|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 20, 2024 10:28:00 GMT
This explains your confusion. Apple do not make phones - they design them and the software they operate on. The manufacture of the phones is subcontracted out to other companies like Foxconn. Apple have much larger profit margins than Foxconn - they also pay much higher wages. Because you do not understand the basics you keep getting it wrong. Subcontracting manufacturing out to low wage economies is done only so Apple can claim to pay good wages, when actually paying the people who make its products peanuts. Everyone with an IQ in double digits knows that. They can boast about how good their wages are while ignoring the lowest paid 3/4s of the workforce. All The Best It is not the job of Apple to decide on market wage rates in China. That is as daft as saying Amazon should determine what the minimum wage is in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 20, 2024 22:03:32 GMT
Profit is the essence of capitalism. Competition undermines profit: you have to either pay to improve your product, or cut your margins to make your product cheaper, to prevent customers from using the competition. I lied about the level of your understanding of Capitalism, it is not even primary school level. All The Best Profit comes by being a good competitor. You can not force the customer to buy your product in a capitalist society because the customer is king and the capitalist is the customer's servant. You are correct in saying the ways to compete are to cut your costs or improve the quality of the product. We lump these two things together into one measure though which is value for money, and then we have a second parameter which is closeness of fit to customer requirements. The better the fit the better personal value for money the product is. Say I produce a product like a Swiss army knife and it has ten blades (ten functions/features) but the customer only needs three of them, then to that particular customer it is like the same as how much for a knife with three blades.
So this is why monopolies don't form in a capitalist market. Lets say we talk about a town as the entire market for restaurants and Mc Donalds thinks it will buy up every restaurant and turn it into a McDonalds. Some customers would find it as perfect fit to their requirements, but many will prefer something else, so their personal value for money at a Mc Ds is lower than what can be achieved at a place that specialises in the kind of cuisine they are after. Of course Mc Ds could do every type of food one could possibly want, but that is economically inefficient and destroys the economy of scale they are trying to achieve.
There are situations where competition can not function well. For example a product that one can not create any product differentiation with is uncompetitive. This would be say something like electricity or petrol where one supply is just the same as all the rest. Another example is where the market is interconnected, such as owning railway track or an industry so resource intensive that you won't get the number of competitors to create a market, like steel production where the larger the scale the more efficient it is. In China these industries where one can not achieve a competitive market are operated by SOCs (State-owned Enterprises).
Profit can come from being a good competitor. The most profit ALWAYS comes from having no competition. Capitalism knows this, that is why bigger firms buy up smaller, often more innovative, competitors - then they don't have to innovate, they just stop others from being effective competitors by buying them out. You CAN force the customer to buy your product IF you are the only one supplying said product. Monopolies don't form in a Capitalist society because almost all Capitalist Economies have REGULATORY BODIES in place preventing them from forming. Why would Governments go to all that effort and expense if they did not have to? They wouldn't. They do it because they have to. But you still haven't come close to demonstrating you understand why Capitalist Economies NEED Unemployment, and you have certainly not come close to refuting it. Hint 1: Salaries vs Wage Bargaining Hint 2: Supply and Demand. Let me explain so you can pretend to deny it while being wholly incapable of proving me wrong. Unless you have a "surplus labour pool" (unemployed or under-employed) then when Wage Bargaining comes around ALL of the aces are in the hands of the Employee. They can't be replaced because there is no "surplus labour pool" from which to draw replacement. This leads to Wages increasing, which necessarily leads to Profit Margins decreasing. Now here's the kicker - there needs to be some "surplus labour pool" for all levels of the employment ladder. Now you'll deny this, because you genuinely do not understand the core principles or mechanisms of Capitalism. Here's the second kicker - if what I have said is false why is it those EXACT ARGUMMENTS are used to justify ridiculously high CEO and Corporate Banker remuneration packages? Singapore, typically the most successful Capitalist Economy, has a long-term unemployment rate of ~2% Hong Kong, typically the second most successful Capitalist Economy, has a long term unemployment rate of 2.8% The US has a long-term average Unemployment Rate of 5.7% The UK has a long-term average unemployment rate of 1.97%. Funny how the UK with more social security for unemployed has a lower long-term average unemployment rate than the US, Hong Kong and Singapore. Almost like some level of Social Security makes Capitalism more efficient. It does, that Surplus Labour Pool MUST be "maintained" in reasonable health, and at a reasonable level of "work readiness" otherwise they do not offer a remedy to out of control wage bargaining that not being able to replace workers would create. But all of them show that there really can not be 0% unemployment is a Capitalist Economy, and that is because Capitalism NEEDS some level of systemic unemployment. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 20, 2024 23:04:14 GMT
Profit comes by being a good competitor. You can not force the customer to buy your product in a capitalist society because the customer is king and the capitalist is the customer's servant. You are correct in saying the ways to compete are to cut your costs or improve the quality of the product. We lump these two things together into one measure though which is value for money, and then we have a second parameter which is closeness of fit to customer requirements. The better the fit the better personal value for money the product is. Say I produce a product like a Swiss army knife and it has ten blades (ten functions/features) but the customer only needs three of them, then to that particular customer it is like the same as how much for a knife with three blades.
So this is why monopolies don't form in a capitalist market. Lets say we talk about a town as the entire market for restaurants and Mc Donalds thinks it will buy up every restaurant and turn it into a McDonalds. Some customers would find it as perfect fit to their requirements, but many will prefer something else, so their personal value for money at a Mc Ds is lower than what can be achieved at a place that specialises in the kind of cuisine they are after. Of course Mc Ds could do every type of food one could possibly want, but that is economically inefficient and destroys the economy of scale they are trying to achieve.
There are situations where competition can not function well. For example a product that one can not create any product differentiation with is uncompetitive. This would be say something like electricity or petrol where one supply is just the same as all the rest. Another example is where the market is interconnected, such as owning railway track or an industry so resource intensive that you won't get the number of competitors to create a market, like steel production where the larger the scale the more efficient it is. In China these industries where one can not achieve a competitive market are operated by SOCs (State-owned Enterprises).
Profit can come from being a good competitor. The most profit ALWAYS comes from having no competition. Capitalism knows this, that is why bigger firms buy up smaller, often more innovative, competitors - then they don't have to innovate, they just stop others from being effective competitors by buying them out. You CAN force the customer to buy your product IF you are the only one supplying said product. Monopolies don't form in a Capitalist society because almost all Capitalist Economies have REGULATORY BODIES in place preventing them from forming. Why would Governments go to all that effort and expense if they did not have to? They wouldn't. They do it because they have to. But you still haven't come close to demonstrating you understand why Capitalist Economies NEED Unemployment, and you have certainly not come close to refuting it. Hint 1: Salaries vs Wage Bargaining Hint 2: Supply and Demand. Let me explain so you can pretend to deny it while being wholly incapable of proving me wrong. Unless you have a "surplus labour pool" (unemployed or under-employed) then when Wage Bargaining comes around ALL of the aces are in the hands of the Employee. They can't be replaced because there is no "surplus labour pool" from which to draw replacement. This leads to Wages increasing, which necessarily leads to Profit Margins decreasing. Now here's the kicker - there needs to be some "surplus labour pool" for all levels of the employment ladder. Now you'll deny this, because you genuinely do not understand the core principles or mechanisms of Capitalism. Here's the second kicker - if what I have said is false why is it those EXACT ARGUMMENTS are used to justify ridiculously high CEO and Corporate Banker remuneration packages? Singapore, typically the most successful Capitalist Economy, has a long-term unemployment rate of ~2% Hong Kong, typically the second most successful Capitalist Economy, has a long term unemployment rate of 2.8% The US has a long-term average Unemployment Rate of 5.7% The UK has a long-term average unemployment rate of 1.97%. Funny how the UK with more social security for unemployed has a lower long-term average unemployment rate than the US, Hong Kong and Singapore. Almost like some level of Social Security makes Capitalism more efficient. It does, that Surplus Labour Pool MUST be "maintained" in reasonable health, and at a reasonable level of "work readiness" otherwise they do not offer a remedy to out of control wage bargaining that not being able to replace workers would create. But all of them show that there really can not be 0% unemployment is a Capitalist Economy, and that is because Capitalism NEEDS some level of systemic unemployment. All The Best The 19th century was more capitalist in my view. Firms did not grow by acquisitions like they do today. They might have made one or two, and sometimes this is because you have two firms who make half the product each and they work so closely together they think it would be better under one firm, but that is not a competitor, but someone next to them in the supply chain. Also you get situations where a firm that makes one thing decides to make something else for some reason, like that happened with Acorn Computers where they wanted a chip so they commissioned it themselves, but in time they found the chip business worth more than the firm who founded it so they spun it off into ARM. The 19c century and early 20th century typical large firm was a firm that was founded a few generations back so father teaches son and you tend to get this generational expertise in a particular craft. Another deviation from the classical capitalist model is where shareholders are distant from the operation of the firm. 19c would be more like say 4 gentlemen come together, put 25% in each and each brings a particular expertise to the firm. If the investors are not hands on they have limited understanding of what they invest in and despite having shareholder power they are not the best to ask how the firm should be run. This leads to short-termism in investment decisions. Things have become too abstract. The stock market is not a lot different from the bookies. Anyway, the true capitalist spirit lives on. You just hear all the bad news and none of the good. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 21, 2024 6:53:56 GMT
Profit can come from being a good competitor. The most profit ALWAYS comes from having no competition. Capitalism knows this, that is why bigger firms buy up smaller, often more innovative, competitors - then they don't have to innovate, they just stop others from being effective competitors by buying them out. You CAN force the customer to buy your product IF you are the only one supplying said product. Monopolies don't form in a Capitalist society because almost all Capitalist Economies have REGULATORY BODIES in place preventing them from forming. Why would Governments go to all that effort and expense if they did not have to? They wouldn't. They do it because they have to. But you still haven't come close to demonstrating you understand why Capitalist Economies NEED Unemployment, and you have certainly not come close to refuting it. Hint 1: Salaries vs Wage Bargaining Hint 2: Supply and Demand. Let me explain so you can pretend to deny it while being wholly incapable of proving me wrong. Unless you have a "surplus labour pool" (unemployed or under-employed) then when Wage Bargaining comes around ALL of the aces are in the hands of the Employee. They can't be replaced because there is no "surplus labour pool" from which to draw replacement. This leads to Wages increasing, which necessarily leads to Profit Margins decreasing. Now here's the kicker - there needs to be some "surplus labour pool" for all levels of the employment ladder. Now you'll deny this, because you genuinely do not understand the core principles or mechanisms of Capitalism. Here's the second kicker - if what I have said is false why is it those EXACT ARGUMMENTS are used to justify ridiculously high CEO and Corporate Banker remuneration packages? Singapore, typically the most successful Capitalist Economy, has a long-term unemployment rate of ~2% Hong Kong, typically the second most successful Capitalist Economy, has a long term unemployment rate of 2.8% The US has a long-term average Unemployment Rate of 5.7% The UK has a long-term average unemployment rate of 1.97%. Funny how the UK with more social security for unemployed has a lower long-term average unemployment rate than the US, Hong Kong and Singapore. Almost like some level of Social Security makes Capitalism more efficient. It does, that Surplus Labour Pool MUST be "maintained" in reasonable health, and at a reasonable level of "work readiness" otherwise they do not offer a remedy to out of control wage bargaining that not being able to replace workers would create. But all of them show that there really can not be 0% unemployment is a Capitalist Economy, and that is because Capitalism NEEDS some level of systemic unemployment. All The Best The 19th century was more capitalist in my view. Firms did not grow by acquisitions like they do today. They might have made one or two, and sometimes this is because you have two firms who make half the product each and they work so closely together they think it would be better under one firm, but that is not a competitor, but someone next to them in the supply chain. Also you get situations where a firm that makes one thing decides to make something else for some reason, like that happened with Acorn Computers where they wanted a chip so they commissioned it themselves, but in time they found the chip business worth more than the firm who founded it so they spun it off into ARM. The 19c century and early 20th century typical large firm was a firm that was founded a few generations back so father teaches son and you tend to get this generational expertise in a particular craft. Another deviation from the classical capitalist model is where shareholders are distant from the operation of the firm. 19c would be more like say 4 gentlemen come together, put 25% in each and each brings a particular expertise to the firm. If the investors are not hands on they have limited understanding of what they invest in and despite having shareholder power they are not the best to ask how the firm should be run. This leads to short-termism in investment decisions. Things have become too abstract. The stock market is not a lot different from the bookies. Anyway, the true capitalist spirit lives on. You just hear all the bad news and none of the good. So you can't refute anything I have said, just go off on some faux history fantasy where the 19th Century was "more Capitalist" than now because there were less take-overs? And we haven't even started on how the Stock Exchange and widening prevalence of Share Ownership privatises profits while systemically socialising liabilities. Or how Corporate Welfare (Tax Payer money propping up Privately owned Companies' profit margins) now costs £Billions. Or how multinational trade deals designed to maximise