Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should we adopt a Negative Income Tax? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nohomo)
    What are the arguments against just doing what loads of people say and taxing the **** out of big corporations (say only let the CEO have about £10 million at most out of the billion he makes a year), then giving everyone the basic income, for security, raising minimum wage to a decent level, and not taxing workers earning under about £100,000-200,000 a year (or maybe more)?
    As Quady said, this is nonsense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Yeah I know, but pretty real figures are needed to demonstrate how it'd be a suitable replacement.

    Thats pedantry really, the outcome is the same. 'Bedroom tax' ring any bells? Even if its not technically a tax, its the withdrawal of income at a set rate.
    I wouldn't call it pedantry at all... removing benefits and taxing someone are two distinct things. It bugs me when politicians conflate them.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nohomo)
    If we did it all over the world though.
    Yeah simples.

    But even then - WHICH UK COMPANIES PAY THEIR CEO £1bn?!?!?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Yeah simples.

    But even then - WHICH UK COMPANIES PAY THEIR CEO £1bn?!?!?
    Sorry that was just an example figure. Hadn't looked into it...I don't take much interest in politics/economics. I was just wondering why we couldn't do this. Just seemed like an easy solution.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I wouldn't call it pedantry at all... removing benefits and taxing someone are two distinct things. It bugs me when politicians conflate them.
    Sure.

    Whats the benefit of doing it that way?

    Just means the payment and tax systems have to know what each is doing, which would be a bit of a mess with people switching jobs and fluctuating earnings.

    Last week HMRC sent me a cheque for £700+ due to PAYE over-payment last year. As lovely as that is I could have done with the money last year.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nohomo)
    Sorry that was just an example figure. Hadn't looked into it...I don't take much interest in politics/economics. I was just wondering why we couldn't do this. Just seemed like an easy solution.
    Its not an easy solution when your figures are so massively out of whack.

    The CEO of BP, the UK's largest listed company (well top three at least) last year pocketed £9m in total renumeration - ie including pension contributions.

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/...bp-triples-pay
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Its not an easy solution when your figures are so massively out of whack.

    The CEO of BP, the UK's largest listed company (well top three at least) last year pocketed £9m in total renumeration - ie including pension contributions.

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/...bp-triples-pay
    That's not great ... we could let him have £1 million, and impose this is a worldwide rule. You get 1 million at most a year.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    http://www.theconversative.com/comme...ve-income-tax/

    what do you think? Is it time for a negative income tax?
    'No'.

    Primarily, I oppose the citizens income. I don't think each person is entitled to the same level of help from the state and I think that it does not address the primary issue putting people into relative poverty which is slow wage growth.

    I agree with curtailing welfare over a set amount but i'd rather just use some of those savings to increase the money you get from existing benefits if needed or better yet use it to provide all job seekers with a bus pass for example so that their existing benefits go further.

    I can see why a lot of people like it and indeed libertarians seem especially bullish but i'm not a fan personally (though I do support a large increase in the minimum wage and measures to increase wage growth generally).
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nohomo)
    That's not great ... we could let him have £1 million, and impose this is a worldwide rule. You get 1 million at most a year.
    If Britain alone did it then it would drive business into competitors like Germany. If you tried to do it across the globe it would fail because there's no way that places like Singapore are going to agree to it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nohomo)
    That's not great ... we could let him have £1 million, and impose this is a worldwide rule. You get 1 million at most a year.
    Yeah its not gonna raise much money though...

    And why would the USA or Japanese sign up to this?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Yeah its not gonna raise much money though...

    And why would the USA or Japanese sign up to this?
    We could tax wealth as well as income. Apparently most wealth is concentrated with a few people. It doesn't seem like the most efficient use of the money.

    How about this, each country imposes this law, but it gets to keep the taxes for spending in its own country.

    That way, we deter people from emigrating to pay less tax, and most people of each country will want to vote it in because it will lift them out of their low standard of living.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nohomo)
    We could tax wealth as well as income. Apparently most wealth is concentrated with a few people. It doesn't seem like the most efficient use of the money.

