Turn on thread page Beta

B403 - Redistributive Tax Bill 2011 watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I think the TSR Government misses the point. To help the poor, we can't just go attack the rich and give it to the poor. Because in doing so you are attacking the people creating all of the jobs. You are attacking the most mobile people; the people who can move to a low-tax nation whenever they like. And you are also attacking the people who can hire the top accountants to reduce their tax bill.

    So what can we do? I'll tell you, we can simply tax EVERYONE less. Everyone keeps more of their money, this is good for the people and this is good for the economy because it empowers the consumer to spend more and get things moving.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    I think the TSR Government misses the point. To help the poor, we can't just go attack the rich and give it to the poor. Because in doing so you are attacking the people creating all of the jobs. You are attacking the most mobile people; the people who can move to a low-tax nation whenever they like. And you are also attacking the people who can hire the top accountants to reduce their tax bill.

    So what can we do? I'll tell you, we can simply tax EVERYONE less. Everyone keeps more of their money, this is good for the people and this is good for the economy because it empowers the consumer to spend more and get things moving.
    But surely if you tax everyone less it'll mean the government gets less money meaning they have less money to play with when it comes round to doing the budget?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    But surely if you tax everyone less it'll mean the government gets less money meaning they have less money to play with when it comes round to doing the budget?
    Less money to waste, yes
    Ultimately I believe that taxing everyone high and then trying to "help" them with bureacratic government programs is going to hurt them a lot more than if you just didn't take so much income away from them in the first place.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    Less money to waste, yes
    Actually I meant woun't it lead to less money to spend on the things it needs therefore more cuts?

    Ultimately I believe that taxing everyone high and then trying to "help" them with bureacratic government programs is going to hurt them a lot more than if you just didn't take so much income away from them in the first place.
    Well we are up economic **** creek without a paddle so the money has to come from somewhere, and it can't all come from trade and taxes from companies and organisations.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    Less money to waste, yes
    Ultimately I believe that taxing everyone high and then trying to "help" them with bureacratic government programs is going to hurt them a lot more than if you just didn't take so much income away from them in the first place.
    It's interesting you assume bureacratic and government go together so automatically. In many cases your are, of course, entirely correct - the private sector does it more efficiently. But the evidence is pretty conclusive when it comes to the health service that the private sector wastes far more money, on any metric - proportion of money spent on admin, total amount spent compared to health outcomes, procedures done, number of people, quality metrics, etc. When it comes to healthcare, the private sector is even more bureaucratic, so you waste more money if it were privately produced.

    On education and transport it depends on specifics and the jury is still out, but there's good evidence that it's not so clear that the private sector is more efficient or less bureaucratic for these.

    That's not to mention infrastructure, which the private sector simply can't provide in anywhere near an efficient quantity, and so there's no comparison to be made in terms of bureaucracy.

    If you want to really cut taxes and thus spending, you need to cut some of these, as they account for so much of the government budget. Which means at least as inefficient a system where this is provided by private money. So more wasted money, not less, from transferring these.

    By all means attack the public sector for bureaucracy, suggest reforms to make it more efficient, join the debate on the areas where it's not clear whether the private or public sector is more efficient, and suggest cuts to other programmes that are equity rather than efficiency judgements. But stop assuming the private sector is this ultra-efficient thing. It isn't, in some cases it fails so badly it wastes more money than government.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Drogue)
    It's interesting you assume bureacratic and government go together so automatically. In many cases your are, of course, entirely correct - the private sector does it more efficiently. But the evidence is pretty conclusive when it comes to the health service that the private sector wastes far more money, on any metric - proportion of money spent on admin, total amount spent compared to health outcomes, procedures done, number of people, quality metrics, etc. When it comes to healthcare, the private sector is even more bureaucratic, so you waste more money if it were privately produced.

    On education and transport it depends on specifics and the jury is still out, but there's good evidence that it's not so clear that the private sector is more efficient or less bureaucratic for these.

    That's not to mention infrastructure, which the private sector simply can't provide in anywhere near an efficient quantity, and so there's no comparison to be made in terms of bureaucracy.

    If you want to really cut taxes and thus spending, you need to cut some of these, as they account for so much of the government budget. Which means at least as inefficient a system where this is provided by private money. So more wasted money, not less, from transferring these.

    By all means attack the public sector for bureaucracy, suggest reforms to make it more efficient, join the debate on the areas where it's not clear whether the private or public sector is more efficient, and suggest cuts to other programmes that are equity rather than efficiency judgements. But stop assuming the private sector is this ultra-efficient thing. It isn't, in some cases it fails so badly it wastes more money than government.
    It is clear that at the minute, the government wastes so much money on bureacracy that even if spending were cut in every area, then frontline services would not need to be hit as the bureacracy could be eliminated. There is a lot of completely unnecessary paper pushing going on this sector, obviously you can't eliminate it all since some of is going to be needed but we could easily save billions by cutting bureacracy and taking the tough but necessary action of cutting the bureacrat's jobs.
    I'm certain that in some areas the public sector can do a good job, I consider myself a libertarian, I want less government, but not zero government, and so I don't advocate a 100% private situation. However I think on balance the private sector does things better in most situations. We can say for a fact that things are a lot more productive noawadays than they were in the 70s and I think Britain would do better if even more things were private.

    However my attack on The Student Room Government was less of me trying to deride the public sector, and more in the gear of me saying that the British people would be better off if we handed some money back to them. By all means have a public sector, but sometimes, that money is better off being kept in the hands of the people if its only going to be spent of government programs which 99% of us are never going to use.
    Basically, I feel everyone would be better off if we cut spending and made everyone several thousand pounds better off.

    Also, decreasing taxes could also increase revenues, as per the Laffer Curve. There are of course a number of reasons, from the extra revenue brought in by the increased economic activity brought into place by the lower taxes, or simply because it becomes less profitable for the rich to hire expensive accountants to hide their money and exploit loopholes so they begin paying more at the fairer rate.

    As for areas to reduce spending outside of bureacracy, I'd like to say pretty much everywhere, but specifically I'd like to see the axe strike down harder on defense, international development and welfare. Though my C&U brethren probably wouldn't back me on the former two.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Drogue)
    When it comes to healthcare, the private sector is even more bureaucratic, so you waste more money if it were privately produced.
    Let me guess, this is based on the United States Healthcare system? Australia has both private and public healthcare and the public healthcare while good is bogged down in bureaucracy whereas the private offerings are very much efficient however it also varies by hospital and area in Australia

    I strongly support a MME in the UK but that is a matter for a different thread
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    How many times is bureaucracy going to be misspelt?
    (Original post by Jarred)
    It is clear that at the minute, the government wastes so much money on bureacracy that even if spending were cut in every area, then frontline services would not need to be hit as the bureacracy could be eliminated
    Factitious claims.
    There is a lot of completely unnecessary paper pushing going on this sector, obviously you can't eliminate it all since some of is going to be needed but we could easily save billions by cutting bureacracy and taking the tough but necessary action of cutting the bureacrat's jobs.
    No idea what the bolded means. Also, the statement is arbitrary at best. Please expand what bureaucratic jobs are unnecessary and should be swept? Because whilst I agree that there are issues of bureaucracy (wrt efficiency), I can't but help feeling you're throwing in incessant convolutions without much expansion.
    I'm certain that in some areas the public sector can do a good job, I consider myself a libertarian, I want less government, but not zero government, and so I don't advocate a 100% private situation. However I think on balance the private sector does things better in most situations. We can say for a fact that things are a lot more productive noawadays than they were in the 70s and I think Britain would do better if even more things were private.
    Right. And at the same time, Britain increasingly became a nation of debtors.
    By all means have a public sector, but sometimes, that money is better off being kept in the hands of the people if its only going to be spent of government programs which 99% of us are never going to use.
    Such as?
    There are of course a number of reasons, from the extra revenue brought in by the increased economic activity brought into place by the lower taxes, or simply because it becomes less profitable for the rich to hire expensive accountants to hide their money and exploit loopholes so they begin paying more at the fairer rate.
    It would be highly presumptuous to claim that the 'rich' would do this.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Stricof)
    How many times is bureaucracy going to be misspelt?
    Factitious claims.

    No idea what the bolded means. Also, the statement is arbitrary at best.Please expand what bureaucratic jobs are unnecessary and should be swept? Because whilst I agree that there are issues of bureaucracy (wrt efficiency), I can't but help feeling you're throwing in incessant convolutions without much expansion.

    Right. And at the same time, Britain increasingly became a nation of debtors.

    Such as?

    It would be highly presumptuous to claim that the 'rich' would do this.
    Well firstly, I don't care for your grammar nazism, it was rather clear what I meant in the situations where I mispelt words, it's not as though what I said was completely indesipherable, your complaining adds nothing to your argument whatsoever, let's keep this political please, not personal. Rant over.

    My first claim was not factitious, bureaucracy is rife in every level of government, it IS fair to claim that you could cut spending by a small degree and retain the same level of frontline services. I'm not saying that if you cut spending by absolutely massive margins then you could make all of that up by reducing bureaucracy, but I was saying that the government could easily make efficiency savings by removing bureaucracy and that is true.

    As for the specifics, well without the exact figures I can't go into precise detail, but I would like to see bureaucracy greatly reduced in every department and call on this government to take action. To get more specific, where it is needed most is in the NHS, I heard that there were more administrators there than doctors, never been sure if that's a myth or not, but my point still stands regardless because even if it is false, it is still known by all that the level of administration in the NHS is massive and something needs to be done to reduce cost and improve quality of service.
    Another area is the HMRC. I believe the government needs to replace all benefits with one variable rate of negative income tax, this would make many bureaucratic jobs unnecessary. Even without a move there is a lot of overlap in the duties of the bureaucrats and so we could remove the bureaucrats here.
    The same could be done in other departments.

