[Closed] Same old Tories...

Not turning them all into glorified mechanics and plumbers

I didn't suggest that. In my vision they are already working at the science/tech companies when the graduates pitch up. Some of the 18+ intake will have been promoted into positions above the graduate entrants by the time they arrive.

Just as an aside, seeing as you mention those two professions, have you noticed how a lot of good mechanics and plumbers can now command a good hourly rate as a lot of people consider themselves above such jobs?

The prevailing attitude towards education and employment as a linked idea is wrong in my opinion.

Which is an effect of being better educated. It's not because they work for a pittance, it's because they take higher education more seriously.

Please bother to read what I have written before arguing, at least it will stop me wasting time on explaining things twice.

The 'developing' countries are squeezing our 'loftier' ambitions, the 'undeveloped' (for want of a better word) are the ones who have the labour for digging stuff up, melting it into shape and hammering it together.

I didn't suggest that. In my vision they are already working at the science/tech companies when the graduates pitch up. Some of the 18+ intake will have been promoted into positions above the graduate entrants by the time they arrive.

Just as an aside, seeing as you mention those two professions, have you noticed how a lot of good mechanics and plumbers can now command a good hourly rate as a lot of people consider themselves above such jobs?

The prevailing attitude towards education and employment as a linked idea is wrong in my opinion.

I agree with the latter, the problem with educating everyone in industry is that it leads to typical industrial science, as in stagnant safe evolutionary science.

It rarely develops people who are good at working in blue skies projects that transform the world and industry. That's what we need and university breeds creativity, companies most of the time do not. We need more creative people with the way the world is going.

The 'developing' countries are squeezing our 'loftier' ambitions, the 'undeveloped' (for want of a better word) [b]are the ones who have the labour for digging stuff up, melting it into shape and hammering it together.[/b]

Which countries would those be? China isn't an undeveloped country, India isn't, the Philippines isn't, neither is Brazil. These are all countries that manufacture cheap goods, by the time it becomes uneconomical to manufacture cheaply in these countries I can see technology allowing developed countries to manufacture at competitive rates again.

Vast swathes of undeveloped Africa are so ****ed on the other hand that it's not really manufacturing that much. I've yet to buy a bike frame that says "made in Kenya" as the Taiwanese do such an excellent job that few can match for a not entirely cheap rate.

He sounds peeved.

Peeved?

I'm ****ing furious.
Because of tbe great god 'competition' many people do not get the care they clearly need, because the local authority award care contracts to the lowest bidder, regardless of the consequences.

30 minute calls which used to be an hour:
In that 30 minutes I am expected to assess the condition of someone with severe physical and/or mental issues, get them out of bed, ensure they are washed, fed, dressed, medicated, safe and happy.

Does this actually take 30 minutes?
No, it takes me an hour, because I actually give a **** about my clients and refuse to leave them distressed or sat in their own urine and faeces.

Do I get paid for that hour?
Do I bollocks.
I get paid for the time on the contract.
£3.50.
To look after a ****ing human being and to ensure their welfare and happiness.

I don't claim benefits, never have, too proud.

Peeved?
After reading some of the attitudes displayed on here reagarding 'the poor' I'm more than peeved mate.

I still love my job though.

Really, people actually think this, how does someone "make" someone else do the work? Sounds like bitter nonsense. Yes some people have family wealth, some even have employees

there you go just answered your won question and then gave another example

Man has a successful garage, takes home 250k employs 10 mechanics on decent money, 2 office staff and has a couple of apprentices on 8k, what an absolute bastard, let's rise him for 50% and mansion tax his house too, because that's fair

You did not even say if he works in this example - lets assume he does not then eh. You seem to think it is fair he does **** all. makes the most money and should not pay more tax then the rest and anything else is unfair 😯
i think you will be in a tiny minority of thinking his situation is the unfair one in this scenario
I am not even sure if you have amoral compass , you seem to want those that have the most to have even more as anything else is unfair.

FWIW people do not employ people as a favour, they do not do it as charity, they do not do it for spiritual reward they do it because they make personal wealth from doing so. If they did not have to do this to make the money for them or a machine was cheaper they would do that instead.

