Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

George Osbourne Planning Tax credit cuts: Fair?

Recommended Posts

The link between the state of the national economy and one's own standard of living can be complicated and seem distant but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

The GDP tells you ultimately how much money there is.

In the sort term, if the state takes measures to improve "fairness", then the poor get a temporary boost, but nobody has yet come up with a way of doing this that doesn't damage growth. Some years later, you may still have your "fairness", but the people you were trying to help are actually living on less than they would have been if you'd just left things alone.

 

I find it odd that you talk so casually about jobs being transferred overseas. How many people are you willing to put out of work entirely and condemn to a life on benefits in the name of "fairness"?

 

Less than have already gone. Economics is hardly an easy thing to do, if it was I'd like to believe that the best for all of us would just be the way. While we have a global economy anything we do is really peeing into the wind. We enforce more stringent taxes and companies leave leaving us worse off. We increase minimum wages and companies go bust or leave again. Honestly, the only way to do things at all is to have one big global country with fixed tax laws and wage laws etc. I'm not crazy enough to actually want to do this mind you...

 

Anything we do, no matter how drastic doesn't really fix the issue as you've stated. We can make things 'fairer' but at what cost? It just utterly frustrates me that some people can put being a billionaire above stopping someone else from starving. That is just unbelievable.

 

Until the entire world reaches a similar level of income and job protection we might as well almost give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They agree to the wage before they ever start work, and profit is only generated because of the capital someone else is risking.

 

Youve no idea how big companies raise capital on an individual basis, im sure the chairman of next on £4 million is not riskIng his personal inherited wealth.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 11:01 ----------

 

And youre completely wrong anyway. Revenue is generated from the output of the workforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Justin Smith View Post

Bearing in mind that the Tories, who are constantly banging on about the importance of cutting the deficit, are also finding money to reduce inheritance tax and bribe (the better off) housing association tenants to buy their house, of course it isn`t fair (or consistent) policy.

 

New labour are the culprits. Not tories.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 22:22 ----------

 

 

How are Labour to blame for Right to buy or IHT changes?

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 11:14 ----------

 

Youve no idea how big companies raise capital on an individual basis, im sure the chairman of next on £4 million is not riskIng his personal inherited wealth.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 11:01 ----------

 

And youre completely wrong anyway. Revenue is generated from the output of the workforce.

 

They wouldnt have the employment opportunity to generate that revenue if it wasnt for the company existing in the first place. It exists because the shareholders put up the capital to start the venture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted by Justin Smith View Post

Bearing in mind that the Tories, who are constantly banging on about the importance of cutting the deficit, are also finding money to reduce inheritance tax and bribe (the better off) housing association tenants to buy their house, of course it isn`t fair (or consistent) policy.

 

 

 

How are Labour to blame for Right to buy or IHT changes?

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 11:14 ----------

 

 

They wouldnt have the employment opportunity to generate that revenue if it wasnt for the company existing in the first place. It exists because the shareholders put up the capital to start the venture.

 

So the entire staff of next stop selling clothing today, what happens to the revenue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Profits are generated by hard working staff. its right that they should receive compensation in the form of a fair wage.

 

Its all supply and demand though. if the wage is unfair then the staff take their skills elsewhere. The company pays what it needs to keep them, but with a view to making a profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shareholders dont produce revenue. Anyone that believes otherwise is a dimwit.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 11:20 ----------

 

Its all supply and demand though. if the wage is unfair then the staff take their skills elsewhere. The company pays what it needs to keep them, but with a view to making a profit.

 

See post #342 for further guidance.

Edited by TJC1
....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shareholders dont produce revenue. Anyone that believes otherwise is a dimwit.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 11:20 ----------

 

 

See post #342 for further guidance.

 

Nobody said shareholders produce revenue by themselves, but their captal consolidates to form businesses without which the workers could not generate any profit. Something you dont seem able to understand. The fair wage is fixed by them deciding to stick with that employer and not move elsewhere.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 11:35 ----------

 

So the entire staff of next stop selling clothing today, what happens to the revenue?

 

So Next stop ordering goods to sell and close down all their shops, what happens to the revenue? Staff are importnat but they arent all the business.

 

The company pays for workplaces and mercgandise as well as staff wages, even during lean times when they are at a loss. Workers are an expense. They are importnat but they arent the whole business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody said shareholders produce revenue by themselves, but their captal consolidates to form businesses without which the workers could not generate any profit. Something you dont seem able to understand. The fair wage is fixed by them deciding to stick with that employer and not move elsewhere.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 11:35 ----------

 

 

So Next stop ordering goods to sell and close down all their shops, what happens to the revenue? Staff are importnat but they arent all the business.

 

The company pays for workplaces and mercgandise as well as staff wages, even during lean times when they are at a loss. Workers are an expense. They are importnat but they arent the whole business.

 

Companies dont exist. They are a fiction. When you say the company pays for this and that, who are you referring to exactly?

 

:hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Companies dont exist. They are a fiction. When you say the company pays for this and that, who are you referring to exactly?

 

:hihi:

 

A company is a legal entity, it exists in its own right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody said shareholders produce revenue by themselves, but their captal consolidates to form businesses without which the workers could not generate any profit. Something you dont seem able to understand. The fair wage is fixed by them deciding to stick with that employer and not move elsewhere.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 11:35 ----------

 

 

 

Been running my own companies and businesses for 19 years. 6 years at business school. I understand. But what point are you trying to make exactly?

 

You and cyclone should get together and discuss this. :hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Less than have already gone. Economics is hardly an easy thing to do, if it was I'd like to believe that the best for all of us would just be the way. While we have a global economy anything we do is really peeing into the wind. We enforce more stringent taxes and companies leave leaving us worse off. We increase minimum wages and companies go bust or leave again. Honestly, the only way to do things at all is to have one big global country with fixed tax laws and wage laws etc. I'm not crazy enough to actually want to do this mind you...

 

Anything we do, no matter how drastic doesn't really fix the issue as you've stated. We can make things 'fairer' but at what cost? It just utterly frustrates me that some people can put being a billionaire above stopping someone else from starving. That is just unbelievable.

 

Until the entire world reaches a similar level of income and job protection we might as well almost give up.

 

It is indeed depressing. In an ideal world, people would not act in such a selfish fashion. People would choose to work even if they didn't have to, in order to serve the community. People who'd done very well would voluntarily give much of their wealth to those who were struggling.

If people were really like that, when a government came a long and asked people making 7 figure salaries to pay 95% income tax, they'd be happy to pay and feel good about themselves; rather than migrating to escape it, or not bothering to do as much work.

The problem is that that's not the way it is. And pretending otherwise makes things worse for everybody.

 

Essentially we want people to be rewarded on the basis of effort rather than achievement.

Capitalism rewards achievement. Achievement is correlated with effort.

Under socialism, and big government ideology in general, there is no link between reward and effort. That's disastrous.

The reality of humanity is that capitalism is a bad economic system, but all the others are far worse. That's why I support it.

 

Maybe one day, somebody will come up with a practical system which provides a better link between effort and reward, but until they do capitalism is by far the best of a poor lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A company is a legal entity, it exists in its own right.

 

companies are a fiction. People are real. People create revenue and execute not 'companIes'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.