More or fewer taxes?

[Cornish Steve]

Reading some of the posts in the other thread, I find the mix of views interesting. Some berate the government for penalising business, while others believe the rich can afford to pay more taxes. So, let's take a poll.

I'm a firm believer in cutting taxes big time, on both the rich and the poor. Rather than have the government tax income of those who are financially successful, why not let those large wage earners keep the money and choose how to spend it themselves? Has anyone noticed how much Bill and Melinda Gates give to charities around the world and how much more effective their work has been compared to most UN programs spending the same amount of money? Personally, I trust individuals (such as people at this forum) far more than I trust bureaucrats.

I used to be rather suspicious of wealth, but these days I look at how individuals spend that money. Compared with the billions lost through government and UN corruption every year, money donated voluntarily by private individuals seems to be far better spent.

One other point. In business, we are encouraged to feed the successful and cut overhead. Government taxes do the complete opposite. The argument goes that a humane society helps those who struggle. While I agree with that, I'd rather see successful people help voluntarily than a bunch of power-hungry politicians steal money by force of law.

 

[Eagle]

Tax less.

Spend less on illegal wars.

Spend more on education/crime/infrastructure.

It's pretty simple math.

 

[Mwebb]

Tax less.

Spend less on illegal wars.

Spend more on education/crime/infrastructure.

It's pretty simple math.

oh they are definitely spending more on crime...ie their ability to rob us all blind!

 

[Jayne]

Tax less.

Spend less on illegal wars.

Spend more on education/crime/infrastructure.

It's pretty simple math.

Mark for Prime Minister

Totally agree!

Jayne

 

[Alpha]

I would like to see more tax especially those that earn silly sums of money but I would also prefer to see a fairer tax system.
Introduce a new rate of income tax at 50% on income over £250000 pa (Not going to overly stretch the rich is it?)

Remove Inheritance tax (They have paid tax on the money once why tax them again on it when they die)

Remove the inequalities of people running businesses (probably the best way to do this is to remove the 10% tax credit on dividends which would bring limited companies and individuals more into line). It would admittedly hit the richer sector more and even pension funds but then they have been hit for six anyway by this government.

Balancing

More money into the NHS
More money into education
More money to pensioners
More money into police, ambulance and fire services.
Cut government bureaucracy to enable businesses to flourish.

However the use of the resource should be far better managed than it currently is.

There has over the past few years been a large increase in the amount of funding ploughed into the NHS and yet we are seeing no better services as a result. The money is going into a black hole!!

Perhaps I'd better stop now

 

[Jayne]

Sorry Mark, but i've changed my mind! Alpha for Prime Minister :lol:

You can be the head of the Arts Council Mark :wink:

Jayne

 

[Mwebb]

I think one argument is that the money is there, it is just not being managed properly.

The governement have put loads of money into the police, the NHS, and Education.....But really the idiots controlling it have not used it wisely.

An argument for privatisation if ever there was one?

Unfortunately, you can't really privatise the police....and lets be honest, nobody wants to have to admit they went to a private school do they???

 

[Mwebb]

I would actually like to expand on this.

This problem is the Police, NHS, and Education system can not go bust. Theoretically. The government could n't let it happen.

This then brings up financial management issues. Everybody on this forum that owns a business, and relys on that income to support themselves and their families could tell you where every single penny that left their business was spent, why it was spent, the return that was gained from it...either financial or otherwise, However if you had a huge backup suppy of money, ready for when you got a bit slack, or made a few really bad decisions, you would be slack more of the time, and take much bigger risks.

You see there needs to be installed a mentallity into those that are in control of our taxes ( and theirs, surely they realise) that it is imperitive to run these huge "Public corporations" like a real business. They have budgets as big as virgin and microsoft, so why are the people running them as financially astute as those running these big companies. The people in the public sector are not paid les, far from it, infact i would put money on they are on a better remunaration package than most.

