| 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: |
| Inclusive Growth | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 7 2015, 07:01 AM (119 Views) | |
| RJD | Sep 7 2015, 07:01 AM Post #1 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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
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. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Sep 7 2015, 08:39 AM Post #2 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Sep 7 2015, 08:46 AM Post #3 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Quite. That is never going to happen. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Sep 7 2015, 09:05 AM Post #4 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Clearly you dreamt up your condemnation without even bothering to read the report. |
![]() |
|
| Malum Unus | Sep 7 2015, 09:17 AM Post #5 |
|
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| skwirked | Sep 7 2015, 09:20 AM Post #6 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Sep 8 2015, 05:18 PM Post #7 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Sep 8 2015, 05:26 PM Post #8 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| RJD | Sep 9 2015, 07:45 AM Post #9 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Sep 9 2015, 08:49 PM Post #10 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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 |
![]() |
|
| skwirked | Sep 9 2015, 09:36 PM Post #11 |
|
On Enforced Vacation
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I concur with Affa^ 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.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




8:30 AM Jul 11