Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Inclusive Growth
Topic Started: Sep 7 2015, 07:01 AM (119 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Picketty was wrong. Seizing from the rich to help the poor won't solve inequality
LINK


As always things are a lot more complex and yes it appears that just shifting £20b from top to bottom is not the solution.

Best read: The Inclusive Growth and Development Report 2015

The Report

Quote:
 
The United Kingdom demonstrates a mixed picture in terms of its ability to deliver inclusive growth. The country benefits from relatively high levels of business creation supported by access to finance, which are important drivers of new employment and growth. It also exploits the tax code strongly toward more equitable economic outcomes, notably through property, inheritance, and progressive income taxes.
On the other hand, efforts are required to improve access to education as well as its quality, which would be important for tackling the youth unemployment problem and the low levels of social mobility in the country. Equality of health outcomes could be improved, given the significant gaps in adjusted life expectancy. Greater equity in the labor market through stronger participation of women and reduction in the gender pay gap would also foster more inclusive growth. This would be helped by ensuring greater labor protection and access to affordable childcare for working parents.


As many have being saying here for a very long time dumbing down education and denying access for bright kids from poor households restricted social mobility.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Why am I not surprised that a business centred body should produce a report that concludes that only through incentives and supporting business development can growth be made ..... and has the nerve to call it 'inclusive' as suggesting that business is benevolent and operates to raise living standards of all.
"Don't tax us - we'll put the money back on our own"; as if.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Sep 7 2015, 08:39 AM

"Don't tax us - we'll put the money back on our own"; as if.


Quite. That is never going to happen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Sep 7 2015, 08:39 AM
Why am I not surprised that a business centred body should produce a report that concludes that only through incentives and supporting business development can growth be made ..... and has the nerve to call it 'inclusive' as suggesting that business is benevolent and operates to raise living standards of all.
"Don't tax us - we'll put the money back on our own"; as if.


Clearly you dreamt up your condemnation without even bothering to read the report.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Malum Unus
Member Avatar
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
[ *  *  * ]
Affa
Sep 7 2015, 08:39 AM
Why am I not surprised that a business centred body should produce a report that concludes that only through incentives and supporting business development can growth be made ..... and has the nerve to call it 'inclusive' as suggesting that business is benevolent and operates to raise living standards of all.
"Don't tax us - we'll put the money back on our own"; as if.




It's like having a government which claims "We're all in this together", as it gets a 10% pay rise.

Totally hypocritical and totally unsurprising.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tough to read the entirety of this 106 page doc on a tiny screen, looks interstibg though. It attacks inequality and says it reduces economic growth. Has inequality decreased under this govt? :)

Countries with much higher 'pre-transfer' incomes are likely nat resource rich northern european nations, that's how they fund those projects, maybe countries with a tiny populace also benefit from such and some (like Switzerland) work as a small but powerful financial centre.

We've got high inequality, huge household debt and an unhealthy need for consumers to splash out..increasing that debt. Another dangerous house price bubble, although many other countries do too.

Then we've got a city that's been caught out cheating and taking huge dangerous risks loads of times, present and past.

Our 'services' and finance based economy isn't particularly sustainable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Sep 7 2015, 09:20 AM
Tough to read the entirety of this 106 page doc on a tiny screen, . . .
It's tough to read on any screen so badly is it written with verbose flatulent sentences and no proper structure

But lets look at the original point made in the OP

" Seizing from the rich to help the poor won't solve inequality "

Well to state the obvious it's not going to make it worse is it.

A wealth tax is much more than redistribution, it is a statement of inclusive responsibility for society. The rich should pay their way or the high earning, the low earning and the have nots will rightly feel the burden is disproportionate. And that would be corrosive and a society can ill afford any corrosive aspects let alone an unnecessary one.

I really do not mind people being many times wealthier than I am or ever will be. I really do not mind some people earning many times what I ever did. As long as both have fairly got such by fair use of supply and demand and paid their fair share of taxes.

Would a 0.5% wealth tax as I have advocated actually bring in a great deal? Well maybe £10B or £20B net. We have to accept that the rich foreigners that settle here (and distort our wealth divide stats) would tend to leave taking their money with them.

But a tax policy that was kinder to those who accumulate wealth by creating UK jobs (as opposed to UK bottom lines) would be a massive step forward at reducing wealth inequality. That is what we should do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 8 2015, 05:18 PM
skwirked
Sep 7 2015, 09:20 AM
Tough to read the entirety of this 106 page doc on a tiny screen, . . .
It's tough to read on any screen so badly is it written with verbose flatulent sentences and no proper structure

But lets look at the original point made in the OP

" Seizing from the rich to help the poor won't solve inequality "

Well to state the obvious it's not going to make it worse is it.

A wealth tax is much more than redistribution, it is a statement of inclusive responsibility for society. The rich should pay their way or the high earning, the low earning and the have nots will rightly feel the burden is disproportionate. And that would be corrosive and a society can ill afford any corrosive aspects let alone an unnecessary one.

I really do not mind people being many times wealthier than I am or ever will be. I really do not mind some people earning many times what I ever did. As long as both have fairly got such by fair use of supply and demand and paid their fair share of taxes.