profitability nearly always ack democratic approval, and often ride roughshod over National Level legal procedures. Or how Globalisation - the end game of Capitalism - is the single biggest threat to both Democracy and National Sovereignty that has ever existed. Everything you mention that happens now that you claim makes now "less Capitalist" than the 19thC are all processes that are not only perfectly predictable if you understand what Capitalism does and how it does it, but are also wholly necessary for a Modern Capitalist Economy. We are in Late Stage Capitalism, where all the flaws of hypocrisy of the system are laid bare and Capitalism is shown to be failing, especially when references are made to how Capitalism makes us all richer, or the idiotic notion that Trickle-Down works (it never has). More total wealth is now accumulated in fewer hands that any other time in human history - which is, of course, the real goal of Capitalism. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Apr 21, 2024 8:22:38 GMT
Profit comes by being a good competitor. You can not force the customer to buy your product in a capitalist society because the customer is king and the capitalist is the customer's servant. You are correct in saying the ways to compete are to cut your costs or improve the quality of the product. We lump these two things together into one measure though which is value for money, and then we have a second parameter which is closeness of fit to customer requirements. The better the fit the better personal value for money the product is. Say I produce a product like a Swiss army knife and it has ten blades (ten functions/features) but the customer only needs three of them, then to that particular customer it is like the same as how much for a knife with three blades.
So this is why monopolies don't form in a capitalist market. Lets say we talk about a town as the entire market for restaurants and Mc Donalds thinks it will buy up every restaurant and turn it into a McDonalds. Some customers would find it as perfect fit to their requirements, but many will prefer something else, so their personal value for money at a Mc Ds is lower than what can be achieved at a place that specialises in the kind of cuisine they are after. Of course Mc Ds could do every type of food one could possibly want, but that is economically inefficient and destroys the economy of scale they are trying to achieve.
There are situations where competition can not function well. For example a product that one can not create any product differentiation with is uncompetitive. This would be say something like electricity or petrol where one supply is just the same as all the rest. Another example is where the market is interconnected, such as owning railway track or an industry so resource intensive that you won't get the number of competitors to create a market, like steel production where the larger the scale the more efficient it is. In China these industries where one can not achieve a competitive market are operated by SOCs (State-owned Enterprises).
Profit can come from being a good competitor. The most profit ALWAYS comes from having no competition.Capitalism knows this, that is why bigger firms buy up smaller, often more innovative, competitors - then they don't have to innovate, they just stop others from being effective competitors by buying them out. You CAN force the customer to buy your product IF you are the only one supplying said product. Monopolies don't form in a Capitalist society because almost all Capitalist Economies have REGULATORY BODIES in place preventing them from forming. Why would Governments go to all that effort and expense if they did not have to? They wouldn't. They do it because they have to. But you still haven't come close to demonstrating you understand why Capitalist Economies NEED Unemployment, and you have certainly not come close to refuting it. Hint 1: Salaries vs Wage Bargaining Hint 2: Supply and Demand. Let me explain so you can pretend to deny it while being wholly incapable of proving me wrong. Unless you have a "surplus labour pool" (unemployed or under-employed) then when Wage Bargaining comes around ALL of the aces are in the hands of the Employee. They can't be replaced because there is no "surplus labour pool" from which to draw replacement. This leads to Wages increasing, which necessarily leads to Profit Margins decreasing. Now here's the kicker - there needs to be some "surplus labour pool" for all levels of the employment ladder. Now you'll deny this, because you genuinely do not understand the core principles or mechanisms of Capitalism. Here's the second kicker - if what I have said is false why is it those EXACT ARGUMMENTS are used to justify ridiculously high CEO and Corporate Banker remuneration packages? Singapore, typically the most successful Capitalist Economy, has a long-term unemployment rate of ~2% Hong Kong, typically the second most successful Capitalist Economy, has a long term unemployment rate of 2.8% The US has a long-term average Unemployment Rate of 5.7% The UK has a long-term average unemployment rate of 1.97%. Funny how the UK with more social security for unemployed has a lower long-term average unemployment rate than the US, Hong Kong and Singapore. Almost like some level of Social Security makes Capitalism more efficient. It does, that Surplus Labour Pool MUST be "maintained" in reasonable health, and at a reasonable level of "work readiness" otherwise they do not offer a remedy to out of control wage bargaining that not being able to replace workers would create. But all of them show that there really can not be 0% unemployment is a Capitalist Economy, and that is because Capitalism NEEDS some level of systemic unemployment. All The Best That's why innovators and entrepreneurs design, produce and sell us all sorts of goods and services. Technology, Science and medicine to name just a few, and indeed the Human race in general wouldn't have come this far without them. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 21, 2024 9:03:02 GMT
Profit can come from being a good competitor. The most profit ALWAYS comes from having no competition.Capitalism knows this, that is why bigger firms buy up smaller, often more innovative, competitors - then they don't have to innovate, they just stop others from being effective competitors by buying them out. You CAN force the customer to buy your product IF you are the only one supplying said product. Monopolies don't form in a Capitalist society because almost all Capitalist Economies have REGULATORY BODIES in place preventing them from forming. Why would Governments go to all that effort and expense if they did not have to? They wouldn't. They do it because they have to. But you still haven't come close to demonstrating you understand why Capitalist Economies NEED Unemployment, and you have certainly not come close to refuting it. Hint 1: Salaries vs Wage Bargaining Hint 2: Supply and Demand. Let me explain so you can pretend to deny it while being wholly incapable of proving me wrong. Unless you have a "surplus labour pool" (unemployed or under-employed) then when Wage Bargaining comes around ALL of the aces are in the hands of the Employee. They can't be replaced because there is no "surplus labour pool" from which to draw replacement. This leads to Wages increasing, which necessarily leads to Profit Margins decreasing. Now here's the kicker - there needs to be some "surplus labour pool" for all levels of the employment ladder. Now you'll deny this, because you genuinely do not understand the core principles or mechanisms of Capitalism. Here's the second kicker - if what I have said is false why is it those EXACT ARGUMMENTS are used to justify ridiculously high CEO and Corporate Banker remuneration packages? Singapore, typically the most successful Capitalist Economy, has a long-term unemployment rate of ~2% Hong Kong, typically the second most successful Capitalist Economy, has a long term unemployment rate of 2.8% The US has a long-term average Unemployment Rate of 5.7% The UK has a long-term average unemployment rate of 1.97%. Funny how the UK with more social security for unemployed has a lower long-term average unemployment rate than the US, Hong Kong and Singapore. Almost like some level of Social Security makes Capitalism more efficient. It does, that Surplus Labour Pool MUST be "maintained" in reasonable health, and at a reasonable level of "work readiness" otherwise they do not offer a remedy to out of control wage bargaining that not being able to replace workers would create. But all of them show that there really can not be 0% unemployment is a Capitalist Economy, and that is because Capitalism NEEDS some level of systemic unemployment. All The Best That's why innovators and entrepreneurs design, produce and sell us all sorts of goods and services. Technology, Science and medicine to name just a few, and indeed the Human race in general wouldn't have come this far without them. Erm, not sure how what you are saying has any relation at all to what I have said; but it certainly does not refute any of my points if that was what you were trying to do. Apple would be 100 times more profitable if it were the ONLY Mobile Phone seller. Which is why it is Regulation of the Market, and NOT a Free Market that ensures some level of Competition happens. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Apr 21, 2024 10:02:48 GMT
That's why innovators and entrepreneurs design, produce and sell us all sorts of goods and services. Technology, Science and medicine to name just a few, and indeed the Human race in general wouldn't have come this far without them. Erm, not sure how what you are saying has any relation at all to what I have said; but it certainly does not refute any of my points if that was what you were trying to do. Apple would be 100 times more profitable if it were the ONLY Mobile Phone seller. Which is why it is Regulation of the Market, and NOT a Free Market that ensures some level of Competition happens. All The Best Erm, I'm not attempting to refute any points you made. I'm making my own point. I'm pointing out that with all your demonising of capitalism the same can be said for the shittest aspects of socialism and communism. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 21, 2024 10:28:56 GMT
I'm pointing out that with all your demonising of capitalism the same can be said for the shittest aspects of socialism and communism. That is the only thing that matters - for all its faults, capitalism is still better than the alternatives. If it has done nothing else it has dragged more people out of poverty than any other economic system,. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Apr 21, 2024 10:57:40 GMT
Lately, or for several decades it has created a fast-falling middle class creating more lower income families while the Chinese middle class has boomed. While for some the fall of the Karens has been rather satisfactory. Irrefutable facts, next.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 21, 2024 11:16:12 GMT
That’s the problem of our society, it’s produced a lot of layabouts, but even those that work rarely see medium to long term. Certainly our governments don’t, just look at the state of everything, utilities, defence, health, education, infrastructure. All let to deteriorate, with no credible plans to replace......Who is going to pay for their benefits when it gets to the point where more people are claiming than those working? Surely there's going to be a tipping point, benefits should only be a short term safety net, not a lifestyle choice.... 'Why would I want a job?': Shameless benefits scroungers in seaside town boast they 'chill out and enjoy life' while claiming 'thousands a month' of YOUR cash as 10m go unemployed and 4,000 a day sign off sick in workshy Britain EXCLUSIVE: Unemployed people in Jaywick, Essex said they didn't want a job The Essex town was ranked the most deprived in England in a recent survey Locals say there is work people just don't want to take it and live on benefits www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13327361/benefits-scroungers-seaside-town-workshy-Britain.html |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 21, 2024 13:29:14 GMT
I'm pointing out that with all your demonising of capitalism the same can be said for the shittest aspects of socialism and communism. That is the only thing that matters - for all its faults, capitalism is still better than the alternatives. If it has done nothing else it has dragged more people out of poverty than any other economic system,. Is it though? It is certainly not better for the majority of people in the bottom two quintiles of global incomes. Arguably it is not even better for those in the bottom two quintiles of a specific nation's income ladder. Because commodity prices at the national level tend to be normalised for the average income. It has been an absolute godsend for anyone in the top two quintiles, and most of the people in the middle quintile are doing OK, even if they are not doing brilliant. But we are now entering late-stage Capitalism and even the Middle Quintile are feeling the pinch of the Cost Of Living Crisis. Why? Because way too much money has been allowed to become concentrated in way too few hands. That wealth concentration is a natural consequence of Capitalism. The ONLY way to address that and prevent the total collapse of trust in Capitalism is redistributive taxation systems; which are invariably opposed by Capitalists. The alternative, though some think that they would be better used alongside redistributive taxation, is to introduce Price Caps on some things, essential utilities, rent, some commodities etc. to ensure that even those in the bottom two-quintiles can afford a reasonable standard of living. However, this is also opposed by Capitalists. Thus, like all social and economic systems, Capitalism contains the seeds of its own inevitable destruction. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 21, 2024 17:04:51 GMT
That is the only thing that matters - for all its faults, capitalism is still better than the alternatives. If it has done nothing else it has dragged more people out of poverty than any other economic system,. Is it though? It is certainly not better for the majority of people in the bottom two quintiles of global incomes. Of course it is - people who are lifted from poverty are in the bottom sphere of income. Already have that - 53.8% of all UK individuals were net recipients (living in households receiving more in benefits than they paid in taxes). redistribution in action. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Apr 22, 2024 15:48:35 GMT
Is it though? It is certainly not better for the majority of people in the bottom two quintiles of global incomes. Of course it is - people who are lifted from poverty are in the bottom sphere of income. Already have that - 53.8% of all UK individuals were net recipients (living in households receiving more in benefits than they paid in taxes). redistribution in action. Thanks for that quote pacifico Redistribution to pensioners in action State pension and pension credit are classified as cash benefits. In FYE 2022, 53.8% of all UK individuals were net recipients (living in households receiving more in benefits than they paid in taxes), a reduction of 1.2 percentage points since FYE 2021.18 Jul 2023 www.ons.gov.uk › pdfPDF Effects of taxes and benefits on UK household income |
|