Reforms needed are:

1. Top level management clear out. Recruit those with entreprenuerial minds, and strategic management skills.
2. A new system where the managers are not punished with lower budgets the following year if they do not use all their budget this year. Infact their bonus scheme should be directly linked to this. If the reach targets, within budget they get a bonus. If they don't then like in the "real" world performance management is followed, and if they cannot improve they re removed!
3. Many many more that i don't want to bore you with

[/RANT] :roll:

Michael

 

[Cornish Steve]

I think one argument is that the money is there, it is just not being managed properly.

The governement have put loads of money into the police, the NHS, and Education.....But really the idiots controlling it have not used it wisely.

An argument for privatisation if ever there was one?

Unfortunately, you can't really privatise the police....and lets be honest, nobody wants to have to admit they went to a private school do they???

Hear hear!

This is why we should cut taxes to the bone. Privatise the health service, privatise the prisons, privatise all mail services, privatise the BBC, privatise schools... and let efficient companies run these services instead of inefficient bureaucrats. The cost of the NHS is crippling and the level of service keeps going down.

I still don't agree with the "soak the rich" argument. Successful individuals can put their money to much better use than the government can. If you had a personal fortune, just think what worthy causes would benefit from your generosity. When the government steals that money instead, do they spend it as well as you would? I trust you more than I trust any government.

One final word on schools. We choose to send our children to a private high school. It is a huge sacrifice to do this, but we want only the best for them. We have holes in our carpet and lots of projects we simply can't afford, but our priority is our children. It really upsets me when society assumes that I am rich simply because our children go to a private school. We're not rich, but we value a good education.

 

[Alpha]

Hear hear!

This is why we should cut taxes to the bone. Privatise the health service, privatise the prisons, privatise all mail services, privatise the BBC, privatise schools... and let efficient companies run these services instead of inefficient bureaucrats. The cost of the NHS is crippling and the level of service keeps going down.

Absolutely No Way would I want to go down this route.

Whilst entrepreneurs are very good at wealth generation the provision of services needs a different type of mindset and there are still many people in the senior management of the health service who are perfectly good at managing the service(Just do not need constant interference from government beaurocrats).

What Steve is effectively proposing is the American healthcare model which is not exactly working is it?

According to an article on the state of American healthcare I will take the following facts

Over 50% of people in the states do not have medical insurance.
Children who do not have medical insurance are less likely to be treated for serious injuries, ear infections and asthma.
Uninsured lung cancer patients are less likely to receive surgery, chemotherapy or radiation treatment. etc etc

The leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the states is unpaid medical bills. Half of the uninsured owe money to hospital and a third of these are being aggressively pursued by collection agencies.

Many people without insurance will not visit a doctor even when neccessary!

Is this the scenario we would like in the UK?

we already have seen what can happen when this type of system is applied in the UK. Just look at dentistry. How many now cannot get into NHS dentists (As there are so few of them) or even private clinics (many cannot afford them so do not go, or decide to put their small incomes to better use eg food)

Privatisation is certainly not the way to go.

As for taxing those who earn more, why not.

There is an argument that they take all the risks but do they?

They make their money by employing others to do the work and pay them much less than they earn. If a business runs into trouble do they make themselves redundant or their workers that earnt them the money in the first place?

Without all those other workers doing jobs that the entrepreneur wouldn't do he would not be able to generate wealth anyway.

look what happens to peoples pensions that they contributed to. Big companies went bust leaving the majority of workers having no provision for their retirement.

Another example was John Towers at Rover Group, he acquired the money for a pittance, run the company into the ground without any intention of investing in it and then managed to walk away with £20m of its assets (allegedly) whilst 5000 workers went on the dole. If there was no welfare state all these workers through no fault of their own would be homeless and destitute.

 

[Cornish Steve]

The health service is a really tricky problem to solve in any country. In Britain, treatment for less serious matters is pretty good. Doctors who visit patients at home are so dedicated. Treatment for serious matters can be awful. I could provide a litany of medical disasters: My uncle died because someone gave him a wrong dose; my niece went through a year of agony because of terrible incompetence at childbirth; several relatives are in constant pain because, essentially, people were practicing on them; family who travel 50 miles to the nearest hospital; patients who ensure a 3-hour train ride for specialist treatment; waiting lists that are weeks long if not months and years - maybe even more than life expectancy.

In the US, insurance is expensive and the poor do receive a raw deal. Even with insurance, I pay a deductible and a copayment, so the costs really mount up. Some doctors go out of business because of malpractice suits, and so on. However, treatment is fantastic, I have many hospitals within a 20-minute drive, and waiting lists are short. My father-in-law suffered a major heart attack on one visit. The ambulance arrived within six minutes, he received anti-clotting drugs immediately, he had angioplasty the next day, and would have had bypass surgery that same day if needed. This combination of circumstances saved his life.

I wish we had home visits in the US. I wish we had no waiting lists in the UK. I wish we paid fewer medical expenses in the US. I wish we had more hospitals in the UK. I wish lawsuits could be limited in the US. I wish medical records were not secret in the UK. I wish we had a perfect system, but we don't. I'd rather trust private enterprise and individuals than government, though. I'd rather choose how to spend my money than have the government take it forcibly and decide for me.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Another example was John Towers at Rover Group, he acquired the money for a pittance, run the company into the ground without any intention of investing in it and then managed to walk away with £20m of its assets (allegedly) whilst 5000 workers went on the dole. If there was no welfare state all these workers through no fault of their own would be homeless and destitute.

I've sometimes thought that companies should have to pay up to one year of unemployment pay for workers they lay off - rather than expect government to pay the bills. It would change the financial equation considerably. I agree that some people take advantage of the current system, but there are people who will take advantage of any system. I just don't see more government and more taxes as the answer.

 

[Alpha]

I've sometimes thought that companies should have to pay up to one year of unemployment pay for workers they lay off - rather than expect government to pay the bills.

Now how would that work if the company has gone bust??

 

[Sprinta]

Now how would that work if the company has gone bust??

Obviously had too many shandies at lunch with that suggestion.

Yes - more taxes please government until we all decide to leave these shores and trade remotely. Dublin is quite nice so I'm told.

 

[Mwebb]

Many banks and other insurance companies offer salary protection insurance shuld you for any reason be unable to work, or lose your job.

Companies could include this within the pay deal.

 

[Alpha]

Many banks and other insurance companies offer salary protection insurance shuld you for any reason be unable to work, or lose your job.

Companies could include this within the pay deal.

And how long does the protection last for on these insurance policies?

Often they do not even kick in until after 6 months (just to make sure you are really sick/redundant).

So the alternative is to insure ourselves up to the eyeballs and those that need the services the most (Often the poorer families) will have to pay over the odds in insurance due to the risk involved whilst the better off will either pay less or not at all!!

Can you imagine how much it will cost to insure each individual (that includes each child) to cover dentistry, illness, emergency operations, cost of an ambulance, everytime you use the police or firebrigade etc?

And don't forget that insurance companies make profits!!!


I really think that anyone suggesting much lower or non existant taxes and private sector services should really have a much more in depth thought about the consequences.

Now how about better management and accountability at the highest level...ie government....look at the savings that could be made there....£1.8 billion on a stupid identity scheme that has about as much chance of working as a snowballs chance of surviving in a volcano!!

Stop spending sums on useless white elephants such as the Dome.

Devolve responsibility and fund management to local centres (Just the opposite to what the government is trying to crrently do in fact)

Stop pouring funds into training doctors, nurses etc only to tell them after 20 odd years of education that there is no job for them and so they take their skills abroad. we then get the merry -go round that after an economic cycle of this happening we are so desperately short of said doctors and nurses that we have to import them form other countries such as nigeria which then causes massive shortages in their own country and so it goes on.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I've sometimes thought that companies should have to pay up to one year of unemployment pay for workers they lay off - rather than expect government to pay the bills.

Now how would that work if the company has gone bust??

Insurance of some type that is paid out only if the company goes bust.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Can you imagine how much it will cost to insure each individual (that includes each child) to cover dentistry, illness, emergency operations, cost of an ambulance, everytime you use the police or firebrigade etc?

And who do you think pays for this today? You do - in the form of incredibly high taxes!