You will be telling me the Duke of westminster worked hard for all that money next and it is unfair he pays moe tax than Rusty

Just as an aside, seeing as you mention those two professions, have you noticed how a lot of good mechanics and plumbers can now command a good hourly rate as a lot of people consider themselves above such jobs?

Have you any idea how many college students have gained a level 2 and a level three in these professions and never done a days work in the sector? ANy idea how many we produce each year?
IN construction either?
Thousand per year in my county alone!!!!

there is more supply than demand in these professions people will do the jobs it is just that the demand for the profession is not there.

Hell, Ernie, I didn't think I'd ever have to explain something to you.

Why not ? I'm one of those 'plebs' what didn't go to university that you mentioned.

And which you very generously pointed out 'shouldn't be left to rot'.

Gawd bless you sir.

🙂

Rusty's situation sounds awful and of course what he does is essential and deserves better pay. Why should my mythical garage owner be taxed differentially to make up the shortfall I still don't get it, isn't he paying more already anyway? Maybe with his new tax burden he'll decide to sod it close the garage and now 14 people are on the dole?

Deleted as uneccessary.
Sorry.

Good on you Rusty.

Maybe with his new tax burden he'll decide to sod it close the garage and now 14 people are on the dole?

Well that would be pretty stupid wouldn't it.

And yes it's easy to make money when you start with lots of it. Buy some property in London then sell it on a bit later - there you go. Genius and lots of hard work required?

Maybe with his new tax burden he'll decide to sod it close the garage and now 14 people are on the dole?

Why 14 people on the dole ?

Either cars need to be repaired and serviced, or they don't need to be repaired and serviced - I can't see how the garage owner has created any work. Unless of course he's been sabotaging his clients cars.

isn't he paying more already anyway?

Maybe with his new tax burden he'll decide to sod it close the garage and now 14 people are on the dole?

Maybe he did maybe he started on his own, did good work, had an ethic and employed similar people. Over the years he gave good service, treated people well and gained loyalty from staff and customers and now he rewards himself for all the long hours and hard work with a very healthy income. How is that wrong, how is he bad? My point which I think is a fair one is it's not the few hundred gazillionaires who get soaked it's the bunch in the middle who employ a few make a bit and are generally decent people. It's those people who get berated as selfish and uncaring when in many cases they are closer to their staff and more involved than most. Go after the big corporations for tax avoidance, collect what's due from individuals but don't tell me I'm my brothers keeper and owe him more of what I have because that's [i]fair.[/i]

don't tell me I'm my brothers keeper and owe him more of what I have because that's fair.

your right it is fair that you have much more than them
**** em

Dont complain when we say you are selfish and only thinking of yourself as you just admitted it

FWIW 160 k puts you in the 1%
No idea where 250k puts you

Maybe he did maybe he started on his own, did good work, had an ethic and employed similar people. Over the years he gave good service, treated people well and gained loyalty from staff and customers and now he rewards himself for all the long hours and hard work with a very healthy income.

That sounds great, but people only get their cars repaired and serviced because they need to be repaired or serviced, no one takes a car that doesn't need to be repaired or serviced to a garage and hand over money for no work because the owner is a great guy.

There is no reason for his 14 former employees to be on the dole, the same amount of cars will need to be repaired and serviced.

That sounds great, but people only get their cars repaired and serviced because they need to be repaired or serviced, no one takes a car that doesn't need to be repaired or serviced to a garage and hand over money for no work because the owner is a great guy.

There is no reason for his 14 former employees to be on the dole, the same amount of cars will need to be repaired and serviced.

Which makes the owner a drain on society unless he's splurging his 250k income, as savings reduce cashflow. Buohahah, nice one ernie!

Which means we now have en economic incentive to tax him.

250k maybe a lot of money but it's not outlandish, a successful SME owner could easily pay themselves that. Me being selfish or not is irrelevant to the discussion, the fact remains that a higher earner pays more already. No-one has actually adresssed why them paying even more in % terms is right other than the spurious arguument of, well they are rich and obviously oppressed the poor to get there so they deserve it the rich bastard, which doesn't stand.

