UK Budget- The Axe Falls

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This ends up going into one of those "What if" situations where some one who didn't have an opportunity to create money because some one in the market is already there would then get the opportunity to make that money in their place.

When people leave, the wealth they would have recieved means they would have no longer recieve it, but other people do instead of them. Thus the money stays within the system. Therefore providing opportunities for others to recieve it.

Unless people, when they leave, take their money with them; further, hyper taxation always hits the poor as well as the rich, and as soon as you start making money you get even more hammered for it.

Even further, such a State (like the Labour one now being dismatled) has greater incentives not to work than to make money.

Ergo, tax revenue falls, so welfare dries up, so everyone ends up wretched. It has always happened in every instance, and the harder you push the worse it gets. Witness the difference between 1970's Britain and the Soviet Union; the latter took the doctrine to the extreme and the former was only rescued from complete ruin by Thatcher's own brutal form of politics, far more ruthless than Cameron and Clegg today.

[Beskar]

Unless people, when they leave, take their money with them; further, hyper taxation always hits the poor as well as the rich, and as soon as you start making money you get even more hammered for it.

Not necessarily, hyper taxation based on income only affects the money given to the individual. The money being made could hypothetically be used to hire more workers, lower the price of the product, be invested or be saved by the company itself. It doesn't have to be paid to that one person.

Though, I believe I said earlier that ideally, I would be in favour of no tax on income, under an ideal system.

Even further, such a State (like the Labour one now being dismatled) has greater incentives not to work than to make money.

Unfortunately, there are many people who cannot get jobs. I got a friend who keeps getting refused for being over qualified with a BA in History. Some of these interviews they were basically the only one even turning up in a smart dress. There is a real situation of people unable to get work and who want it, and can't get it, and they are expected to live off £50 per week. (I earn that in under 5 hours work).

Ergo, tax revenue falls, so welfare dries up, so everyone ends up wretched. It has always happened in every instance, and the harder you push the worse it gets. Witness the difference between 1970's Britain and the Soviet Union; the latter took the doctrine to the extreme and the former was only rescued from complete ruin by Thatcher's own brutal form of politics, far more ruthless than Cameron and Clegg today.

I haven't actually complained about the Budget for a reason, you know. My only main gripe was the reduction of Corporate tax.

[rory_20_uk]

Not necessarily, hyper taxation based on income only affects the money given to the individual. The money being made could hypothetically be used to hire more workers, lower the price of the product, be invested or be saved by the company itself. It doesn't have to be paid to that one person.

Though, I believe I said earlier that ideally, I would be in favour of no tax on income, under an ideal system.


Unfortunately, there are many people who cannot get jobs. I got a friend who keeps getting refused for being over qualified with a BA in History. Some of these interviews they were basically the only one even turning up in a smart dress. There is a real situation of people unable to get work and who want it, and can't get it, and they are expected to live off £50 per week. (I earn that in under 5 hours work).

I haven't actually complained about the Budget for a reason, you know. My only main gripe was the reduction of Corporate tax.

Although I agree that often the amounts those at the top of companies is obscene (especially when they get multiples of the average wage for leaving tee company they almost destroyed) good ones can add great value to the company. I don't like him particularly, but Steve Jobs has added billions to the value of the company and vast numbers of jobs and sales. He is probably worth the vast sums of money.

The end user gets £50 a week. Sadly, there is an army of form fillers etc to manage this so it costs the taxpayer a lot more to dole out the dole. Many long term unemployed also do other work and just not register it. What is the government going to do about it? They've no material posessions of their own, and prison is more expensive.

£50 isn't much of itself. Hell, my company charges clients £160 per hour for me (I've never bothered to work out the fraction I see - too depressing). Then add in council tax exemption, free prescriptions, free / subsidised housing, increased child benefit allowance and so on it becomes more substantial. Have enough children and as has been mentioned you loose when you work in absolute terms.

[Beskar]

Although I agree that often the amounts those at the top of companies is obscene (especially when they get multiples of the average wage for leaving tee company they almost destroyed)

Agreed, it is quite disturbing.

£50 isn't much of itself. Hell, my company charges clients £160 per hour for me (I've never bothered to work out the fraction I see - too depressing). Then add in council tax exemption, free prescriptions, free / subsidised housing, increased child benefit allowance and so on it becomes more substantial. Have enough children and as has been mentioned you loose when you work in absolute terms.

Yeah, but those those with no children, having to stay at home with parents for example, because they simply cannot move out, and no matter how hard they try, cannot get a job, the whole situation is still quite dire and depressing. There should be more opportunities for people to get work. Unfortunately, I believe one of the schemes to do that was recently scrapped by the conservatives in this budget. Another bad move, in my opinion.