If the private sector became involved, they would run the business at a profit (nothing wrong with that). They would cut waste, be more efficient, try to win customers from competitors, deliver value, and be accountable. The government is none of these things.

There is one hospital in Cornwall - one! Part of it was closed for a long time because it's unsafe. My niece almost lost her life because a basic procedure was overlooked when she gave birth. Because the government runs it, there's no alternative.

Imagine that this was a private hospital and another one opened up. By being cleaner, cheaper, more friendly, etc., they would win the business. Competition improves almost every aspect of life eventually.

 

[Alpha]

Insurance of some type that is paid out only if the company goes bust.

And that cost would be absorbed in the cost of the companies product or service which would either make the company substantially less profitable and therefore not attractive to shareholders or passed on to customers making them less competitive with eventually the same end product.

The only practical answer is

Better long term planning
Better Management
Beter utilisation of funds

Less waste

On wars that are illegal and cannot be won
ideas such as identity cards that everyone knows would not work


And a social conscience.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Alan,

I agree with much of what you say and don't mean to sound combative. Still, I'd like to get back on something you wrote.

And that cost would be absorbed in the cost of the companies product or service which would either make the company substantially less profitable and therefore not attractive to shareholders or passed on to customers making them less competitive with eventually the same end product.

Today, the government bails everyone out, and they charge ridiculously high taxes to pay for it. If companies had to purchase some type of insurance to cover the cost unemployment benefit for employees in the event they go bust, that's something the government no longer has to pay for - so they can cut taxes. If there's no increase in efficiency, we break even. If the private sector is more efficient (99.999% of the time), everyone wins.

Paying insurance to cover costs in the event of bankruptcy is no different than paying insurance of any other type.

And a social conscience.

Agreed. That conscience, however, resides with individuals, not governments. If the government didn't take so much from me in taxes, I'd give a lot more to charitable work and other worthy causes. By avoiding government processes, money isn't wasted on stupid projects or used to pay for endless bureaucracy.

 

[Alpha]

Today, the government bails everyone out, and they charge ridiculously high taxes to pay for it. If companies had to purchase some type of insurance to cover the cost unemployment benefit for employees in the event they go bust, that's something the government no longer has to pay for - so they can cut taxes. If there's no increase in efficiency, we break even. If the private sector is more efficient (99.999% of the time), everyone wins.

Paying insurance to cover costs in the event of bankruptcy is no different than paying insurance of any other type.

Unfortunately as insurance companies work on the principle of risk and profit the costs required to insure against these type of occurances(Dont forget the others that we ahve discussed such as private medical etc) would in my opinion, be far greater than the cost of providing for it via taxation.

I could guarantee that every insurance company would start from a principle that every company will fail at some point.

Anyway keep on going with the debate its most enlightening and far better than talking about boring accountancy stuff

 

[Steve Roberts]

Please, don't get me going on Tax. My neighbour is a senior civil servant and the waste he talks about is attrocious. After chatting to him recently it got me thinking. Would it not be a hell of a lot fairer and simpler to structure something along the following lines:

20% income Tax (on all income)
20% VAT (on everything)
20% Corp Tax on all profit
Abolish NI and Emp NI

More people would have increased cash in their pockets, so they'd spend more money in the shops. Equally, they'd be incentivised / rewarded to set up in business, so it would encourage entrepreneurs - knowing they're not going to be "extra shafted" by Gordon if they succeed.

Get rid of half the Government Dept's - especially the IR, because Tax would be much easier to calculate collect. And, there would be less people like me, looking at various (perfectly legal) Tax planning options (EBT's / offshore accounts, etc). Equally, if the Civil Service could be whittled down, so it's a double bonus because people that were being paid for by the state (Tax payers) would be contributing to it. In business terms, you'd turn overheads into fee earners.

I realise the above would not seem terribly fair to the "have nots", so clearly you'd need support structures in place. However, if the income from the benefits system is comparable to having a job, then that's hardly conducive to creating a dynamic and prosperous society.

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but the problem at the moment is that it's far too complex an top heavy. As such, the above (or a version of it) would be more sensible for UK PLC in my opinion.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Maybe I'm being too simplistic

Not at all. In fact, we can simplify it even more: Abolish taxes of all forms and replace them with a flat sales tax. This is a serious proposal in the US and is gaining support. It helps everyone at every level and cuts out billions in administrative overhead. Do a google search on "fair tax proposal" for information or go to http://fairtax.org/. As you rightly point out, thousands of paper-pushers would suddenly become revenue-generators for the economy.

In almost every industry, successful companies listen to their customers, cut out unnecessary overhead, and strive to deliver value for money. We discuss these things here all the time. What's wrong with putting these principles to work in hospitals and in schools and for jails and on beaches and on roads? We'd get far better service and we'd pay a lot less for it.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Unfortunately as insurance companies work on the principle of risk and profit the costs required to insure against these type of occurances(Dont forget the others that we ahve discussed such as private medical etc) would in my opinion, be far greater than the cost of providing for it via taxation.

So you're saying that the government can do the work more efficiently than any company - despite having no competition and not being held in any way accountable. This means that waste in government must be less than waste in private companies. Hmmm. Maybe we should just nationalise everything again.

 

[Alpha]

So you're saying that the government can do the work more efficiently than any company - despite having no competition and not being held in any way accountable. This means that waste in government must be less than waste in private companies. Hmmm. Maybe we should just nationalise everything again.

no you are continually missing the point(and just like most politicians I think you are doing this on purpose :wink: )

Private companies are in business to make substantial profits for their shareholders. Governments do not make profits they re distribute wealth.

So no matter the efficiency savings on one hand there will always be corporate greed on the other. This is why insurance is not a prcatical alternative to the welfare state..........as well you know :wink:

 

[Cornish Steve]

Private companies are in business to make substantial profits for their shareholders. Governments do not make profits they re distribute wealth.

...in a most inefficient and often bizarre manner. Why not leave it to private individuals to redistribute their wealth? You and I both have a conscience and would be willing to help others. I'm sure there are millions of other decent folk who would do the same.

So no matter the efficiency savings on one hand there will always be corporate greed on the other.

When our companies become more successful and we generate large profits, will we just be greedy? Why assume the worst of everyone? I plan to plough resources into Cornwall and help a people that have been downtrodden for too long. The government shows no willingness to do so, so I'm going to. Cases of greed hit the deadlines, but most people are decent and generous. Having traveled to almost 70 countries around the world, no country's citizens have the heart and the conscience of the British people.

just like most politicians I think you are doing this on purpose :wink:

Did I ever admit that I was once an approved parliamentary candidate? Went through the interviews and everything. Thank goodness I was never elected or the country would have gone to the dogs!

 

[dagr]

I selected "receive the same" simply because, taken on its own, the amount of tax received by the government doesn't mean much until you compare it to what and how it wants to accomplish. Polls always bring out the pedant in me.

On how to accomplish:
I do believe that private entreprise can do better than government. For example, few people today would agree that only the government could produce steel, yet at a time this was seen as critical and ideed probably was for a very short time period. Likewise, the health service (where my company operates), because it's a more emotional area, I find people confuse a popular, majority-held view of "free healthcare for all" with "the government must provide free healthcare for all". (On the specific point of the NHS's problems, the bottom line is overall funding, although a mammoth organisation will always have structural inefficiencies). For a country like the UK, in my opinion, and the armed forces aside, we should be looking at a maximum total number of civil servants of around 100-200K.

On how taxes are raised:
Steve's 20/20/20 split looks appealing. Although I count myself as a capitalist, I view capitalism as a tool or mechanism, not a philosophy or political stance. By this I mean it has no goal or aspiration, but is rather a way to achieve things. The implication of this is that you cannot rely on capitalism alone to guide or set policy. This has two major implications when setting tax policy:
- The need for checks and balances
- The relationship between an individual's effort, merit and reward.

While inheritance tax is terrible from the individual's perspective, I believe it is a good thing from a macro-economic, capitalistic point of view. It prevents the build-up of accumulated, closed-circuit capital over several generations where the money goes "stale".