a very real difference between service and adding value...
    Not really; both can be thought of as 'adding value'.

    What you are confusing is the difference between moving money around within the United Kingdom and importing / exporting; if you buy a pair of scissors made in the United Kingdom you are no more 'adding value' than if you go to the barbers! If the scissors are made in China (which they probably are) you are simply adding value to a Chinese company, or rather, the Chinese company is adding value and you are paying them to do it.

    But 'exporting' is absolutely essential to the continued wealth and prosperity of the United Kingdom! All governments used to talk about the 'balance-of-payments'; they don't now, the news is too bad!

    A barber in the United Kingdom can 'export' his services too, so long as he cuts the hair of a visiting German tourist.

    Most of our financial services industry in the City of London are net exporters; they are here because of the (relatively) low levels of taxation and regulation. The biggest bank in the City is German!
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 14th May 2017 at 13:14.
    WA$.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,086
    I was meaning adding value to some base metal by turning it into steel scissors. Much in the way trade and overseas co-operation appeared to begin with shaping axes from stone - adding value so that the axe could be traded a canoe journey away for some nice skins and life gets better. The person who discovered you could get a few beads by using the axe to trim their neighbour's hair is not driving this process particularly. You can't then go on to sell your haircut for the benefit of all.

    I am not saying capitalism is bad. Just that we need to be a bit clearer-eyed about what is happening to the money as well as the people affected.

    We still seem in the thrall of alchemists. Once there were a revered caste of folk who had us all believe that if they put base metals through enough processes 'that only they understood' that metal would eventually turn to gold.

    Now we think that if we move money around fast enough and with sufficient blurriness around the edges it will magically grow. It doesn't. It is an illusion created by the harnessing of production and value add. A few people become a lot richer and a lot of people become a tiny bit poorer. That is all.
    Last edited by Beermat; 14th May 2017 at 14:32.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,086
    Apart from better hair.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    Yes, I understood what 'added value' is in terms of manufacturing but the concept applies equally well to the service sector; once this country was world-leader in heavy industry, today we are world-leader in financial services. Both have merit.

    Yes, I'd love to turn the clock back and see heavy industry return to this country but you will not achieve that by vilifying the service sector, or instigating punitive taxation on the 'evil' financial institutions!
    WA$.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,086
    What does a 'financial service' add? I guess if we are servicing foreign wealth we might get something in. Moving our own assets around achieves little. It is possible to be a world leader without going anywhere - Ecuador is a world leader in shoe polishing services.

    It doesn't have to be heavy industry. Think ARM. Very close to the flint knapper - take some silicon and add value.

    Not vilifying anyone. We all do what we can. Just thinking about what moves us all forward, and what is just squabbling over a finite resource.
    Last edited by Beermat; 14th May 2017 at 18:21.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    What does a 'financial service' add?
    You have to ask? Does you political thinking have to stop one hundred and thirty years ago when Karl Marx died?

    Take my advice: vote for Jeremy Corbyn, he is obviously the man for you!
    WA$.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,879
    ARM does just a bit more than tinker with silicon. Those of us of a certain age, or bent know that the 'A' is for Acorn, and they have their origin with the one time manufacturer of the BBC Micro. They were the first to develop reduced instruction set processors, which eventually came to run most mobile phones. They are a hugely significant company for the U.K. In these times, they are as close to heavy industry as we will get.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,086
    No, I know what they do (edit - financial srrvices, Bruce, not ARM). I use them, I have a bank account. They are an intrinsic part of everything we do. I am asking what they add. What they bring to the party. Seriously. It might be 'obvious' but it is interesting to actually think through the answer to the question. My thinking does not 'stop with Marx' (and his stuff was more socio-economic than political) - quite the opposite. I am asking questions with intellectual curiosity. Shouting down the question suggests your thinking stopped with Thatcher. I am sure it didn't really.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    You said it yourself: they are an intrinsic part of everything we do and as such we have two options: either we compete successfully in the international market and generate revenue and jobs for this country or we don't...

    ...and just moan about how we no longer have a financial services industry just like we have no shipbuilding industry, no motorcycle industry, no truck building industry, no computer industry, etc, etc, etc.
    WA$.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,086
    Providing this or any other service internationally brings in money and yes, fair enough.

    We do have a computing industry. It makes stuff and it exports, and I am proud to work in it.

    I don't have some bizarre hatred of anything involving profit, it would be a curious mindset that did. I suspect it is the mythical loonie lefties that are supposed to be under our beds but no one has ever actually met that do, I don't know. I will probably be voting for my local Labour candidate but the prospect of Corbyn does not scare me like it is apparently supposed to.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    I stand corrected on the computer industry; I was under the impression that you couldn't buy a British computer (PC, laptop, tablet, etc)? Raspberry Pi?

    Not suggesting you have a hatred of profit, rather you seem to have a mistrust of anything that generates profit without involving 'real work'; the service-sector / financial-services for example.
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 14th May 2017 at 22:44.
    WA$.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,879
    Most things you pick up use ARM processors CD. Fortunately, we are still big in technology!

  27. #87
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Henlow, England
    Posts
    636
    ARM having been sold to a Japanese investor last year with changes afoot.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,086
    I have a mistrust of anything purporting to be a 'free lunch'. An economy based on cutting each other's hair or advising each other on tax avoidance is as doomed as one based on nursing each other, whether the money is harvested from the wages as tax or given as health insurance. I have nothing against either profession, but let's see the wood for the trees. Saying that does not make me a Marxist! Have you read Douglas Adams and the bit about the 'B' ark?
    Last edited by Beermat; 15th May 2017 at 07:48.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    Such as?
    WA$.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,086
    I wrote more - sorry, it's a bad habit doing a post in several edits.

    We can of course cut, advise and nurse people who's capital came from overseas. That might be a net gainer. You see, the distinction in terms of 'rightness' of an economic activity is a misleading one, but so is the very term 'creating wealth'. It takes a lot to create wealth rather than just move it in a particular direction - even if that means paying a worker - and claim to have created it. It has come from somewhere else. One needs to follow the money - that is not 'thinking that stopped with Marx', that is actually paying attention.
    Last edited by Beermat; 15th May 2017 at 07:59.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES