We can’t go on pretending that poverty is solved by getting a job

[Deplorable]

46 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I'm on first name terms with most of the rough-sleepers in High Wycombe.  Many of them had well paid jobs and a fair-few paid more in tax in a year than some here have in a decade.  There are no 'programs' to get blokes off the street and the housing benefit is a joke.  The council will give £75 a week at most.  The cheapest doss-house demands £100.

It's to our nation's chagrin that we encourage people to live in car parks rather than offer simple, affordable housing.

My town has a couple dormitory style shelters. Of course you have to blow into a breathalyzer, have an 8 or 9 pm curfew, and have to turn your finances over to a financial counselor in order to live there. If you do well there within a couple months you can get a spot in fairly nice apartments under the same conditions. There's a weird divide in the beggar population as the "street people" look down on the shelter people almost like a "cool kids" vs "nerds" type high school thing. Most of the "street people" are on disability, which pays them almost $1,000 per month. A good chunk of them are able to use that money to rent a place to stay. The ones left can't control their money and don't want the help available because of the conditions. There are employers who work with social programs to hire the homeless. Janitorial services, dish washing, etc. Some of them use the opportunity to get their life back in order. Some of them just can't handle showing up for a job every day. I find it hard to believe that the UK doesn't have stuff like I just described.

[The_Kincardine]

4 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

My town has a couple dormitory style shelters. Of course you have to blow into a breathalyzer, have an 8 or 9 pm curfew, and have to turn your finances over to a financial counselor in order to live there. If you do well there within a couple months you can get a spot in fairly nice apartments under the same conditions. There's a weird divide in the beggar population as the "street people" look down on the shelter people almost like a "cool kids" vs "nerds" type high school thing. Most of the "street people" are on disability, which pays them almost $1,000 per month. A good chunk of them are able to use that money to rent a place to stay. The ones left can't control their money and don't want the help available because of the conditions. There are employers who work with social programs to hire the homeless. Janitorial services, dish washing, etc. Some of them use the opportunity to get their life back in order. Some of them just can't handle showing up for a job every day. I find it hard to believe that the UK doesn't have stuff like I just described.

Well from your time in Greenock you'll know we used to have "Model Lodgers".  Nothing like that exists now, sadly.

[WaffenThinMint]

1 minute ago, RedRob72 said:

No TWM quite a bit further south !?

Just wondered - am familiar with those running it. The local Labour b*****ds are now trying to get them kicked out of their home by sleight of hand because the BSR won't play the game of "photo opps in the local rags at election time for funding", never have, never will.

[RedRob72]

Just wondered - am familiar with those running it. The local Labour b*****ds are now trying to get them kicked out of their home by sleight of hand because the BSR won't play the game of "photo opps in the local rags at election time for funding", never have, never will.

It's a small church outreach in Sheffield, I understand they have a similar operation down the road too in Chesterfield.
Was told that they can get of couple of favourable deals with friendly local B&B's for the odd place in emergencies, but are completely funded on limited public donations, they get f**k all from the local council.

[git-intae-thum]

12 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

My town has a couple dormitory style shelters. Of course you have to blow into a breathalyzer, have an 8 or 9 pm curfew, and have to turn your finances over to a financial counselor in order to live there. If you do well there within a couple months you can get a spot in fairly nice apartments under the same conditions. There's a weird divide in the beggar population as the "street people" look down on the shelter people almost like a "cool kids" vs "nerds" type high school thing. Most of the "street people" are on disability, which pays them almost $1,000 per month. A good chunk of them are able to use that money to rent a place to stay. The ones left can't control their money and don't want the help available because of the conditions. There are employers who work with social programs to hire the homeless. Janitorial services, dish washing, etc. Some of them use the opportunity to get their life back in order. Some of them just can't handle showing up for a job every day. I find it hard to believe that the UK doesn't have stuff like I just described.

 

As other posters have commented above, it is increasingly a tragedy for many of our youngest adults. People on the outset of life. People who given the right guidance, financial tutorship and assistance have the greatest to contribute to society in the long term. Another example of short term political thinking.

For a wee rant .....I would suggest there is a huge level of generational poverty in the UK. In the last decade or so we have definitely seen the rich auldyins pull up the drawbridge on the under 45's...

[itzdrk]

Should I quit?

[Deplorable]

22 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Well from your time in Greenock you'll know we used to have "Model Lodgers".  Nothing like that exists now, sadly.

Never been there. Google search for "model Lodgers" didn't reveal anything.

[Baxter Parp]

On ‎05‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 15:53, sjc said:

 

Really?