250k maybe a lot of money but it's not outlandish, a successful SME owner could easily pay themselves that. Me being selfish or not is irrelevant to the discussion, the fact remains that a higher earner pays more already no-one has actually adresssed why them paying even more in % terms is right other than well they are rich and obviously oppressed the poor to get there, which doesn't stand.

You haven't explained why he should keep it, other than he worked hard.

We just made an economic case for taking some of his wealth.

Also.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2014/res041214a.htm

Maybe he did maybe he started on his own, did good work, had an ethic and employed similar people. Over the years he gave good service, treated people well and gained loyalty from staff and customers and now he rewards himself for all the long hours and hard work with a very healthy income. How is that wrong, how is he bad?

I don't think anyone's saing it's wrong.

The point is that lots and lots of people do all that - start careers, do well, make a big difference and gain loyalty etc etc, and end up with cock all.

Teachers, for example. How's it fair that someone who happens to be good at fixing cars and running a garage deserves the easy life, whereas someone who teaches and inspires generations does not?

Or social workers, or nurses etc etc? Hell, I make more than my parents ever did and I don't work anything like as hard. Why? Because I have an aptitude for something that pays well. It's not fair in the least.

The point about taxation is that Mr 250k garage owner doens't really need 250k, he can spare a bit to help people on 8k who are never going to be able to run businesses.

Let's face it - we don't really need to give a shit about this guy. He does not need help. But plenty of people do, and where's the money going to come from?

Because it's what a decent, advanced, humane society would do:
How we deal with the less fortunate in our society defines us as a nation.

Tom_W1987 - Member

You haven't explained why he should keep it, other than he worked hard.

And of course, he hasn't just done it by working hard himself- if he could do that, he wouldn't be employing 14 people, who all get paid much less than £250K yet do all the actual car fixering. That might sound like a "down with the bosses" criticism, it's not- it's just an observation of how it is. Why should he pay more? For the same reason that he should be able to profit from other people's work.

So our garage guy is paying all his taxes at around 40% + his business rates and so forth as he's a honest bloke. How much would you say is fair, how much can he afford to contribute 50% 60% 70%? 90% like in the 70's?

I'd be surprised to see an answer.

No-one has actually adresssed why them paying even more in % terms is right

Well they don't do they. Poorer people usually pay more tax as a percentage of their earnings, as VAT is a flat rate that everyone pays and they still buy stuff (and business owners and high earners can normally be more 'tax efficient').

Also, why do people always quote these tax percentages as if that's the amount you pay on everything you earn?

well they are rich and obviously oppressed the poor to get there so they deserve it the rich bastard, which doesn't stand.

Pretty pathetic straw man there.

how much can he afford to contribute

He can afford to contribute 100% of anything over about £30k since that's what you can live on.

However this disincentivises him to grow his business of course, so is not a good idea. He can certainly AFFORD to pay 50% on his earnings above £150k but he probably won't want to. Why? Cos he likes money, just like everyone else.

So our garage guy is paying all his taxes at around 40% + his business rates and so forth as he's a honest bloke. How much would you say is fair, how much can he afford to contribute 50% 60% 70%? 90% like in the 70's?

I'd be surprised to see an answer.

However much the people and the state deem necessary to reduce inequality which in turn boosts growth making everyone richer.

The duty of government should be to improve the wealth of as many people as possible, not the select few.

We've given you so many reasons as to why he should be charged more tax but you've ignored them all. If the Tories ever introduce a flat rate tax it will be March 1990 all over again.

Why not ? I'm one of those 'plebs' what didn't go to university that you mentioned.

And which you very generously pointed out 'shouldn't be left to rot'.

Gawd bless you sir.

Why not? Because you almost always seem to actually read what people post, have a clear idea of what your own stance is, and can articulate it really well. I just don't agree with you a lot of the time! You could almost say I felt let down(!)

Nice try to try to paint me as some kind of patrician Dickensian factory owner. What I actually argue for is true meritocracy. Where intelligence rather than money or connections dictates your 'life outcomes' (blimey I sound all department of education there). Why do we shy away from a careful amount of elitism when it comes to intelligence and application? Surely these are things we ought to aspire to. Note my use of the word 'careful'.

Why do we shy away from a careful amount of elitism when it comes to intelligence and application?

We already have that (see Oxbridge, Russell group and postgraduates), even these aren't that good at sifting out the idiots and you will find plenty of highly intelligent youngsters in ex Pollies who are as easily capable as those of Russel group universities.

Along with the other arguments I've made in support of our education system, a larger base of A-level graduates or undergraduates gives a better chance of the best to eventually find their way to the top. Not everyone succeeds at 16, technical colleges will see to it that people become stuck once they are past a certain point in life.

Nice try to try to paint me as some kind of patrician Dickensian factory owner.

Sorry guv, didn't mean no harm to a gentleman like yourself 😐

Because everyone benefits from a more highly educated society.

If you really only want the 'most intelligent' 10% educated to degree level, let's have a level playing field;
A ban on private education would be a nice start.

If you really only want the 'most intelligent' 10% educated to degree level, let's have a level playing field;
A ban on private education would be a nice start?

+1

My point which I think is a fair one is it's not the few hundred gazillionaires who get soaked it's the bunch in the middle who employ a few make a bit and are generally decent people. It's those people who get berated as selfish and uncaring

Someone is not selfish and uncaring for earning a lot and no one has said this. You seem selfish and uncaring though.

We've given you so many reasons as to why he should be charged more tax but you've ignored them all

He already pays much more tax 40% of 250k is loads more than 40% of 15k.

I appreciate the desire to progressively tax income I have serious issues with council tax, VAT and income tax for the poorest in society but I also believe that robbing Peter to pay Paul is a pretty crappy way of doing it, especially if you justify it by claiming that Paul robbed Peter with no proof at all.

No-one has actually adresssed why them paying even more in % terms is right other than the spurious arguument of, well they are rich and obviously oppressed the poor to get there so they deserve it the rich bastard, which doesn't stand.

You think it is ok that he earn 31.25 more than his apprentice without actually working and you still cannot work out why we might tax someone in the top 1 % more than the rest of society - HONESTLY - you cannot see why?

How much would you say is fair, how much can he afford to contribute 50% 60% 70%? 90% like in the 70's?

I'd be surprised to see an answer.

Are you surprised now?

Its obvious if folk can earn disproportionate levels then we can tax disproportionate;y
Poor people need our help not rich people
Rich people need to pay more via tax
At the end of this process they are still rich and still the winners in society

especially if you justify it by claiming that Paul robbed Peter with no proof at all.

I posted proofs earlier, unless you disbelieve the IMF's work. Which is, I guess, another story.

At the end of the day, if you try a flat rate tax it will end up with rioting like Thatchers pole tax did.

I'm understanding the reasons behind the 'unfair' earnings and taxation arguments, but I'm struggling to see alternatives. Without the discrepancy in tax, there's not enough money, however without the difference in earnings, there is a level of communism, where a genuine race for the bottom starts as there's no incentive to do better. I don't think for a moment we live in a Europa, but I do struggle to see a different picture.

Scandinavian models of reduced inequality is probably your choice then

He already pays much more tax 40% of 250k is loads more than 40% of 15k

.

I appreciate the desire to progressively tax income

Why do you keep asking us why we should do i then?

I also believe that robbing Peter to pay Paul is a pretty crappy way of doing it, especially if you justify it by claiming that Paul robbed Peter with no proof at all.

At the end of this the apprentice still has **** all and he still has shit loads - its hard to portray him as the victim here or the loser

I have no idea why you are struggling with this but I am done trying to explain it

this is the reason

[b]The point about taxation is that Mr 250k garage owner doens't really need 250k, he can spare a bit to help people on 8k who are never going to be able to run businesses.

Let's face it - we don't really need to give a shit about this guy. He does not need help. But plenty of people do, and where's the money going to come from?[/b]

I'm understanding the reasons behind the 'unfair' earnings and taxation arguments, but I'm struggling to see alternatives. Without the discrepancy in tax, there's not enough money, however without the difference in earnings, there is a level of communism, where a genuine race for the bottom starts as there's no incentive to do better. I don't think for a moment we live in a Europa, but I do struggle to see a different picture.

I don't see that happening in Scandinavia. They still seem to work hard, get good educations, try to find good jobs etc.

Junkyard that is completely unfair and how you cannot see that is beyond me. Several people seem to suggest that having wealth is some kind of wrongdoing and I just don't agree.

I read the IMF article, very interesting but seemed more focussed on global inequality than our debate especially as even the worst off in the UK are in a far better position than the poorest around the world.

I think people are mistaking a lack of agreement with a lack of understanding, I get your positions I just don't accept them. What I earn I want to keep happy to contribute but not at the 60% outlined above, perhaps my council estate upbringing made me selfish.

People keep talking % but I work in real numbers 100k tax paid is a bigger contribution than 10k if I earned a million I'd be paying 38%ish 380k. Isn't that enough apparently not, I should pay more like 500k or 600k because [i]I've got enough[/i] and that's simply bollocks.

I also believe that robbing Peter to pay Paul

If you consider paying tax to be 'robbing' then you're always going to struggle with basic concepts aren't you.

Junkyard that is completely unfair and how you cannot see that is beyond me.

I read the IMF article, very interesting but seemed more focussed on global inequality than our debate especially as even the worst off in the UK are in a far better position than the subjects of that piece.

I'm going to be a dick and extrapolate it to the uk for now. 😆

I'll try and find out if there comes a point at which inequality is no longer linked with growth. You say that we are more equal than the rest of the world, but the problem with the Tories is, is that I can't help but feel that they'd secretly like us to be like India.

Anyway, just so we're clear, I don't think you're a jerk or stupid like some are insinuating. I just disagree with you jools.

Several people seem to sugget that having wealth is some kind of wrongdoing

Where?

What I earn I want to keep happy to contribute but not at the 60% outlined above

No-one has suggested taxing 60% of total earnings.

I read the IMF article, very interesting but seemed more focussed on global inequality than our debate especially as even the worst off in the UK are in a far better position than the poorest around the world.

More equal societies are happier, healthier, have less crime etc - works for those at the top as well as at the bottom. Lots of evidence showing this.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/10/does-taxing-the-wealthy-hurt-growth.html

Junkyard that is completely unfair .....

Unless he's printing his own money, in which case it would worthless, the only worth "his" 250k has is the value society that gives it. Without society his 250k is completely worthless beyond perhaps providing fuel for a fire. He in fact owes everything to society.

What would be [i]unfair[/i] would be if he took more than his fair share from society.

Yes he does and repays his good fortune by paying more [i]actual[/i] money in tax, employing people and most likely being a good little saver and consumer to the benefit of us all.

More equal societies are happier, healthier, have less crime etc - works for those at the top as well as at the bottom.

You missed out the rather important fact that they also tend to be more economically stable.

How much would you say is fair, how much can he afford to contribute 50% 60% 70%? 90% like in the 70's?
I'd be surprised to see an answer.

If it helps at all, I'm usually painted as a right winger on here (well to be fair I'm Genghis Khan compared to some on here), and I'd suggest it isn't all that unfair to tax him at 60% or 70% of what he earns above £100k, given by that stage we're well past what he needs to live on. I'd simply point out that taxing at that level isn't useful as it will likely result in a decreased total tax take as it disincentivises him from working harder and encourages him to take tax avoidance (note, not tax evasion) measures.

What I earn I want to keep happy to contribute but not at the 60% outlined above

Tough. I want to keep every penny I earn, but somebody has to pay for society and those who earn more can afford it far more easily.

People keep talking % but I work in real numbers 100k tax paid is a bigger contribution than 10k if I earned a million I'd be paying 38%ish 380k. Isn't that enough apparently not, I should pay more like 500k or 600k because I've got enough and that's simply bollocks.

Looking at it the other way, you seem to think that only taking home £400k or £500k isn't enough (when you presumably expect some cleaner earning minimum wage to take home less than every penny of the £12k they earn), which is quite frankly bollocks.

But what if he wants a ferrari and a big pile of coke and hookers? Who are we to decide what he needs to live on? What you're suggesting sounds like a massive erosion of individual liberties. The idea of someone deciding what's enough for someone else just seems wrong to me.

Who are we to decide what he needs to live on?

Well we seem to consider it ok to decide what people on benefits need to live on.

