|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 13, 2022 21:22:18 GMT
If the only purpose is to susidise incomes for those that lose out why not just increase welfare handouts? For instance - I received £66 monthly rebate off my energy bill as part of the governments support for high energy prices. That is £66 that I didn't ask for or need but now my taxes are going up to pay for this largess. Why not just target help at those that need it. I think thats a fair point paffico i think the same should apply to them that have private pensions Why should them recieve state pensions when they dont need it Toffee, me and missus worked damned hard to pay for a private pension, we also continued to pay SERPS contributions. Because my private pension is fixed, over the past twenty years my total pension has diminished by close on 40% despite state pension increases. Who knows whether you don't/won't need it but to let you know, I am my wife's official carer but I don't claim an allowance for that or anything else. Do you get benefits as a result of others paying income tax, including me? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 13, 2022 21:50:05 GMT
The idea that we should not tax according to wealth. That's a pretty accurate description. The tax collector (By which you mean the government, though I agree 'tax collector' sounds worse and strengthens your argument) Anyway, the government collect tax and use it to pay for things society needs and in doing so they supply rich and poor equally. So the brilliant inventor and the lowly tinker both get a doctor. That is only true if the laws are written to protect them. If someone invents a vaccine for a deadly disease there is no law that states they must give it to everyone. In countries without health schemes there is no law that says doctors must treat patients. In such countries the weak die. However if you wish to have a law that says a doctor must treat any patient then there has to be a way to remunerate said doctor. Tax! So a pure economic based society? What if the fighter can't earn enough by head butting people to pay for the brain scan he clearly needs? Not sure of your meaning here, money is just a series of promissory notes. How else would you have those who don't get these notes should acquire the things they need to survive? Yes and each time they get too meagre society falls apart. You don't even have to examine history, you can see what happens live. Just take a look at Mexico or Brazil. Intersetingly. Lions will happily eat the young of another female lion. I think that rather eating the young of other lions they are getting rid of the young of the male from whom they have taken over the pride as they represent no genetic advantage to the new pride leader and are therefore a waste of resources and a potential threat. I am sure lions do not think this through it is just how their genetic programme works. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 13, 2022 22:27:15 GMT
If the only purpose is to susidise incomes for those that lose out why not just increase welfare handouts? For instance - I received £66 monthly rebate off my energy bill as part of the governments support for high energy prices. That is £66 that I didn't ask for or need but now my taxes are going up to pay for this largess. Why not just target help at those that need it. The purpose is to make working less hours affordable for everyone. Working hours make no difference to me as I am retired. They also will not make any difference to owners of companies, small businesses and the self employed and contract workers who will continue to do whatever hours are necessary. What you are proposing is a UBI (which many people do not need) supplemented by Welfare Handouts (which many people do not qualify for) paid by higher taxes (which many people cannot afford). Meanwhile the economy collapses because some people are getting too much money in handouts to make work worthwhile and the rest are getting taxed too heavily to make working worthwhile. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 13, 2022 22:29:18 GMT
If the only purpose is to susidise incomes for those that lose out why not just increase welfare handouts? For instance - I received £66 monthly rebate off my energy bill as part of the governments support for high energy prices. That is £66 that I didn't ask for or need but now my taxes are going up to pay for this largess. Why not just target help at those that need it. I think thats a fair point paffico i think the same should apply to them that have private pensions Why should them recieve state pensions when they dont need it Why should those with a public sector gold plated pension (which those in the private sector can only dream of) receive a state pension.? |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 13, 2022 22:41:15 GMT
I think thats a fair point paffico i think the same should apply to them that have private pensions Why should them recieve state pensions when they dont need it Toffee, me and missus worked damned hard to pay for a private pension, we also continued to pay SERPS contributions. Because my private pension is fixed, over the past twenty years my total pension has diminished by close on 40% despite state pension increases. Who knows whether you don't/won't need it but to let you know, I am my wife's official carer but I don't claim an allowance for that or anything else. Do you get benefits as a result of others paying income tax, including me? What do you mean by benfits if you mean DHSS Benefits then no. Not even state pension I didnt even receive child benefit did you because ive no children and do you have private medical care if so are you a burden on the NHS. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 13, 2022 22:43:57 GMT
I think thats a fair point paffico i think the same should apply to them that have private pensions Why should them recieve state pensions when they dont need it Why should those with a public sector gold plated pension (which those in the private sector can only dream of) receive a state pension.? I dont think they should |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 14, 2022 5:45:12 GMT
Toffee, me and missus worked damned hard to pay for a private pension, we also continued to pay SERPS contributions. Because my private pension is fixed, over the past twenty years my total pension has diminished by close on 40% despite state pension increases. Who knows whether you don't/won't need it but to let you know, I am my wife's official carer but I don't claim an allowance for that or anything else. Do you get benefits as a result of others paying income tax, including me? What do you mean by benfits if you mean DHSS Benefits then no. Not even state pension I didnt even receive child benefit did you because ive no children and do you have private medical care if so are you a burden on the NHS. I have no children and no private medical policy though I've had treatment provided by the private sector but paid for by the NHS. How can you be a burden on the NHS when you have paid full contributions during a full working life ands pay tax on pensions? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2022 7:47:03 GMT
