B438 - Welfare Bill 2012
TSR's model parliament.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Please change your TSR password | 23-05-2013 | |
-
Re: B438 - Welfare Bill 2012
Seems like quite a good Bill from what I can see. Adjusting the numbering so that the subsections of each Part starts with 1 would help for referring/ amending this Act later. Quick question, would there be any room for the provision of free bus passes to children who have to use buses to travel to school? This would mean that the cost of the essential travel to school to be taken up by the state. I'm wondering if the money from free buses for the elderly being stopped could be spent there. Just an idea.
-
Re: B438 - Welfare Bill 2012
I agree with the entirety of part 1 bar the citizens income to all citizens (i just cannot see it incentivising work). I agree with the premise but it needs to be limited to those in work (to act as a bonus).
I agree with 5, 7 and 9 however I would rather see a flat income tax rate for 6 and would rather see 8 remain the same (direct taxation is the priority). -
Re: B438 - Welfare Bill 2012School bus funding is currently a local issue, and I don't see any benefit from changing that. After all it is the local councils who are working with local bus companies, not central government.(Original post by toronto353)
Seems like quite a good Bill from what I can see. Adjusting the numbering so that the subsections of each Part starts with 1 would help for referring/ amending this Act later. Quick question, would there be any room for the provision of free bus passes to children who have to use buses to travel to school? This would mean that the cost of the essential travel to school to be taken up by the state. I'm wondering if the money from free buses for the elderly being stopped could be spent there. Just an idea. -
Re: B438 - Welfare Bill 2012Do explain.(Original post by JPKC)
The "take from the farmers, give to everyone else" Bill 2012. I'll give a fuller response once I've had some breakfast. -
Re: B438 - Welfare Bill 2012I've had some breakfast now so here we go.(Original post by Wednesday Bass)
Do explain.
Firstly, we need to actually debate the merits of a land value tax - I noticed that in the Tax Bill 2011 a lot of members simply nodded it through because, well, the Bill it came in looked nice and professional. I hope the same doesn't happen this time around.
I've been trying to find some external justification for the gross land value (as stated in David Richards' somewhat obscure work) but to this point haven't been able to find anything online covering it - I'd appreciate some explanation for how the figure was realised.
Assuming that it is watertight, there are still numerous problems with the implementation - firstly, the Bill here (and B408) assumes wrongly that all land in the UK is liable for taxation. The Government happens to own around 17%+ of all this land and cannot tax itself. Similarly, charities like the National Trust and RSPB have substantive holdings that shouldn't be taxed either - together the amount of untaxable land probably reaches around c.23%, and that ignores the Crown Estates and land owned by the Church.
Secondly, could anyone who has so far nodded this by actually specifically tell me how much a farmer, with, say, 40,000 acres, would end up paying in tax for their land per annum?
Land value taxes were first proposed at a time when the amount of land owned correlated with personal fortune, this is not the case today as wealth now is concentrated in areas like the City (in contrast to places like Downton Abbey 100 years ago). This undermines J&T's somewhat unfounded claim that this is a "hugely progressive" tax. How?
Another problem of impracticality is that 40% of all land in the UK is not registered with an owner, it only comes to the attention of the Land Registry when it is part of a transaction - this obviously impedes the ability of the taxman to see who owns/owes what.
I believe that we should have a ground rent tax, but I think that making it our prime source of revenue by such an extent is a step too far - I'd expect Lib Dem, Labour, Socialist, UKIP and Tory colleagues to consider the ramifications of destroying the redistributive nature of the tax system.
As for the welfare section, I broadly agree with the principle of a basic income, but I'm not confident in the nuances of this proposal - for instance, why call it the Citizen's Income if legal residents can claim it? Seems a minor oversight. It's also odd that the figures for the CI have no explanatory notes - why make a distinction between retirees and adults? Why not just have employed people/unemployed people because ultimately that's what the difference comes down to. I think an adult's amount should remain static until their death.Last edited by JPKC; 25-04-2012 at 10:43. -
Re: B438 - Welfare Bill 2012It helps the tax payer(Original post by mevidek)
No; why scrap free bus passes; surely that doesn't help anyone? (Might just be me misreading the bill, however). -
Re: B438 - Welfare Bill 2012But it doesn't help people who rely on bus passes.(Original post by Keckers)
It helps the tax payer -
Re: B438 - Welfare Bill 2012Not quite. Although farms are large by area - they are not particularly valuable land.(Original post by JPKC)
The "take from the farmers, give to everyone else" Bill 2012. I'll give a fuller response once I've had some breakfast. -
Re: B438 - Welfare Bill 2012Why give someone a free bus pass when you could give them whatever it costs to buy a bus pass, but let them spend the money as they see fit?(Original post by mevidek)
No; why scrap free bus passes; surely that doesn't help anyone? (Might just be me misreading the bill, however).
It's like being given a £10 voucher for your birthday instead of £10 cash when everyone knows that the cash would be more convenient.Last edited by JPKC; 25-04-2012 at 14:21. -
Re: B438 - Welfare Bill 2012http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ntents/enacted - except numbering doesn't work like that.(Original post by toronto353)
Seems like quite a good Bill from what I can see. Adjusting the numbering so that the subsections of each Part starts with 1 would help for referring/ amending this Act later. Quick question, would there be any room for the provision of free bus passes to children who have to use buses to travel to school? This would mean that the cost of the essential travel to school to be taken up by the state. I'm wondering if the money from free buses for the elderly being stopped could be spent there. Just an idea. -
Re: B438 - Welfare Bill 2012But the question you have to ask is why provide any particular group with free bus passes over another? I've argued above for students having free bus passes to get to school, but they don't have free bus passes. If there's a particular reason for doing so, then fine, but can you justify prioritising one group over another and if you are doing, what criteria are you using to do so?(Original post by mevidek)
No; why scrap free bus passes; surely that doesn't help anyone? (Might just be me misreading the bill, however). -
Re: B438 - Welfare Bill 2012Precisely this.(Original post by JPKC)
Why give someone a free bus pass when you could give them whatever it costs to buy a bus pass, but let them spend the money as they see fit?
(I'll respond more fully to your larger post soon, not ignoring it, just trawling through and responding by easiest first).
Applies to your complaint also (JPKC's quoted post).(Original post by xXediXx)
x -
Re: B438 - Welfare Bill 2012Ah ok, just thought it would make it easier for this House.(Original post by jesusandtequila)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ntents/enacted - except numbering doesn't work like that.