But what if he wants a ferrari and a big pile of coke and hookers?

I'd quite like that. Can you tell me where I apply?

What you're suggesting sounds like a massive erosion of individual liberties.

Welcome to living as part of a society.

Everyone is trying to avoid paying tax, its laughable that some people talk about increasing taxes for the rich.
everyone buying on the C2W is avoiding tax
buying from america etc and not paing duty
so scale that up to a high earner and they will gladly pay a few thousand to an accountant to set up a trust (legal) or use other tax avoidance schemes, the higher tax rates simply dont deliver, but taxing the people is not the answer, the UK has to transform its tax laws, and rules so that corporations have to pay tax on the profits made in the UK, that would net billions, total joke that the tax burden is on the people and multi nationals play games with politicians and the HMRC dont go after these ass clowns.

joolsburger - Member

The idea of someone deciding what's enough for someone else just seems wrong to me.

Ah, so he's going to pay his 14 staff the same as he takes home? Since it's wrong for him to decide what's enough for them.

I'd simply point out that taxing at that level isn't useful as it will likely result in a decreased total tax take as it disincentivises him from working harder and encourages him to take tax avoidance (note, not tax evasion) measures.

Have you got some evidence to back up that claim ?

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-herrington/conservative-myth-busting_b_841271.html ]Conservative Myth Busting: Lowering Taxes Raises Government Revenue[/url]

Seeing as clearly, no one could be ****ed to read my link.

[img] http://economistsview.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b33869e2017c32cc93c5970b-800wi [/img]

A rise in the top marginal tax rate from 0 to 100 percent is correlated with a rise in per capita growth of 5.85 percentage points per year. One reason that this simple correlation might overstate the impact of the marginal tax rate on growth is that the top growth years were in the early 40s when the government was spending heavily and when the country was finally recovering from the Great Depression. If we look only at the post war period (after 1946), a rise from 0 to 100 percent in the top marginal tax rate is associated with an increase of only 2.69 percentage points of growth. Moreover, the statistical significance of the relationship becomes marginal, as the p-value rises from 0.017 to 0.122. On the other hand, if we look at the time period encompassing 1960 to the present, a rise in the top rate from 0 to 100 percent is correlated with a rise in per capita growth of 3.03 percentage points of growth per year, and the relationship becomes more statistically significant (with a p-value of 0.064 percent). Finally, if we look only at the years since 1980, a rise from 0 to 100 percent in the top marginal tax rate is associated with an increase in growth of 3.87 percentage points. In this case, the relationship is statistically insignificant (with a p-value of 0.392 percent), in part because the sample size is small.

[b]While we cannot say that there is a robust significant positive relationship between tax rates and growth, it is still interesting that regardless of when we start the sample, higher top marginal tax rates are associated with higher not lower growth.[/b]

I'm not suggesting cutting the highest tax rate to 28%, ernie (45% or even 50% seems reasonable)

Ah, so he's going to pay his 14 staff the same as he takes home? Since it's wrong for him to decide what's enough for them.

He didn't they did, they chose to work for him at an agreed rate. He offered they accepted, fair exchange no robbery.

Tom, correlation doesn't imply causation, you know that.

Junkyard that is completely unfair and how you cannot see that is beyond me. Several people seem to suggest that having wealth is some kind of wrongdoing and I just don't agree.

If you wish to disagree could you actually point out which bit you find unfair?
Have you notice its you v STW? A rarity for here so well done you.

We know you dont agree i was holding out for an explanation rather than just you constantly saying that it was fair he could earn 31.25 his apprentice for not working but unfair that we tax him more

have you got an answer yet ?

You could also try answering mollys point that aracer mentions as well- he does not need the money and other do

The idea of someone deciding what's enough for someone else just seems wrong to me.

I assume you will will be explaining any of these rather than telling me it is still not fair

Tom correlation doesn't imply causation you know that.

Yup I know that, it kind of dispels the myth that higher rates of taxation can hurt growth though. Unless someone can plot some kind of time series analysis that takes into account what happened after higher rates were introduced. I think that would be impossible, my statistics isn't that advanced yet - although I'm working on it.

Economics is voodoo bullshit to me mostly anyway.

fair exchange no robbery.

