Whitey Grandad

And a Kingsland compatriot.

Moving away from any concept of prejudice or preconception, it is readily apparent that we cannot continue to fund the public sector at existing levels. So if someone from above were to say to every public body, 'you will receive 10% less funding next year' ask yourself what the consequences would be, and not just in city educational establishments.

It's an overall observation of all aspects of the 'worker' and how they handle the job situation. Do they operate in an organised manner, what is their body language, even down to how quickly they move.

That would be the bit with the negative slope. I've looked at this again and it supports what I have been saying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_tax_credit Above £6420 the withdrawal rate has the effect of 'making an effective marginal tax rate of 70 percent'. For every £1 earned above the threshold, 39p of tax credit is withdrawn. (It's now just called 'Tax Credits', WFTC ended in 2003)

How many times have you come across the situation where 'the budget has not been spent so we had better use it up or we shall have it reduced next year'?

I too have experience of the public sector and I have seen nothing to make me change my views. Health, education, police, I have never seen anyone working at what I would consider a normal and efficient pace. My views are based on what I have seen and experienced, not on what I have read.

In a nutshell. The public services have no incentive or interest in reducing costs or saving money. Spending on the health service has doubled and the improvement is only 30%. Cutting it by 20% should therefore make no discernable difference.

Figure 1 shows how the incentive to work tapers off. The only incentive to work should be money in the pocket. All these credts and variable marginal rates distort the labour market to the extent that for alot of people it is not worth going out to work, or earning a little bit extra. Don't even get me started on lone parent benefit. A wife can find a boyfriend, decide to get divorced, have all her legal bills paid, keep all the tax credits and lone parent benefits and still expect the innocent ex-husband to pay child support. Financially she is better off than being married.

That reminds me of that Australian TV clip where the interviewee is saying 'no asians'. When asked why he says 'because I can't stand them'. It turned out that he was saying 'no agents'.

And that's part of the problem. There was also family allowance, family tax credit, and all the others. There is also the crazy system of credits for the pensioners. There is a range of income with punitive effective marginal rates which efectively means there is no point in having any savings or investing for a higher pension whilst working.

Indeed. Of course, the 40% and 50% is without the NI contributions from both employee and employer. If you add the employer's contributions to the gross salary and then look at the marginal rate it is frightening.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn3.pdf

But that's where it falls down spectacularly.

They keep changing its name. There's also family tax credit. Just simplify everything. The more you work, the more you should recieve.

Why should you pay extra tax and also receive less 'benefit'? That's double taxation. The extra marginal rate should be sufficient in itself to make the tax system 'fairer', although personally I believe a flat tax system is the fairest of all. I agree wholeheartedly with you about simplifying this crazy system.

It's not universal, it's based on houdsehold income already. The more you earn the less you get and in some case the marginal rate is 70%.

What makes me really angry is when Brown talks about 'taking money out of the economy' when others talk about reducing taxes. It's in the economy already, he's the one that wants to take it out. He treats it all as his money and we should all be really grateful that he lets us keep any of it.

Oh please God, no. I don't think many people realise what a hole our country is in. A hung parliament will achieve nothing. Literally.

Since when has working been necessary?

It should be restored as a child tax allowance. There is no family allowance? You don't have to be working to receive it. Giving anybody money 'discourages' them from working for a living.

It goes on, but it is a big no-no.

More to do with cheap labour than anything else.

It used to be a tax allowance but they were concerned that the father would not hand over the money to the poor, struggling mother so they decided to get rid of the allowance and hand out money instead. All means-tested benefits are a disincentive to work and should be abolished.

The first rule of business: If somebody is indispensable, get rid of them.

Not as ridiculous as thinking that it has no effect. So how many extra millions due to immigration are there in the country over the last 10 to 15 years? I use campsites as a trivial example of its effects. We have no chance of reducing carbon emissions if we need to build at least 2 million more houses over the next 10 years (government figures, not mine).