    Britain isn't perfect right now, but my point was clear. The 70s were a horrible time. I wasn't alive back then, but you find anyone who had to endure them and they'll tell you that things were tough. Britain did improve after the 70s.

    I agree that my final point there was presumptuous but in theory it's true, the question of course is whether it's true in practise. I certainly feel that if you cut taxes by a large enough margin, then what I said would be true for at least some of the rich but I agree that this can't really be guarenteed is perhaps rather hopeful. The tax loopholes should be closed anyway so long as it does not lead to further spending to do so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    >I don't care for your grammar nazism
    > Grammar nazism
    > Grammar

    ...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Let me guess, this is based on the United States Healthcare system? Australia has both private and public healthcare and the public healthcare while good is bogged down in bureaucracy whereas the private offerings are very much efficient however it also varies by hospital and area in Australia

    I strongly support a MME in the UK but that is a matter for a different thread
    No, it was based on having studied the health systems of different countries. The US is about the least efficient system I can think of, but other private systems are also pretty bad. If you graph spending on healthcare compared to healthcare outcomes, you pretty much find that all the least efficient systems are private whereas most of the best are public. There's very little overlap.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    It is clear that at the minute, the government wastes so much money on bureacracy that even if spending were cut in every area, then frontline services would not need to be hit as the bureacracy could be eliminated.
    Clear how? Based on what? Of course there's inefficiency, no system is perfectly efficient. The question is what works better, and the evidence is pretty clear that for many public services, the private sector does even worse.

    I'm certain that in some areas the public sector can do a good job, I consider myself a libertarian, I want less government, but not zero government, and so I don't advocate a 100% private situation. However I think on balance the private sector does things better in most situations. We can say for a fact that things are a lot more productive noawadays than they were in the 70s and I think Britain would do better if even more things were private.
    Based on what? I agree we're more productive than in the 70s, and that the private sector does most things better - cars, meat, steel, oil, construction, etc. - but you've not stated which public services you'd make private. Most of them are pretty clearly more efficient being public.

    However my attack on The Student Room Government was less of me trying to deride the public sector, and more in the gear of me saying that the British people would be better off if we handed some money back to them. By all means have a public sector, but sometimes, that money is better off being kept in the hands of the people if its only going to be spent of government programs which 99% of us are never going to use.
    Same question as above - what is currently public that you'd make private. In fact not only privately provided, but privately funded, as you want to give money back.

    Basically, I feel everyone would be better off if we cut spending and made everyone several thousand pounds better off.
    As for areas to reduce spending outside of bureacracy, I'd like to say pretty much everywhere, but specifically I'd like to see the axe strike down harder on defense, international development and welfare. Though my C&U brethren probably wouldn't back me on the former two.
    So no reduction in public services? Cutting Defence, DfID and welfare isn't going to make everyone several thousands of pounds better off. You'd have to cut a lot, lot further to do that.

    Also, decreasing taxes could also increase revenues, as per the Laffer Curve.
    Only if you're on the extreme high part of the Laffer Curve. There's very good evidence on how much tax you get if you cut/raise it, and it's pretty clear we're on the lower part, so lower tax = lower revenue.

    (Original post by Jarred)
    My first claim was not factitious, bureaucracy is rife in every level of government, it IS fair to claim that you could cut spending by a small degree and retain the same level of frontline services. I'm not saying that if you cut spending by absolutely massive margins then you could make all of that up by reducing bureaucracy, but I was saying that the government could easily make efficiency savings by removing bureaucracy and that is true.
    If you reform public services in a way that reduces bureaucracy without cutting frontline services, then yes. But you can't just cut back office start and assume it'll have no effect, as it'll lead to more police officers, teachers and doctors doing the paperwork that back office staff currently do. You need to reform as you cut to make the back office staff not necessary. Remember managers were bought into the NHS because of huge inefficiencies that happened when nobody was thinking about management. They haven't worked that well, but removing them will just make the bureaucracy and waste different.

    I agree that my final point there was presumptuous but in theory it's true, the question of course is whether it's true in practise. I certainly feel that if you cut taxes by a large enough margin, then what I said would be true for at least some of the rich but I agree that this can't really be guarenteed is perhaps rather hopeful. The tax loopholes should be closed anyway so long as it does not lead to further spending to do so.
    It's not true even in theory, at least that cutting taxes from our current rates would increase revenue isn't (or rather, there's no economic theory I'm aware of that's solution is this). You are right that cutting taxes won't cut revenue by as much as it would if nothing changed, just as raising taxes doesn't raise as much as it would if everyone kept earning the same.


    You've made a lot of unsubstantiated statements, some of which I know to be wrong, most of which are opinions that you've labelled as facts. And none of your solutions would make much of a dent in any inefficiency. Public sector reform is a lot more complex than you've made out.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This is in cessation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This has been withdrawn.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 11, 2011
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.