No one said it was robbery please stop defeating straw men and using emotive language

I'm not suggesting cutting the highest tax rate to 28%, ernie

No, you suggested "a decreased total tax take" if the highest level was 60-70%. I asked if you had any evidence to back up that claim. Or is it just something that you've thought about ?

He didn't they did, they chose to work for him at an agreed rate. He offered they accepted, fair exchange no robbery.

In the same way, he is free to let somebody else run his business and take on some minimum wage job if he wants to pay a lot less tax.

OK take the apprentice, he is the business owner offering an unskilled worker, a job, training and in the longer term the ability to acquire skills that will lead to increased earnings over a lifetime. He risks investing that time and effort in someone who could become a competitor later on, overall this creates an exchange that has a value to the employer reflected in the rate he offers an apprentice. The value the apprentice gets is more than the wage alone.

excellent lets change direction once you are struggling

you are ninfan and I claim my Dan hannan signed picture 😉

TBH when you put it like that I think he should get a tax break for just being so god damn nice and the worker should pay him a tithe for ever for all he has done to help him earn this money

Gawd bless you sir

joolsburger - Member

He didn't they did, they chose to work for him at an agreed rate.

And he chose to run a business in the UK. There's no point in this where suddenly different rules apply. If it's OK for him to set wages and other people to accept them or walk away, it's OK for us to set taxation and for him to accept it or walk away.

OK take the apprentice....

You're really not making much sense now.

As has been said I'm on my own here, happily I might add. I believe in what I've said and am happy to stand alone. Sorry if in answering I had to go out on a tangent. I was asked why it was fair for him to earn so much more than his apprentice and outlined the apprentice gets more than just cash from the deal.

OK take the apprentice, he is the business owner offering an unskilled worker, a job, training so in the longer term the ability to acquire skills that will lead to increased earnings over a lifetime.

That doesn't sound very typical, is the apprentice his son ?

Most employers don't take on apprentices so that the individuals concerned can have "increased earnings over a lifetime".

What the business owner is usually offering is more profit for himself.

But anyway, what's this got to do with him paying less tax ?

Tax rates as a % is largely meaningless when comparing different bands. What matters is the 'disposable'* income across the income range.

*whoever came up with that term wasn't being taxed enough.

Happily in the real world the top rate is 45% I hope it's stays that way for a long time although even that's about 15 % north of what it should be but you know, society.

That doesn't sound very typical

Most employers don't take on apprentices so that the individuals concerned can have "increased earnings over a lifetime".

What the business owner is usually offering is more profit for himself

he also takes the risk that the apprentice is a muppet and is not worth the investment in time and money

But anyway what's this got to do with him paying less tax ?

or we could look at the capital gains from property lived in by people which makes people (who create artificial but legal changes to he property ownership) millionaires, or does Ed taxing himself with his proposed mansion tax cover that one?

I hope it's stays that way for a long time.

Because it benefits you or the mythical garage owner ?

That doesn't sound very typical

why what is "typical"?

I answered that question in the same post. You even copied and pasted my answer. Try to pay attention.

Try to pay attention.

Because it benefits you or the mythical garage owner

probably benefits us all, far more than the tax regime for companies like Starbucks or Amazon or Apple

I'm just amused by the proposition that employers just take on people to increase profit

So why didn't you say that you were amused instead of asking me "what is typical" ?

how many apprentices have you employed?

or are you trying to limit the pool of labour for your trade?

I'm just amused by the proposition that employers just take on people to increase profit, makes you wonder why they don't take on more if it such a direct correlation?

You are being silly now no employer employs anyone who they cannot make money from nor do they employ more than they need [ except the bloated public sector free from the rigours of the market obviously]

are you trying to limit the pool of labour for your trade?

Yes, I go around loosening scaffolding clips.

Personal allowance to 12.5k, Howzat! 8)

And 40p threshold risen to £50,000

Personal allowance to 12.5k, Howzat!

Has he titled that policy.... the "Ask Yourself.... What is the Point of the Labour Party? Seriously?" initiative? He should do.

Then again... they said the main thrust of his speech would be to lay claim to the NHS. Thats like me laying claim to salad