Are we going to have an Election discussion?

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
Still no word on these significant numbers of unemployed?

I'm not sure what you are after here Mick.

Yes there was high unemployment under Thatcher but presumably this was unavoidable with the shutdown/slimming of the uncompetitive industries wasn't it?

I may be wrong but I thought that any large company needing to become more efficient and competitive generally shed staff - and market analysts view redundancies of a good sign when assessing companies long term prospects. Surely it's the same thing but on a bigger scale when it comes to the country?

Don't get me wrong, I've no desire to see high unemployment, I'm just not sure there was an alternative back in the late 70's/early '80s.

I'd be the first to congratulate Labour on their low unemployment figures but I would be interested to know how many people are kept off the unemployment register due to incapacity benefit and similar and how the figures would really look if we weren't encouraging anyone with more than one GSCE pass to stay in further and then higher education for as long as possible.

Matt.

As any Economist will tell you a certain amount of limited unemployment is a necessity for any bouyant & virbrant economy, inducing flexibility of labour, as well as re-training to new skills more paramount today than ever before (I refer to UK here), innit.

Fritz Von Unemployment in this election as an issue is a non starter on all sides

quote:

I think you could also add IR35 to the notwithstanding list.

Well there's no need as it sits alongside many other ill-concieved and counter-productive pieces of legislation in the tax system I described as complex. I confess that I have little or nothing to do with day to day tax affairs and rely on reports from those involved to just how frustrating and time-consuming compliance is, but I think to start talking about envy driven tax legislation is just silly.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
Still no word on these significant numbers of unemployed?

I'm not sure what you are after here Mick.

I'm was seeking, futilely as it appears, clarification on the statements and inferences by Mick Parry and Michaelc earlier in this thread which expressed great concern about a significant sector of the working population who were refusing to work possibly it is suggested because of the high life afforded by our generous benefits systems or indeed dysfunctional nurturing. I'm not naive enough to realize that there are probably a fair number of individuals who fall into these types but like you Matt I rather thought that unemployment was extremely low and thus this group of people would not be significant in any real sense and surely not remotely an issue in this election. I naturally asked what was the evidence for these statements and inferences. Thus far not a peep which makes you wonder about the motivations.

It's a big subject and is only pertinent here in respect of the fatuous statements alluded to above. FWIW the unemployment under Thatcher was a great deal more complex than shutting down uncompetitive industries and was as much if not more to do with political ideology as it was to do with economics. Likewise, there are a myriad of factors which contribute to a firm's competitiveness and efficiency and no professionally run business would simply dump staff as a knee-jerk reaction to such challenges. Such a measure is quite rightly a considered last resort.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt F:

Andy – my maths isn’t that bad - I was taking the fictitious £10K tax free allowance into account!

Matt.

Apologies for doubting your arithmetic, I was keeping it simple and just taking 20% away from the two figures. You can see the advantage to the govt. of making tax complicated, no one understands it enough to question it.

I think our positions on the environment and sustainability are not that far apart. But these things are not vote winners because they would entail radical measures which would alienate Mr Mondeo Man.

Andy

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
...but like you Matt I rather thought that unemployment was extremely low and thus this group of people would not be significant in any real sense ...

I see the Government's spin machine is working well with regard to the public perception of unemployment.

The UK has an extremely high number of people per capita claiming 'Incapacity Benefit' (over 2.5 million), particularly when compared to France and Germany. Our true unemployment levels are nowhere near as low as are portrayed.

A significant number of people are also effectively unemployed although claiming 'Working Tax Credit'. They can receive this for many years without ever having to work, sign on or attend job interviews.

This Government are the masters at setting performance targets and manipulating the statistics so that these appear to be achieved.

Regards
Steve M

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
I think to start talking about envy driven tax legislation is just silly.

Mick, the reason I suggested IR35 legislation as envy driven is as follows:

The reason it was brought about was for one reason only. Prior to it, contractors working through their own Ltd Cos were paying themselves tiny salaries (e.g £6K p.a.) to minimise NI contributions with the rest paid as dividends.

They couldn't stand the idea of people 'getting away with' this, forgetting that the benefits those NI contributions 'buy' are based on the salary in question. They also forgot that the people in question, whilst paying little in NI, pay far more in income tax than an equivalent permanent employee.

They therfore came up with this legislation to try to force these companies to pay out 95% of profit as salary. Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut - if they'd have said 50% then people might have complied. They could have even said just pay yourself the going (permanent) salary for the job and, again, most people would have complied.

As it was the legislation was so severe people either got out of contracting altogether (so tax take went right down for those people) or did everything necessary to put themselves outside the legislation (so tax take remained the same).

So the net result was less flexibility for clients (less contractors available) and a lower income for the Treasury.

