At the ASI.
Now that we\’ve decent measurements of the incidence of employers\’ national insurance we should reduce it for the working poor, right?
At the ASI.
Now that we\’ve decent measurements of the incidence of employers\’ national insurance we should reduce it for the working poor, right?
If I may be indulged in a low grade grizzle about NI, when I came to State Pension age I had accumulated 45 years worth of contributions but needed only 30 to get full pension. Perhaps in future people who have accumulated 30 (soon to be 35) years of contributions should be allowed to stop contributing? That would help them … insert pious activity e.g. save the whales … instead.
I thought the living wage advocates saw the pot paying tax as a feature not a bug?
That way they can salve their conscience by giving the poor someone else’s money and then confiscate it to ensure that it isn’t spent on things that aren’t approved by progressives.
Arghhhh poor not pot
Well, no, because you do not address the argument that for the purposes of social cohesion it’s important that everyone, no matter how poor, participates in the tax system.
@Churm:
If we had a flat tax at a low rate, then this would address the matter of social cohesion.
As it is at the moment, the recipients of state welfare (benefit class and those working for the state) are incentivized to vote for whichever party will give them the most money.
In the UK, this is Labour. This works because welfare recipients are paid regardless and most state workers pay only basic rate income tax @ 20% (plus NI) after a generous tax free allowance of £9,440 for 2013/2014 tax year.
This very disconnection allows governments of all hues to raise taxes for middle and upper income groups (the ones actually paying the majority of tax revenue) without affecting those in the lower group.
It is this ability to elect a government who will pay for largess in the welfare / state employees group by taxing middle income workers which is destroying social cohesion and setting one group against another.
We now have a situation where the rising cost of living for ordinary working folks NOT in receipt of tax credits along with taxation at around 50-60% of all earnings (Income Tax, NI, VAT, Council Tax, etc.), means that middle class families are genuinely struggling to survive.
Tim says “Cut NI for the working poor”, but the reality is that we already do that. We tax them and give them more than we take back in welfare and tax credits.
True, of course, John Galt.
But the real issue is not social cohesion. It is, as your name would suggest you know, the erosion of personal responsibility.
I’m all for helping those who cannot help themselves. That does not mean paying the living costs of almost all individuals in rebates, (housing | child | god knows what) benefits–and then taxing everyone to pay for it, intriducing perverse incentives along the way.
Help the incapacitated, by all means. Abolish corporation tax, national insurance and income tax for those earning over £20K.
And abolish completely all these fiddly “benefits” that are just transfers back to ourselves, after the state has put its interfering and inefficient fingers into the pot.
If we (most of us) paid tax in a lump so it hurt, social cohesion might be a valid concern. But, for the vast majority of people tax dribbles out mostly un-noticed – most people don’t do the sums, they just look to see how much money they had.
Frankly, I didn’t until I was on a bonus earning job …
Society is fragmented – and each fragment votes what it sees as its own interests. Frankly, I’m more concerned about the voting power of the state nomenklatura than that of the never-worked-a-day. There are far more of the former, for a start, and their interests are much more closely aligned with an ever-more-powerful statist monstrosity.
Surely not? Income tax only for those earning over?