    How about this, each country imposes this law, but it gets to keep the taxes for spending in its own country.

    That way, we deter people from emigrating to pay less tax, and most people of each country will want to vote it in because it will lift them out of their low standard of living.
    Not every country will sign up to it.

    I do agree with regards to wealth, we should tax land.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    'No'.

    Primarily, I oppose the citizens income. I don't think each person is entitled to the same level of help from the state and I think that it does not address the primary issue putting people into relative poverty which is slow wage growth.

    I agree with curtailing welfare over a set amount but i'd rather just use some of those savings to increase the money you get from existing benefits if needed or better yet use it to provide all job seekers with a bus pass for example so that their existing benefits go further.

    I can see why a lot of people like it and indeed libertarians seem especially bullish but i'm not a fan personally (though I do support a large increase in the minimum wage and measures to increase wage growth generally).
    The problem with the existing system in dealing with poverty is that so many do not know what they are entitled to. That means they don't collect. That means they suffer poverty needlessly. The current system fails those who most need it. It is bureaucratic, ineffective, and expensive. By adopting a negative income tax policy we can help more people for less money. Fine, a few 'undesirables' get benefit as well, but in my opinion, that comes second to helping those people that actually need it.

    While I haven't included it within the article, we should also remember that most crime results from poverty. By tackling all poverty, for everyone, we can reduce crime significantly.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    The problem with the existing system in dealing with poverty is that so many do not know what they are entitled to. That means they don't collect. That means they suffer poverty needlessly. The current system fails those who most need it. It is bureaucratic, ineffective, and expensive. By adopting a negative income tax policy we can help more people for less money. Fine, a few 'undesirables' get benefit as well, but in my opinion, that comes second to helping those people that actually need it.

    While I haven't included it within the article, we should also remember that most crime results from poverty. By tackling all poverty, for everyone, we can reduce crime significantly.
    I agree entirely but that's an argument for the IDS universal benefit in my opinion along with greater transparency in the system (perhaps one could register to vote online once a year and at the same time be obligated to go through a process which tells them what state help they are entitled to).

    Loosely but Brown (though I hate to admit it) and the coalition appear to have had some success here (at least in my area and my wider perception anyway).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I agree entirely but that's an argument for the IDS universal benefit in my opinion along with greater transparency in the system (perhaps one could register to vote online once a year and at the same time be obligated to go through a process which tells them what state help they are entitled to).

    Loosely but Brown (though I hate to admit it) and the coalition appear to have had some success here (at least in my area and my wider perception anyway).
    You may not have noticed, but universal credit is turning out to be a failure - why? Because of the complexity of the system.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    You may not have noticed, but universal credit is turning out to be a failure - why? Because of the complexity of the system.
    Aye and when you take the 'bedroom tax' and disability review into account I personally get the impression he's incompetent when it comes to implementation. With that being said, it can be done even if requires a slower approach (not a bad thing per say since both government and opposition back it).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    You may not have noticed, but universal credit is turning out to be a failure - why? Because of the complexity of the system.
    So don't even bother coupling the tax and benefit systems.

    Even theoretically it hurts.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Yeah simples.

    But even then - WHICH UK COMPANIES PAY THEIR CEO £1bn?!?!?
    :rofl:

    The rich have unlimited funds and owe the poor everything.

    Where have you been?

    :rofl:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    :rofl:

    The rich have unlimited funds and owe the poor everything.

    Where have you been?

    :rofl:
    Its just they 'don't take much interest in politics/economics'...
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    There are benefits and drawbacks to both a gradually withdrawn system and the basic income guarantee. I don't like the latter because I don't think it's fair to tax the poor so that uncle government can pay £12k or whatever the basic income is a year to millionaires. But then if you taper it out, that is equivalent to an income tax, it's important to remember in discussions about income that people make their decisions at the margins, not just at the lump sum they get at the end of the month. Taking away x% of their welfare check as they earn a certain amount is equivalent to taking x% of everything above that certain amount, so you have to be extremely careful with what withdrawal rate you pick.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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