Whitey Grandad

Found it:

Well, I'm in favour of a parent being at home to look after the children. There's something not right about going out to work to earn money to pay for someone to look after your children. What are you advocating? Taxpayer A gives money to parent B so that they can pay a childminder and go out to work? It's the phrase 'those who don't need it' that I always have trouble with. Does that include those who saved their money instead of smoking or drinking it? To them that have shall be taken away, and to them that have not shall be given.

Wasted on me, far too subtle. The name comes from my grandchildren and refers to my hair, what's left of it, and distinguishes me from the other grandad who has dark hair, and possibly more of it.

Not Papa?

I didn't say time & motion study, you must not let your preconceptions influence what you read. There's no harm in seeing things from an alternative perspective. You seem to judge my general comments about our vast public sector by your experience of an inner-city comprehensive. Even so, I'm sure you could take a look around next time you're working and you'll identify those who are strolling through their working life and those who are (I hesitate to put it this way but I can't think of a less confrontational expression) 'putting in a fair day's work'.

Good for you.

No element of risk about it It's a certainty, and this from someone who has 65% of their sales from the EC.

It's not the current politically-correct terminology, which I believe is 'black', but 'coloured used to be the preferred usage. For goodness's sake, why does anyone have to keep on about anybody's skin colour? It is as important as the colour of their hair or the colour of their eyes. Even on BBC radio they cannot have a guest without mentioning their colour. What matter the colour of a man's skin, so long as his heart be true?

Not many of those are Pardew's men. I would expect a bit of a clearout to make way for some new faces.

It would make it a lot more costly and difficult.

Oh my gawd, they've changed our boundaries 3 times and we're still bleeding Lib-Dem.

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.