twit of the Week

Quoted from Bigdog

I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more, I'm not saying they should pay less, but the richest 1% pay twice as much tax in hard cash as the poorest 50% in the country added together. They also pay three times more as a proportion under this Tory government than they did in James Callaghan's tax crazy Labour government in the 1970s. They also spend their cash on goods and services which provide jobs in retail and the services industry.

I'm not voting for any party on Thursday because I feel neither of the big two deserve my vote after this shambles of an election. What I do hate though is the politics of generational envy with statements that bear no resemblance to facts.

What's happened to aspiration in this country?

Right, a few (maybe, a couple) posts coming from me responding to previous questions, so just skim past if you want to go after the TOTW bit.

Firstly, in reply to Bigdog, of course the top 1% pay a lot more tax. They take a much higher share of the nation's income so obviously their tax is going to be higher. The, "rich pay most of the tax" meme is a favourite of the right-wing media and 'think tanks', for instance, because they always seem to conveniently neglect to mention how much of the income these wealthy people receive. It's actually quite tricky to track down accurate figures about this, but here's a useful chart:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gLyV1hisR3c/U82T4dH6lQI/AAAAAAAAAq0/DbNaD4nBAJw/s1600/Onepercent.png

Only accurate up to 2012 (and things have got much worse since then thanks to [url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/aug/23/britains-richest-gained-quantative-easing-bank]QE[/url]), but the chart shows that the top 1% of UK earners have more than doubled their share of the nation's income since 1978. Hmmm. Wonder what happened soon after that date?  

In fact, the actual numbers are probably worse than this because the 1978 figure includes not just individuals but married couples as well. The 2012 figure is for individuals so the top 1% much more than doubled their share of income up to 2012 and will then have further increased it as QE has continued.

As an aside, an interesting study has just been published which looks at tax evasion in Scandinavian countries (which, of course, have much higher tax rates than us already), and this seems to show that the wealthiest attempt to evade a higher percentage of tax than those on lower incomes. Interesting, eh? Here's a good chart which shows this.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Screen-Shot-2017-05-31-at-10.50.58.png

Now, assuming the paper is accurate, this doesn't necessarily mean that the rich in the UK definitely attempt to evade tax in the same way (evade which is illegal, not avoid which isn't), but let's face it, they probably do. How many reports do you hear about the wealthy and their shady offshore tax havens, for example? They can afford expensive accountants to come up with complex schemes to avoid paying their dues and so tend to do so.

I realise Bigdog isn't putting a view forward saying they don't pay enough or pay too much, but you have to remember that we're talking about the richest of the rich who have gone from being unfeasibly rich back in the 1970s to preposterously, almost unthinkably rich in the modern era. And much of it has come due to the property boom, not through clever inventions, manufacturing or anything creative which actually adds anything to society. Just being rich enough to own stuff in the 1970s and then continually cashing in ever since.

My view is that these incredibly wealthy people (top 5% or 10% in particular) have benefitted massively from changes in our society over the past 40 years and can easily afford to pay more back into it, so they should.

Quoted from Maringer

Right, a few (maybe, a couple) posts coming from me responding to previous questions, so just skim past if you want to go after the TOTW bit.

Firstly, in reply to Bigdog, of course the top 1% pay a lot more tax. They take a much higher share of the nation's income so obviously their tax is going to be higher. The, "rich pay most of the tax" meme is a favourite of the right-wing media and 'think tanks', for instance, because they always seem to conveniently neglect to mention how much of the income these wealthy people receive. It's actually quite tricky to track down accurate figures about this, but here's a useful chart:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gLyV1hisR3c/U82T4dH6lQI/AAAAAAAAAq0/DbNaD4nBAJw/s1600/Onepercent.png

Only accurate up to 2012 (and things have got much worse since then thanks to [url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/aug/23/britains-richest-gained-quantative-easing-bank]QE[/url]), but the chart shows that the top 1% of UK earners have more than doubled their share of the nation's income since 1978. Hmmm. Wonder what happened soon after that date?  

In fact, the actual numbers are probably worse than this because the 1978 figure includes not just individuals but married couples as well. The 2012 figure is for individuals so the top 1% much more than doubled their share of income up to 2012 and will then have further increased it as QE has continued.

As an aside, an interesting study has just been published which looks at tax evasion in Scandinavian countries (which, of course, have much higher tax rates than us already), and this seems to show that the wealthiest attempt to evade a higher percentage of tax than those on lower incomes. Interesting, eh? Here's a good chart which shows this.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Screen-Shot-2017-05-31-at-10.50.58.png

Now, assuming the paper is accurate, this doesn't necessarily mean that the rich in the UK definitely attempt to evade tax in the same way (evade which is illegal, not avoid which isn't), but let's face it, they probably do. How many reports do you hear about the wealthy and their shady offshore tax havens, for example? They can afford expensive accountants to come up with complex schemes to avoid paying their dues and so tend to do so.

I realise Bigdog isn't putting a view forward saying they don't pay enough or pay too much, but you have to remember that we're talking about the richest of the rich who have gone from being unfeasibly rich back in the 1970s to preposterously, almost unthinkably rich in the modern era. And much of it has come due to the property boom, not through clever inventions, manufacturing or anything creative which actually adds anything to society. Just being rich enough to own stuff in the 1970s and then continually cashing in ever since.

My view is that these incredibly wealthy people (top 5% or 10% in particular) have benefitted massively from changes in our society over the past 40 years and can easily afford to pay more back into it, so they should.