Labours Denis Healey promised to "squeeze the rich until the pips squeak". The top rate of income tax rose to 83% and reached 98% when an investment income surcharge was applied.

Roy Jenkins raised taxes on income to an all-time record of 136% though.

Britain's tax regime in the 1970s was one of the most punitive in the world and triggered an exodus of entrepreneurs and highly-paid stars 

And what does that have to do with Thatcher?

[sjc]

1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said:

And what does that have to do with Thatcher?

The introduced of those muppets Robin Hood taxation culminated in Thatcher being elected in 79. Hence I said "it ended with Thatcher being elected".

[Baxter Parp]

43 minutes ago, sjc said:

The introduced of those muppets Robin Hood taxation culminated in Thatcher being elected in 79. Hence I said "it ended with Thatcher being elected".

You'll have to prove that redistribution of wealth was directly responsible for Thatcher getting elected and not the myriad of other things happening at the time.

[sjc]

24 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

You'll have to prove that redistribution of wealth was directly responsible for Thatcher getting elected and not the myriad of other things happening at the time.

You're right, there was a host of other issues throughout the 70's but to say it had f**k all to do with the rich fucking off into exile and taking their businesses elsewhere due to punitive tax laws is nonsense. 

[Tommy Nooka]

9 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Economically the country was screwed. The highest tax payers had moved abroad. Those who stayed used every accounting trick in the book to avoid handing over lidicrous amounts of tax. The unions had so much power that srikes were routine. I will personally never forget the sight of the army using Green Goddesses to put out fires, rubbish piled high in the stretets or the dead going unburied. The population had enough of this by the late 70s. Thatcher came in, reduced the top rate of tax to 60% I think and the overall tax take went up as a result.

The lesson here is that if you want wealth redistribution, increasing tax is not always the correct approach. In fact reducing tax can have a far greater effect because it reduces the incentives for avoiding it.

This is one reason I prefer the idea of a flat single tax rate for all citizens regardless of earnings. No means testing would result in huge savings which could be poured back into the bottom of the system. Everyone treated as equal. All citizens pay the same amount.

For a start we could treat dividends as income and subject it to the same tax rules.  More importantly, they should attract national insurance contributions. That move alone would remove one of the most widespread legal tax avoidance routes. This alone would be worth billions of pounds.

I don't see how a flat rate could in any way improve the country. For instance just 1 EPL footballer pays millions in tax every year, that is not going to be offset by getting rid of a few thousand tax officers.

[Baxter Parp]

22 hours ago, sjc said:

You're right, there was a host of other issues throughout the 70's but to say it had f**k all to do with the rich fucking off into exile and taking their businesses elsewhere due to punitive tax laws is nonsense. 

You're going to have to quantify that statement.

"If Wilson's record as prime minister was soon felt to have been one of failure, that sense of failure was powerfully reinforced by Callahan's term as premier. Labour, it seemed, was incapable of positive achievements. It was unable to control inflation, unable to control the unions, unable to solve the Irish problem, unable to solve the Rhodesian question, unable to secure its proposals for Welsh and Scottish devolution, unable to reach a popular modus vivendi with the Common Market, unable even to maintain itself in power until it could go to the country and the date of its own choosing. It was little wonder, therefore, that Mrs. Thatcher resoundingly defeated it in 1979"

Sked and Cook don't even mention taxes.

[Suspect Device]

1,000 tax officers @ £25k = £2.5m in wages (conservative estimate). Add to that the money saved on their pensions (eventually) and it's a pretty big saving.

Plus the footballer will still be paying a large amount in tax. Assuming the tax officers can find a comparably paid job in the private sector it's win all round.

Of course if we simplified the tax system, the tax officers might not find it as easy to get a job in the private sector because we wouldn't need as many tax evasion consultants. I read somewhere that there are more chartered accountants in the UK than the rest of the EU combined. That seems incredible but I wouldn't rule it out.

[Baxter Parp]

3 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

1,000 tax officers @ £25k = £2.5m in wages (conservative estimate). Add to that the money saved on their pensions (eventually) and it's a pretty big saving.

Civil service pensions are contributory and based on final salary, why would you be saving anything?  Flat rate taxes only favour the middle classes and the rich.

[Suspect Device]

33 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Civil service pensions are contributory and based on final salary, why would you be saving anything?  Flat rate taxes only favour the middle classes and the rich.

The contributions only partially cover the potential payouts. There is a large pension deficit storing up in the public sector which will have to be paid for by the taxpayers of the future. It's why the private sector have stopped almost all final salary schemes and the government are trying desperately to do the same.

It's also why I tell my wife who works in the public sector to fight as hard as she can against any changes to her pensions.

