La Polla Again!

Hunh?

Holding down public sector pay rises to 2% for three years, only half next year\’s expected private sector increase, will increase inequality.

How so? As public sector pay is, on average, higher per hour than private, holding down public sector pay will reduce inequality, surely?

Private equity types laughed all the way to their merchant banks, having expected a much higher tax than 18%. They still pay less than their cleaners.

Again, hunh? The rich pay more tax than the poor. So she must mean they pay a lower rate: hmm……how many of these cleaners pay any CGT? So their rate is zero, is it not?

6 comments on “La Polla Again!

  1. I remember reading that article yesterday thinking ‘he go the bloody socialists again’. Rich people are not the enemy for gods sake – they contribute a hell of a lot in taxes, albeit different taxes for most other people.

    Idiotarians indeed.

  2. Nice point on wage equality.

    The private equity chaps missed a right old trick here. What they should have done is point out that the cleaner might well be on Tax Credits or other benefits and pays an effective rate of tax between 70% and 100%. That, I think, is a slightly more pressing issue than what rate of tax the private equity chaps pay.

  3. “Holding down public sector pay rises to 2% for three years”: boo hoo. I’m retiring so I should get pay rises equal to RPI. Until the fund goes bust.

  4. How so? As public sector pay is, on average, higher per hour than private, holding down public sector pay will reduce inequality, surely?

    Not necessarily. I have two cleaners (one for the laundry and ironing, and one who cleans floors). The laundry person gets £5.60 an hour, the floor cleaner gets £5.80. My salary is £100 an hour. Does holding down the wage of the floor cleaner reduce the inequality in my house?

    Tim adds: Would depend on whether you’re meauring by the mean or the median, wouldn’t it?

  5. ‘Tim adds: Would depend on whether you’re meauring by the mean or the median, wouldn’t it?

    Does this mean that with one measure inequality would increase but declne under the other measure? I would love to see you demonstrate this.

    Tim adds: Being not very serious at all: If the floor cleaner goes down to £5.60 an hour, then two thirds of the population are making the median wage. No one is making less than the median wage (echoes of Lake Woebegon there). You could, if you wished to torture this situation, state that this is a decrease in inequality. This isn’t much worse than quite a lot of political rhetoric now, is it?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.