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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    We need Compassionate Conservative Capitalism

    In my opinion this means:

    Supporting the NHS (but ensuring it is efficient as possible and delivering the best possible value for taxpayers)
    free education for all up to 18

    Low income tax for all - reintroducing the 10p tax rate for the poorest . I think the 45p top rate of tax is good.
    Tax should NOT penalise hard work. However it's fair that those with the broadest shoulders bear the heaviest load.


    A government which is efficient . There was a report that recently said the government was wasting £31 billion a year in rip-off contracts

    Reforming the welfare state, making all benefits including the winter-fuel payment means-tested. And ensuring a people are ALWAYS better of working than not , even if they are on minimum wage.
    The welfare state should care for the genuinely needy but it should not be an alternative to work for the able-bodied who can work but choose not to.

    Aiming to make the minimum wage higher so it is a 'living wage'.

    The government should give tax breaks to companies for employing a significant number of new employees.

    Maybe we could even introduce a redundancy tax paid by employers -that could be a proportion of the salary of the person who was made redundant salary- that could be used to finance unemployment benefits. Just an idea!

    We should tackle benefit fraud and tax avoidance simultaneously.

    The government should aim to limit spending to the amount raised in taxes.
    If possible running a surplus in the boom years and using this to finance increased spending through the (inevitable) future recessions.


    Discuss...
    If the minimum wage is too little, and is a living wage, why should those who aren't in work deserve to earn less than is necessary to live
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Ok sound like thatcher part 2!
    Sounds nothing like thatcher. She sold off national industries to foreign cartels, sacrificed the north to maintain the wealth of the south and created an economy reliant on special favours being granted to financial service businesses.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FelixTheKat)
    If the minimum wage is too little, and is a living wage, why should those who aren't in work deserve to earn less than is necessary to live
    The biggest issue with the minimum wage is that it a barrier of entry for thousands of individuals to get into employment. If you can't work for more than the arbitrary valuation of the minimum wage set by the state then you are never going to find employment.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FelixTheKat)
    If the minimum wage is too little, and is a living wage, why should those who aren't in work deserve to earn less than is necessary to live
    but they clearly aren't earning anything if they are not in work.

    they are receiving benefits.

    If you get the same amount of money working as you do if you rely on the State. Then there are people who will choose to claim benefits instead of working which will lower productivity overall.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    Sounds nothing like thatcher. She sold off national industries to foreign cartels, sacrificed the north to maintain the wealth of the south and created an economy reliant on special favours being granted to financial service businesses.
    I'll concede that the North Sea oil revenues were not invested wisely.

    The privatisation could have got more cash for the taxpayer.

    Surely you have to admit that the 'big bang' turned London into a global centre for finance.

    Plus the miners were going to be out of work -especially with all this talk about global warming
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    but they clearly aren't earning anything if they are not in work.

    they are receiving benefits.

    If you get the same amount of money working as you do if you rely on the State. Then there are people who will choose to claim benefits instead of working which will lower productivity overall.
    Even so, surely you believe they have the right to live
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FelixTheKat)
    Even so, surely you believe they have the right to live
    Of course I do.

    I think it would be better for the government to spend money on creating jobs than on unemployment benefits

    I'm just making a common sense argument that if life on benefits is better than life in (low-paid) work* then we have a problem!

    *which is sometimes the case
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    I'll concede that the North Sea oil revenues were not invested wisely.

    The privatisation could have got more cash for the taxpayer.

    Surely you have to admit that the 'big bang' turned London into a global centre for finance.

    Plus the miners were going to be out of work -especially with all this talk about global warming
    You are missing my point completely. You are highlighting problems in your first post that have been targeted for fixes by politicians for years. The state has thrown more and more money at trying to help people. However, it has not worked. The state is well intentioned in its actions, but it acts so heavy handedly that there are far reaching consequences to many of its actions which are incredibly damaging to individuals or the economy as a whole.

    More government 'help' is not the answer. The only people it helps is those who are part of the political classes, and those who can weasel special favours out of them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    You are missing my point completely. You are highlighting problems in your first post that have been targeted for fixes by politicians for years. The state has thrown more and more money at trying to help people. However, it has not worked. The state is well intentioned in its actions, but it acts so heavy handedly that there are far reaching consequences to many of its actions which are incredibly damaging to individuals or the economy as a whole.

    More government 'help' is not the answer. The only people it helps is those who are part of the political classes, and those who can weasel special favours out of them.
    I agree , though I think investment in infrastructure can do wonders to revive areas!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    I agree , though I think investment in infrastructure can do wonders to revive areas!
    You mean in the same way that public finance initiatives invested in infrastructure with tax payers money in projects which often massively overspent? There are 4 ways to spend money, and spending other peoples money on goods that you won't be using leads to dreadful service for a high cost.

    A land value tax encourages the private development of infrastructure, private development in a free market leads to cost effective solutions and provides services of value to customers at the perfect price.

    Areas are currently in need of revival because of land speculators holding onto plots with no incentive to improve them. If you tax the unimproved value then it becomes smart for land owners to use the land for revenue generation, hence they develop the land in a way which is beneficial for everyone. And don't just hold it waiting to sell the next time a property bubble grows.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    You mean in the same way that public finance initiatives invested in infrastructure with tax payers money in projects which often massively overspent? There are 4 ways to spend money, and spending other peoples money on goods that you won't be using leads to dreadful service for a high cost.

    A land value tax encourages the private development of infrastructure, private development in a free market leads to cost effective solutions and provides services of value to customers at the perfect price.

    Areas are currently in need of revival because of land speculators holding onto plots with no incentive to improve them. If you tax the unimproved value then it becomes smart for land owners to use the land for revenue generation, hence they develop the land in a way which is beneficial for everyone. And don't just hold it waiting to sell the next time a property bubble grows.
    Hmm well I was thinking maybe the government could recreate some of the very successful London Underground extensions which occurred in the 1930s !


    A land tax sounds good but could penalise some people with low incomes but high assets- potentially harming pensioners. ...a sure way to lose votes!

    Providing that it wasn't say a land version of poll tax it could work abd be accepted by the electorate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    You mean in the same way that public finance initiatives invested in infrastructure with tax payers money in projects which often massively overspent? There are 4 ways to spend money, and spending other peoples money on goods that you won't be using leads to dreadful service for a high cost.

    A land value tax encourages the private development of infrastructure, private development in a free market leads to cost effective solutions and provides services of value to customers at the perfect price.

    Areas are currently in need of revival because of land speculators holding onto plots with no incentive to improve them. If you tax the unimproved value then it becomes smart for land owners to use the land for revenue generation, hence they develop the land in a way which is beneficial for everyone. And don't just hold it waiting to sell the next time a property bubble grows.
    Indeed, the land value tax would also encourage the state to spend money wisely in areas that added real value because it would link the tax take to local house/land prices. At the moment the government takes what it wants and then spends like there's no tomorrow. LVT would stop that practice stone dead because it would force government agencies to think before they invested money, do 5-a-day co-ordinators raise land prices? No. Does better policing and a decent road network? Yes! Therefore if they wanted more in tax they would have to provide the commensurate services to justify it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Hmm well I was thinking maybe the government could recreate some of the very successful London Underground extensions which occurred in the 1930s !


    A land tax sounds good but could penalise some people with low incomes but high assets- potentially harming pensioners. ...a sure way to lose votes!

    Providing that it wasn't say a land version of poll tax it could work abd be accepted by the electorate
    A government backing/funding a successful project happens once in a blue moon. They state is a notoriously awful entrepreneur; but unfortunately has an unlimited wallet which is funded by stealing from the successful entrepreneurs. Never count on the government doing anything well, only count on politicians using their position in office to do well for themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Hmm well I was thinking maybe the government could recreate some of the very successful London Underground extensions which occurred in the 1930s !


    A land tax sounds good but could penalise some people with low incomes but high assets- potentially harming pensioners. ...a sure way to lose votes!

    Providing that it wasn't say a land version of poll tax it could work abd be accepted by the electorate
    Widowed pensioners living in oversized houses is an indication of a misalocation of resources. If they were driving around in Ferraris while the price of oil shot up we wouldn't expect the state to intervene so they could continue to live the high-life, we'd want them to find an appropriate car that didn't cost the earth. The same principle needs to be applied to the housing market.
 
 
 
  • 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's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.