I agree that the flat rate tax favours the middle and upper income brackets but I still reckon we could save overall if we simplified the tax regime. And of course everyone paid it instead of doing their best to avoid/evade it.

[Tommy Nooka]

1 hour ago, Suspect Device said:

1,000 tax officers @ £25k = £2.5m in wages (conservative estimate). Add to that the money saved on their pensions (eventually) and it's a pretty big saving.

Plus the footballer will still be paying a large amount in tax. Assuming the tax officers can find a comparably paid job in the private sector it's win all round.

Of course if we simplified the tax system, the tax officers might not find it as easy to get a job in the private sector because we wouldn't need as many tax evasion consultants. I read somewhere that there are more chartered accountants in the UK than the rest of the EU combined. That seems incredible but I wouldn't rule it out.

My point is that's only 1 EPL footballer, where is the money lost from the hundreds of other players in the highest tax bracket going to come from with a flat rate? The people that deal with most PAYE queries are not on anything like £25k btw.

Is this hypothetical flat rate going to be 45%? 

Interestingly, we'd be joining exalted company if we adopted a flat rate of income tax. Seems to have worked well for these countries.

Abkhazia[28]	10%
Andorra[29]	10%
Anguilla[30]	3%
Belarus[31]	12%
Belize[32]	25%
Bolivia[31]	13%
Bosnia and Herzegovina[33][34]	10%
Bulgaria[31][35]	10%
East Timor[36]	10%
Estonia[37]	20%
Georgia[31][38][39]	20%
Greenland[40]	36 to 44% (depending on the municipality)
Grenada[41]	30%
Guernsey[31][42]	20%
Guyana[43]	33.33%
Hungary[31]	15%
Jamaica[31]	25%
Jersey[31][44]	20%
Kazakhstan[31][45]	10%
Kyrgyzstan[42][46]	10%
Latvia[31][38][47]	23%
Lithuania[31][38][48]	15%
Macedonia[31][42][49]	10%
Madagascar[50]	20%
Mauritius[31][42]	15%
Mongolia[51]	10%
Nagorno-Karabakh[52]	5%
Romania[31][38]	16%
Russia[31][38][53]	13%
Saudi Arabia[31]	2.5% zakat (citizens of GCC countries) 20% income tax (foreigners)
Serbia[31][54]	12%
Seychelles[31]	15%
South Ossetia[55]	12%
Transnistria[56]	10%
Trinidad and Tobago[31]	25%
Turkmenistan[57]	10%
Tuvalu[58]

[Suspect Device]

I think the point is that people say a flat rate tax will be simpler and cheaper to implement and would mean MORE tax receipts because people would be less inclined to avoid/evade it.

I'm not convinced but I wouldn't totally rule it out either.

[Tommy Nooka]

Actually just noticed the Saudi tax rules, if you're an Arab Muslim you pay next to nothing if you're a 'foreigner' you're hit with 20%. 

[Shades75]

39 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

I think the point is that people say a flat rate tax will be simpler and cheaper to implement and would mean MORE tax receipts because people would be less inclined to avoid/evade it.

I'm not convinced but I wouldn't totally rule it out either.

People will always avoid tax where they can.  The richest in our society are wealthy beyond belief, have no need to avoid paying tax yet avoid it more than any others.

The highest earners, who also pay the highest rates of tax, have often gained more from the state in terms of helping them build their wealth than the poor could ever hope to get.

Formerly public utility companies were formed and the infrastructure built up using public funds - tax take.  Then privatisation came along, the wealthy bought shares and they own these companies now.  Some of them built new companies that retained access to the service networks which were originally publicly owned and built.

The costs to the environment, in the medium to long term of heavy industry, manufacturing etc.... are costs that are not accounted for when these companies budget and make forecasts.  Why?  Because the governments take care (or rather they don't but that's another argument) of that and how can we even know the real costs of pollution, climate change etc....

There are government subsidies to businesses, the bailouts of banks etc.... these, of course, help to create and save jobs but what they do most effectively is make capital, which might have been lost, available for investment - which means profits for the owners.  This also distorts markets - If one company receives a bailout, or subsidy then the market is no longer free.  A startup company trying to break in is already at a disadvantage.

There is also access to other areas such as the Law (which is a huge advantage) and universities (such as sponsorship of programmes) Media (the BBC) which the rich have that the poor do not which are all used as tools to help protect their wealth.  These institutions were and are, mostly, built and run using public funds.

Access to natures resources are licensed by governments (as if they own them!) to huge corporations, mostly, which again are owned by etc....

The richest of us should pay more because they take more.