In fairness I should point out that a lot of contractors do pay themselves more reasonable salaries these days (£20K-£25K or so) but that's more so that this represents a salary you could live on (without additional dividends) and in the belief that the Inland Revenue won't come investigating as you're not taking the piss by paying yourself a tiny salary, rather than as a direct result of the IR35 legislation.

Matt.

I personally deem unemployment figures as the actual number of people signed on. As with here (some 5 million officially now on the old Nat King Cole) some 3 million more are on short term contracts, training schemes etc, etc, (as in UK) making the tru figurte here som 8 million(ish) When those afore.mentioned folk sign on again (if they unfortunately have to ?) others begin short term, tax & pension paying jobs again (allbeit very low paid, but better then nothing & I do speak from experience). Just to add, one should not take it for granted that because somebody has signed on, they automaztically claim benefits,as this is not the case. The main point of Big Micks Jist (Which I did get first time around) is the the Parry's & Howard's of this world abusing the facts for their own inadequet ends, and of course HM Gutter Press always have a field day on the immigration front when both subjects are combined, innit.

Fritz Von Bloody Foreigners Nickin our Jobs
Especially in Germany ?

quote:

Apart from stealth taxes we also have stealth unemployment

Derek has hit the nail on the head here........a load of disability claimants should really appear in the unemployment figures. The "real" rate of unemployment is approaching 2 million....... alarm bells were already ringing in the 1980s by this stage!!

What I find baffling, is how popular is the desire for Government beurocrats to take more money off them (increased taxes) and spend it on their behalf!!!

Laurie

Should anybody be interested this is roughly what you pay in income related tax for various nominal salaries,

  6000    6161.28        5736.60 6.89%
 12000   12929.28        9849.36 23.82%
 18000   19697.28       13869.36 29.59%
 24000   26465.28       17889.36 32.40%
 30000   33233.28       21909.36 34.07%
 36000   40001.28       26356.56 34.11%
 42000   46769.28       29923.92 36.02%
 48000   53537.28       33463.92 37.49%
 60000   67073.28       40543.92 39.55%
 72000   80609.28       47623.92 40.92%
 84000   94145.28       54703.92 41.89%
 96000  107681.28       61783.92 42.62%
108000  121217.28       68863.92 43.19%
120000  134753.28       75943.92 43.64%

The first figure is what you are told you are being paid, the second is what the employer actually has to fork out, the third is your take home, the last the percentage deducted from the employers costs as tax/NI.

What's striking to me is how much people on low incomes pay and how the hidden employers NI makes finding a basis for comparison very difficult. Of course out of your taxed income you then have to pay council tax, VAT and various duties. I reckon the amount of earned money that you can put back into the wealth generating part of the economy is well under 50% of your gross income.

Paul

quote:

........a load of disability claimants should really appear in the unemployment figures.

Why? If somebody is disabled and unable to perform any work they are unemployable. This is the basis for the test used to put people on long term incapacity benefit. The unemployment stats should reflect those out of work who are capable of and therefore 'available' for work.

Bruce

Quite right (often conveniently forgotten) Job seekers agreement and all that "Are you fit to work John?"

Fritz Von Bloody Luxury so it is

How interesting then that the UK have so many more people who are incapacitated than our European neighbours (as a percentage of the population).

What a ringing endorsement of our health service!

Report by Keele University Centre for Industrial Relations

quote:

I fail to see how you can parallel greed and envy with wanting to improve your lot and take risks.

The suggestion had already been made that the prime economic motive was envy and greed. I simply quoted it.

The politics of envy is the territory of Socialists. By "Socialist" I do not mean a caring individual with a social conscience...

A Socialist believes that a state that permits any kind of free enterprise promotes greed, and therefore any of the potential rewards for greed should be removed - i.e: there should be no free enterprise.

I believe that free enterprise (along with those individuals courageous and adept enough to take the associated risks) is the only economic system that can bring prosperity to all.

Politics of envy is a value system that prefers an equality of poverty to an imbalance of wealth.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
Politics of envy is a value system that prefers an equality of poverty to an imbalance of wealth.

The current Government defines 'poverty' as the state of having a household income less than 60% of the national average. It is not defined in terms of one's ability to afford the basics of living.

This emphasis on 'equality' renders the term poverty virtually meaningless.

Regards
Steve M

Numbers of households in poverty will be reduced by reducing the average so the poorest will have greater than 60% of the average.

Not by enabling all to move upwards.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
Should anybody be interested this is roughly what you pay in income related tax for various nominal salaries,

[code]

6000 6161.28 5736.60 6.89%
12000 12929.28 9849.36 23.82%
18000 19697.28 13869.36 29.59%
24000 26465.28 17889.36 32.40%

The first figure is what you are told you are being paid, the second is what the employer actually has to fork out, the third is your take home, the last the percentage deducted from the employers costs as tax/NI.

What's striking to me is how much people on low incomes pay and how the hidden employers NI makes finding a basis for comparison very difficult. Of course out of your taxed income you then have to pay council tax, VAT and various duties. I reckon the amount of earned money that you can put back into the wealth generating part of the economy is well under 50% of your gross income.

Paul

Interesting Paul. The govt. could help the low paid (bit of self interest here) and make the system more equitable by increasing personal allowances substantially.

Andy

I still cannot supportb the thesis that the best way to make a society fairer is to steal wealth from the better off and give it to the less well off...surely the way to go is to help the less well off improve...the story of Aid for Africa surely must teach us something..(I overstate my case here to make a point......I believe in a society where the strong help the weak...it is the nature of that help that concerns me)

In my (typical) educational establishment, non-teaching staff constitute at least 70% of all staff

It is the burgeoning beurocracy(or rather the cost of it plus the stifling effect it has on any innovation, together with the concomitant, excessive regulation) that will bring this country to it`s knees before too much longer



laurie

quote:

It is the burgeoning beurocracy(or rather the cost of it plus the stifling effect it has on any innovation) that will bring this country to it`s knees before too much longer

quite - 1 in 4 of the working population are in some way employed by the state, this and the eurowasters spell big trouble for our economy

quote:

If somebody is disabled and unable to perform any work they are unemployable.

...it all depends how you define "unemployable"

laurie

quote:

Interesting Paul. The govt. could help the low paid (bit of self interest here) and make the system more equitable by increasing personal allowances substantially.

Those figures don't include the tax credits that are probably available to the low paid. Being essentially conservative I would much rather cut taxation especially on the lower paid than take with one hand and give back with the other in exchange for filling in forms, doing means tests and making work for tax clerks.

I'd also bin National Insurance, Capital Gains and anything else that keeps accountants in jobs. A simple definition of income and a simple way of calculating how much is owed. Shouldn't be that hard.

Paul

I’m starting to think - bin every fiddle, allowance, incentive, break, income support, and go for ONE flat tax for everybody poor to filthy no exclusions. I don’t see why everybody shouldn’t pay tax of what ever income.
Martin

ha

quote:

This emphasis on 'equality' renders the term poverty virtually meaningless.

In a true Socialist state there may be less relative poverty - expressed as a percentage of average household income, but more absolute poverty i.e: not having the basics for a decent living.

The basics for decent living include:

A dry, warm, comfortable home.

Hygene.

Nutritious food.

Adequate clothing.

Education.

Healthcare.

Security.

Mobility - the freedom to go wherever you see fit at least within a certain radius of your home on a regular basis. (A decent efficient and subsidised public transport system and/or access to private transport.)

Entertainment (television, radio, sport and recreation facilities.)

Freedom of expression.

quote:

I see the Government's spin machine is working well with regard to the public perception of unemployment.

Whilst not possessing your celebrated insight and acumen in such matters, I did actually remark that one will always have concerns about the massaging of figures and in this sense the current government are no different than the Tories, who had, if memory serves me, more fiddles than the Irish Philharmonic, than successive US administrations nor indeed than most modern governments. They all hide what they can and generally they can only cover the same things so whilst most governments will spin the figures to cover the real unemployment figures the disparity between these figures will be a fairly safe indicator of the state of play. It not scientific but IME as an employer the last 5 years have been an employees market and although we’ve been lucky with low turnover the market hasn’t exactly been heaving and staff have been able to be picky and pushy.

So back to the point, are you in fact saying that the atypically tightlipped Parry and MichaelC are completely correct and that the UK has a problem with a significant number of recalcitrants who simply are unwilling to work? I’m quite open to this being the case but having read nothing about this large scale phenomenon and with the two Michaels going all shy on us, can you evidence or even quantify this? How many of the disability claimants are bogus? Living on Working Tax Credit without doing any work amazes me if it’s true. Can you explain how does one do this and how much could one hope to receive pa? If all of this is true then I agree it should be a media scoop and an election issue.

I’ve only had time to skim through your Keele report and it looks interesting if not a little odd. It would have been better to have more current samples, longer periods to show the context of growth behind the data presented. Although Table 2 indicates that in 2000 in the UK 10.5% of people of working age did not have jobs and actually wanted to work, 4th highest in the list, for the purposes of the current discussion it would have been useful to see a table showing the % of those who were out of work and did not want to work since that is what seems to be exercising certain people.

At a quick glance it seems to indicate the superiority and benefits of the European employment model over that of the US and UK, which in their own way trade workers and their rights in a race to the bottom. If I’ve read it right I concur with this notion and am heartened to see you highlight this Steve. Might have a look at this after the holidays.