The purpose is to make working less hours affordable for everyone. Working hours make no difference to me as I am retired. They also will not make any difference to owners of companies, small businesses and the self employed and contract workers who will continue to do whatever hours are necessary. What you are proposing is a UBI (which many people do not need) supplemented by Welfare Handouts (which many people do not qualify for) paid by higher taxes (which many people cannot afford). Meanwhile the economy collapses because some people are getting too much money in handouts to make work worthwhile and the rest are getting taxed too heavily to make working worthwhile. The economy collapses when AI and roboticization means there is too little work in it to pay enough people enough money to maintain consumer spending. In the long run we will need a means to sustain incomes with fewer hours being worked. Accepting the economic impossibility of making employers pay vastly more per hour, the only other alternative is some form of UBI. Owners of companies will often be amongst the financial beneficiaries of AI and roboticization, but as such would likely pay a lot more in tax than they gain from UBI. The self-employed would be able to work fewer hours if they chose. And contract workers would tend to have fewer contracted hours over time. In some sectors already such as retail this latter has already been happening with welfare taking up the slack. As for the retired, I suggest that any UBI introduced be at at least the same level as the state pension if not more so that pensioners get the same as now if not more. The £200 a week I proposed is significantly more than the state pension. You would still keep any private pension in addition. No one is going to take that away. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2022 7:53:16 GMT
Why should those with a public sector gold plated pension (which those in the private sector can only dream of) receive a state pension.? I dont think they should I agree that a retired millionaire with a six figure retirement income does not need a state pension. But following through on that is politically dangerous territory. The right wing media would scare the hell out of pensioners and those soon to retire with talk of pensions being means tested. And there is the valid point that once the principle of means testing is introduced even if only for a few at the top it first, it would likely be extended downwards in due course over time. Keeping it universal is the lesser evil. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 14, 2022 8:08:16 GMT
The economy collapses when AI and roboticization means there is too little work in it to pay enough people enough money to maintain consumer spending. Is there any indication that that will happen though?. We have been told for decades that robots and computers will take all the jobs - yet here we are with more robots and computers in the world than we ever have had and we have more people in work than ever before - in fact we have a shortage of people willing to do the available jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2022 8:13:57 GMT
Yes. I don't know how far one can take the direct analogy. We humans form nations of millions, we care for strangers we don't know even vaguely. It is built into our DNA. My point is its also built into our DNA to know when we are not cared about and that is why the standards of our poorest members have to always be a percentage of our richest. The thing I struggle with is how someone with more money than they could ever need would object to paying some of that spare money in tax to help the tribe. Even if they already paid tax when earning it, so what? You have more than you will ever need, probably made because the tribe you live in was peaceful and cohesive. Even more so, why anyone would try to adjust their wealth to avoid the tax they knew they would have to pay if they got fabulously rich. Why are these folks allowed to remain in the tribe when they are deliberately not part of it. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2022 8:17:45 GMT
Intersetingly. Lions will happily eat the young of another female lion. I think that rather eating the young of other lions they are getting rid of the young of the male from whom they have taken over the pride as they represent no genetic advantage to the new pride leader and are therefore a waste of resources and a potential threat. I am sure lions do not think this through it is just how their genetic programme works. Agreed, but I didn't want to over complicate the analogy. The point being that not caring about the tribe does not lead to success. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 14, 2022 8:32:23 GMT
The economy collapses when AI and roboticization means there is too little work in it to pay enough people enough money to maintain consumer spending. Is there any indication that that will happen though?. We have been told for decades that robots and computers will take all the jobs - yet here we are with more robots and computers in the world than we ever have had and we have more people in work than ever before - in fact we have a shortage of people willing to do the available jobs. Once again its one of those things that are more complex than a straight yes/no. The types of jobs available have been changing for some time now. Years ago we didn't have soft play, trampoline parks, hotel spas mini breaks etc for the masses (Not just the few). Basically leisure and service became viable because people were willing to work for £4.95 an hour because that's all there was. The main difference to the world we grew up in is that back then working a few hours a week in a pub was a secondary income to the main bread winner. Now its likely that all family members do these jobs and still only just get enough money to squeeze by. The current shortfall of people for jobs is a short term anomaly caused by a combination of Brexit and Covid, but it wont change the general trend. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2022 8:42:26 GMT
The economy collapses when AI and roboticization means there is too little work in it to pay enough people enough money to maintain consumer spending. Is there any indication that that will happen though?. We have been told for decades that robots and computers will take all the jobs - yet here we are with more robots and computers in the world than we ever have had and we have more people in work than ever before - in fact we have a shortage of people willing to do the available jobs. Well the economy as a whole, or sectors of it, has been seeing a shift away from full time employment to part time. Millions of people are underemployed already and often requiring welfare top ups. Low unemployment has been maintained only by a big expansion in underemployment as fewer man hours of work are required. But to a large extent in the past the decline in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs due to roboticization has been cancelled out by a growth in higher skilled jobs. AI is something new beyond mere roboticization here though as it is likely to increasingly make inroads into the availability of skilled roles. Whilst also accelerating the decline in unskilled and semi-skilled roles. Neither of us can know for certain whether this is going to happen or to what extent, so it is difficult to prove anyone right or wrong on this. But if I am right, the decline in man hours needed for work will result in economic collapse without something like UBI. It is not going to happen overnight though. We should see it happening gradually so that more people will start to see the need to act before calamity arrives. It might take some real economic hardship to force a change in thinking though. It often does. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 14, 2022 9:09:32 GMT
I think that rather eating the young of other lions they are getting rid of the young of the male from whom they have taken over the pride as they represent no genetic advantage to the new pride leader and are therefore a waste of resources and a potential threat. I am sure lions do not think this through it is just how their genetic programme works. Agreed, but I didn't want to over complicate the analogy. The point being that not caring about the tribe does not lead to success. Except without individualism you would still be swinging from the trees and eating each other in tough times, oh but wait. |
|