Can't agree, a lot of rich people have worked hard to earn their money and be in the position they're in. It'd be an injustice to give their money to people that can't be arsed.

Quoted from TAGG

Does anyone really want to hear what the 'God bothering' twit has to say anyway???

It's Abbott again for me 👍👍

Sorry would like to change to the scum who robbed my neighbors house and stole his medals.
Any one with info please pass on to the coppers.
http://m.grimsbytelegraph.co.u.....20-detail/story.html

Quoted from arryarryarry

So how is wealth transferred from the poorest to the richest?

Government policy, of course.

Cut tax on higher earners, increase the income tax threshold, cut tax credits, cut benefits. Defund HMRC and let them come to cosy agreements with the wealthy/corporations caught trying to dodge tax. Fail to even investigate tax evasion by the wealthy when given all the information you need to do so ([url=http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/02/09/200000-people-were-prosecuted-for-not-having-a-tv-licence-last-year-but-hmrc-wont-prosecute-swiss-tax-cheats/]shocking![/url]).

What else? Who owns shares? The wealthy. When you cut Corporation Tax, it turns out that the companies don't invest more as they always claimed they would! Who'd have thunk it?

[img]https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screenshot-256.png[/img]

Here's what the IFS thinks will happen to the income of the poor and the wealthy (and everyone else) if the Tories retain power:

[img]https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/images/election2017_images/bns/bn202_fig7.jpg[/img]

Here's what happened under the coalition where the very richest actually took a bit of a hit (don't worry, they can afford it!) but the very well off benefited whilst the poorest suffered:

[img]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cGBSsUPc8sc/VGsocH40chI/AAAAAAAAA3g/drM_D6bu2rA/s1600/distribution.jpg[/img]

Government policy shapes the way the economy operates. Pretty obvious who the Tories care about, isn't it?

Quoted from Mariner Ronnie

Can't agree, a lot of rich people have worked hard to earn their money and be in the position they're in. It'd be an injustice to give their money to people that can't be arsed.

I think you'd be surprised how many rich people didn't do much to earn it, especially considering the housing boom over the past 40 years. If they'd all earned it (as most of them do in Germany, for example), we'd have loads of great, well-paid and productive jobs available in all sorts of industries. As it stands, we're becoming a rentier society with rent-seeking smothering innovation and industry long sent overseas.

I see you're a subscriber to the myth of the benefit scrounger. Although there certainly are a very small number of people who can't be bothered to work and live a relatively comfortable life on benefits, it is far from the norm. Useful information here:

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/editorial/exposing-benefit-%E2%80%98myths%E2%80%99

A few highlights if you can't be bothered to look at the link:

'There are generations of workless, work-shy families'
Among households with two or more generations of working age, there are only 0.3 per cent where neither generation has worked.

'Most claimants are sitting at home on benefits for years'
Fewer than half of jobseeker’s allowance claimants claim for more than 13 weeks, and fewer than 10 per cent for more than a year.

'We are spending vast amounts on huge families with hordes of children'
Families with more than five children account for just 1 per cent of out-of-work benefit claims. 91 per cent of benefit-claiming households have three or fewer children.

Quoted from rancido

Wasn't it Tony Blair and a Labour Government that introduced PFI thereby allowing the NHS to use private companies to provide services ?

PFI isn't anything to do with privitisation. It's off-book borrowing by government which provides a big return to investors. It's a bloody ridiculous idea when you consider how much more cheaply governments can borrow (borrowing is effectively a zero cost at the moment because the interest on gilts is so low). Major's government started it, New Labour continued it enthusiastically (the worst thing they did economically by far) and, despite all their criticism of it back in 2010, the Tories have continued to do it with gusto since then.

Edit: forgot to explain a bit more about PFI - a PFI hospital would be constructed by a private company/consortium and the NHS then lease it back, paying generous (often extortionate) terms to use it over a number of years. Needless to say, it ends up costing the government a hell of a lot more than just borrowing the money to build a hospital and then running it themselves.

I think privitisation of the odd bit of the NHS might have begun under New Labour but the Tories have continued onwards with great gusto. Absolutely no doubt in my mind that they are deliberately running it down so they can claim, "Oh look, private healthcare must be the only solution - let's sell it off". It's why they are massively underfunding the NHS.

About 4% of nhs money went to private care providers when Labour left office in 2010. It's at around 9% now and will continue to rise.

It will become the norm to see the nhs logo next to that of care UK or virgin health or primecare. Just sensible marketing to boost your brand with one that is already well established.

Paramariner is spot on. Whilst  there is some money to be made in parts of the health service(the blood plasma service was sold to an American venture capital group in 2013 for £230million and sold on for about 3 times that recently - to Russians I think) the real golden calf will be the introduction of additional health insurance. Want a better service? Pay a little extra. Simple innit. Sadly healthcare, one of the original 5 giants, will become just another market place. Few will really have any idea of how much the nhs provides until it's not there when they need it because their level of insurance doesn't cover them.

Bloody Hell did not realise I was on an Economics website giving a lecture on fiscal policy.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

It's not to do with numbers, it's to do with how those numbers integrate, or if they even want to integrate and be a part of the general population. There is more terrorism fermented in cities with identifiable Muslim areas because those areas encourage, feed, support and finance terrorists either directly or tacitly by not identifying them.

Not true.

A disproportionate percentage of Islamist terrorists in the UK have been converts (from white and black 'Christian' backgrounds) or 'born again' Muslims with a Muslim heritage but who have previously led 'westernised' lives.

I've changed my nomination.
It's anyone who doesn't realise TOTW is just for nominating TOTW's