Would a 0.5% wealth tax as I have advocated actually bring in a great deal? Well maybe £10B or £20B net. We have to accept that the rich foreigners that settle here (and distort our wealth divide stats) would tend to leave taking their money with them.

But a tax policy that was kinder to those who accumulate wealth by creating UK jobs (as opposed to UK bottom lines) would be a massive step forward at reducing wealth inequality. That is what we should do.
!clp!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 8 2015, 05:18 PM
skwirked
Sep 7 2015, 09:20 AM
Tough to read the entirety of this 106 page doc on a tiny screen, . . .
It's tough to read on any screen so badly is it written with verbose flatulent sentences and no proper structure

But lets look at the original point made in the OP

" Seizing from the rich to help the poor won't solve inequality "

Well to state the obvious it's not going to make it worse is it.

A wealth tax is much more than redistribution, it is a statement of inclusive responsibility for society. The rich should pay their way or the high earning, the low earning and the have nots will rightly feel the burden is disproportionate. And that would be corrosive and a society can ill afford any corrosive aspects let alone an unnecessary one.

I really do not mind people being many times wealthier than I am or ever will be. I really do not mind some people earning many times what I ever did. As long as both have fairly got such by fair use of supply and demand and paid their fair share of taxes.

Would a 0.5% wealth tax as I have advocated actually bring in a great deal? Well maybe £10B or £20B net. We have to accept that the rich foreigners that settle here (and distort our wealth divide stats) would tend to leave taking their money with them.

But a tax policy that was kinder to those who accumulate wealth by creating UK jobs (as opposed to UK bottom lines) would be a massive step forward at reducing wealth inequality. That is what we should do.
I do not understand the steps taken from increased revenues to the Exchequer and the expected increased jobs? Do you intend that the State employs more people? Or would you use such to reduce income taxes? Assuming the latter then I would expect an increase in consumption, but not sure how this relates into UK jobs.

Historically we have taxed current income and recognised that savings are the means to store wealth. I worry that once you attack savings then either the stores of wealth will move from sight or individuals will become less motivated to save. Yes I understand that there will be minimums and that the levy might start at ~0.5%. That said where has such been implemented successfully? Did Sweden not try this then end up scrapping it because it was counterproductive? Anyway £10b to £20b is not going to change much unless you could direct it directly into the pockets of low paid employees, but how?

What we need is a lower burden of social cost put on the backs of labour and incentives to invest in UK enterprises, that is what creates jobs and going from JSA to a good job is a serious step in the right direction.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 9 2015, 07:45 AM
Steve K
Sep 8 2015, 05:18 PM
skwirked
Sep 7 2015, 09:20 AM
Tough to read the entirety of this 106 page doc on a tiny screen, . . .
It's tough to read on any screen so badly is it written with verbose flatulent sentences and no proper structure

But lets look at the original point made in the OP

" Seizing from the rich to help the poor won't solve inequality "

Well to state the obvious it's not going to make it worse is it.

A wealth tax is much more than redistribution, it is a statement of inclusive responsibility for society. The rich should pay their way or the high earning, the low earning and the have nots will rightly feel the burden is disproportionate. And that would be corrosive and a society can ill afford any corrosive aspects let alone an unnecessary one.

I really do not mind people being many times wealthier than I am or ever will be. I really do not mind some people earning many times what I ever did. As long as both have fairly got such by fair use of supply and demand and paid their fair share of taxes.

Would a 0.5% wealth tax as I have advocated actually bring in a great deal? Well maybe £10B or £20B net. We have to accept that the rich foreigners that settle here (and distort our wealth divide stats) would tend to leave taking their money with them.

But a tax policy that was kinder to those who accumulate wealth by creating UK jobs (as opposed to UK bottom lines) would be a massive step forward at reducing wealth inequality. That is what we should do.
I do not understand the steps taken from increased revenues to the Exchequer and the expected increased jobs? Do you intend that the State employs more people? Or would you use such to reduce income taxes? Assuming the latter then I would expect an increase in consumption, but not sure how this relates into UK jobs.

Historically we have taxed current income and recognised that savings are the means to store wealth. I worry that once you attack savings then either the stores of wealth will move from sight or individuals will become less motivated to save. Yes I understand that there will be minimums and that the levy might start at ~0.5%. That said where has such been implemented successfully? Did Sweden not try this then end up scrapping it because it was counterproductive? Anyway £10b to £20b is not going to change much unless you could direct it directly into the pockets of low paid employees, but how?

What we need is a lower burden of social cost put on the backs of labour and incentives to invest in UK enterprises, that is what creates jobs and going from JSA to a good job is a serious step in the right direction.

I would tax companies more on what they use and take from society (ie revenue and dividends)

I would balance that by cutting taxes on re-invested profits and employing people (NI)

I would also end the fiasco of subsiding companies getting rid of staff (by making their net redundancy liability deductible from the taxable bottom line)

The CEOs and boards that like to take from the UK would find life a lot more difficult and those that support the UK by creating wealth for masses would find their net rewards increased.

Seemples
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
I concur with Affa^ !clp!

The yanks dont f- about when it comes to ANYONE avoiding or evading monies due.

Why don't we take a GOOD leaf out of their book this time?
Edited by skwirked, Sep 9 2015, 09:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply