Balance: Jeremy Corbyn's tax return

quarky

ICBM said:

We do indeed have a public spending problem - there's not enough of it.

There is an interesting issues around public spending vs user pays. I think we need to get the right things provided by public spending while subsidising the things that help people to work harder. Of course it is much harder than a simple sound-bite!

scrumhalf

In order to move power from central to local government we would need a radical re-staffing of local government. Other than the money-grubbing bastards who say no to anyone who doesn't come laden with cash I would no more trust my todger to the residents of the nearest crocodile farm than I would trust my local authority not to fuck everything up beyond repair.

It sounds nice in theory, but it wouldn't work.

Fretwired

quarky said:

As for taxing people I sat in a meeting with some, mostly Labour MPs, about 10 years ago, including Blunkett who is a nice guy in which they stated how poor the taxation system is in delivering results. For example for every £10 in tax only £1 gets spent on front line services - the other £9 gets lost in the system. That's why Prescott wanted unitary authorities with tax raising powers - it would have meant £6 or more reaching front line services at the taxes could be raised locally with a central grant from government and as it was more effective taxes wouldn't have to rise.. The Tories are now going some way to fixing this by allowing local authorities to keep taxes they raise locally.

Nice anecdote. Not sure what you are trying to say, but I appreciate it

Anecdote is your favourite word .. you don't have to be so sarcastic .. I'll keep this simple. Central government is inefficient. The tax system, the civil service and the cost of central government and service provision means that on average for every £10 raised only £1 reaches front line services - the other £9 gets wasted. Before raising more tax make sure you spend what you currently raise as efficiently as possible.

quarky

Fretwired;1040034" said:
Anecdote is your favourite word .. you don't have to be so sarcastic .. I'll keep this simple. Central government is inefficient. The tax system, the civil service and the cost of central government and service provision means that on average for every £10 raised only £1 reaches front line services - the other £9 gets wasted. Before raising more tax make sure you spend what you currently raise as efficiently as possible.

Ah OK. Not that I don't believe you (not being sarcastic!!) but do you have a source for that? In this case though, actually the efficient use of the tax is secondary, the primary objective is to close the growing gap between rich and poor. And every £1 helps!

ICBM

Fretwired said:

I'll keep this simple. Central government is inefficient. The tax system, the civil service and the cost of central government and service provision means that on average for every £10 raised only £1 reaches front line services - the other £9 gets wasted. Before raising more tax make sure you spend what you currently raise as efficiently as possible. 

If the other £9 goes to paying incomes to people in this country, who in turn pay taxes, then that in itself reduces the 'waste' because some of it becomes part of the initial £10. Not only that, you then don't have to pay them welfare because they have jobs. And they also buy food, goods and services from UK businesses. which generates further employment, further taxation and so it all goes round again. So how much of that £9 is actually wasted, and how much of it is simply indirect government spending?

The only problem is when the extra money *doesn't* stay in the UK - which admittedly some of it doesn't, since it gets used on Chinese consumer goods and foreign holidays etc.

By and large 'efficiency' in this sense is overrated. As long as the system keeps people employed and keeps generating economic activity then it's all good.

One of the very major problems with privatisation is that often the profits from exactly the same services are taken out of the UK, which makes us all poorer - so in fact private provision is often both less efficient *and* more expensive than public provision of the same services. The free-market proponents don't want to look at the bigger picture though.

Fretwired

quarky said:

Fretwired;1040034" said:
Anecdote is your favourite word .. you don't have to be so sarcastic .. I'll keep this simple. Central government is inefficient. The tax system, the civil service and the cost of central government and service provision means that on average for every £10 raised only £1 reaches front line services - the other £9 gets wasted. Before raising more tax make sure you spend what you currently raise as efficiently as possible.

Ah OK. Not that I don't believe you (not being sarcastic!!) but do you have a source for that? In this case though, actually the efficient use of the tax is secondary, the primary objective is to close the growing gap between rich and poor. And every £1 helps!

I'll find you a source - I have a report somewhere. Closing the gap between rich and poor means improving the lot at those at the bottom of society - much of it is about creating opportunity and improving the stagnant social mobility. If you spend your money more efficiently then you'll have more to focus on improving things that matter like housing, access to specialist health services (drug/alcohol rehab etc), education and so forth. That's why more tax needs to be raised and spent locally with wealthy areas subsidising poorer areas of the country.

For example the Tories cut the adult education budget so if you happen to be a 25 year old who left school with no qualifications and suddenly decide you'd like to get some skills and a job you're screwed. Many of these people may need basic numeracy and English skills and may like to learn a trade. It's now tough for these people - they would be better off in prison or the armed forces as they could get free education. The stupid thing is the country is short of skills yet refuses to invest in them for people over 25.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/26/adult-education-funding-cuts

When you have a strategy and an efficient tax and spend system you can decide whether you need more money. At the moment the more you raise the more you waste.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

I'll keep this simple. Central government is inefficient. The tax system, the civil service and the cost of central government and service provision means that on average for every £10 raised only £1 reaches front line services - the other £9 gets wasted. Before raising more tax make sure you spend what you currently raise as efficiently as possible. 

If the other £9 goes to paying incomes to people in this country, who in turn pay taxes, then that in itself reduces the 'waste' because some of it becomes part of the initial £10. Not only that, you then don't have to pay them welfare because they have jobs. And they also buy food, goods and services from UK businesses. which generates further employment, further taxation and so it all goes round again. So how much of that £9 is actually wasted, and how much of it is simply indirect government spending?

The only problem is when the extra money *doesn't* stay in the UK - which admittedly some of it doesn't, since it gets used on Chinese consumer goods and foreign holidays etc.

By and large 'efficiency' in this sense is overrated. As long as the system keeps people employed and keeps generating economic activity then it's all good.

One of the very major problems with privatisation is that often the profits from exactly the same services are taken out of the UK, which makes us all poorer - so in fact private provision is often both less efficient *and* more expensive than public provision of the same services. The free-market proponents don't want to look at the bigger picture though.

Yes and no. Take the health service - billions have been paid to foreign IT companies for a failed IT project. A big chunk was profit which has been syphoned out of the country and the kit and software tools used were not developed in the UK. Deals with drug company's are not efficient - the drugs are made abroad, not in the UK so again cash leaves the country. There's too much profit in many of these government outsourcing deals - and look at PFI. The the NHS is now forced to pay a fortune to recruitment firms who supply locums ... there is too much waste.

Take defence - billions spent on the failed Nimrod project which didn't actually employ that many people. BAE systems and co made huge profits when they should have been sued. End result the government buys a solution from Boeing.

And too much money is spent on consultants like PWC - yes the consultants pay tax in the UK but PWC will pay dividends to investors many of whom are overseas and will syphon off cash.

ICBM

Exactly - the problem is profits going overseas, not 'waste' per se.

I think it was actually Michael Heseltine who pointed out that buying American helicopters at £35million each was actually *more expensive* to the UK than buying British helicopters at £50million each. (The numbers may be wrong but that's the gist of it.)

PFI is a perfect example of private provision being far more costly than public too. And that's even when the schools built under it don't start falling down, as they have in Edinburgh…

littlegreenman

Indeed. The "savings" from reducing the workforce at my previous public service job by 75% of staff simply paid for the whole lot to be offshored to an Indian private company paying wages to staff overseas. So all the money went out of the country.

Way to stimulate our economy!

Evilmags

18,000 per person value for money? WTF? Health care is about 1500 a year at most (full BUPA coverage) the infrastructure is creaky as hell, the police poor and corrupt. The only valid functions of state are those needing abolished or privitised.

Skipped

Evilmags said:

18,000 per person value for money? WTF? Health care is about 1500 a year at most (full BUPA coverage)

That is a good price.
But when I enquired they told me there is no cover if I am trying to stab the doctor who is examining me.

Or for pre-existing conditions.

So I don't think that is Like With Like.

ICBM

Evilmags said:

18,000 per person value for money? WTF? Health care is about 1500 a year at most (full BUPA coverage) the infrastructure is creaky as hell, the police poor and corrupt. The only valid functions of state are those needing abolished or privitised.

You're either joking or crazy .

Somalia is what it's like to not have a functioning state.

Heartfeltdawn

Evilmags said:

18,000 per person value for money? WTF? Health care is about 1500 a year at most (full BUPA coverage) the infrastructure is creaky as hell, the police poor and corrupt. The only valid functions of state are those needing abolished or privitised.

Burn it all. 

Evilmags

ICBM;1040853" said:

Evilmags said:

18,000 per person value for money? WTF? Health care is about 1500 a year at most (full BUPA coverage) the infrastructure is creaky as hell, the police poor and corrupt. The only valid functions of state are those needing abolished or privitised.





You're either joking or crazy .

Somalia is what it's like to not have a functioning state.

Somalia is hardly and evolved society so the comparison is of little worth. Law, justice and police are all perfectly manageable on a voluntary and private basis as is defence. (Indeed law does not originate historically from the state at all). Prior to 1915 the US built all of its infrastructure without any recourse to income tax at all. Social risk is all insurable at a community level. The cult of the state and it's massive expansion in the 20th century over every aspect of people's lives led directly to national and Marxist socialism at the cost of over 200 million lives. The resultant loss of liberty and property rights said expansion required has trapped yet another generation to the cult of statism, instead of building reserves of their own capital and being free of dependency.

ICBM

Evilmags said:

Prior to 1915 the US built all of its infrastructure without any recourse to income tax at all.

And as a result they didn't have any decent roads until Eisenhower built the interstates using Federal money… and he was not exactly a socialist.

The "cult of the state" led directly to the highly civilised Western societies we have in Europe and now take for granted - and don't realise how fantastic it is, because most of us have no idea how bad life can be in the US if you don't have enough money.

Evilmags

ICBM;1041008" said:

Evilmags said:Prior to 1915 the US built all of its infrastructure without any recourse to income tax at all.





And as a result they didn't have any decent roads until Eisenhower built the interstates using Federal money… and he was not exactly a socialist.

The "cult of the state" led directly to the highly civilised Western societies we have in Europe and now take for granted - and don't realise how fantastic it is, because most of us have no idea how bad life can be in the US if you don't have enough money.

The US has plenty of places that are more civilised and cultured than the UK or most of Europe and plenty of places full of poor first or second generation immigrants. Trying to pretend that Europe has highly civilised and advanced societies when you haven't lived in the South of it is patently ridiculous. Their is far more severe poverty in Greece, Spain, South Italy and Portugal than anywhere in the US. 20% plus unemployment is the norm down here. In the US it is very easy to clear 40,000 dollars in a year, prices are way lower and average living standards are much higher. Despite it being a much younger country.

hungrymark

The US has parts that are more cultured and civilised than the UK as a whole? Yes, but the reverse is also true. Come on Mags, let's keep the comparisons, you know, comparable.

Drew_TNBD

Evilmags said:

Prior to 1915 the US built all of its infrastructure without any recourse to income tax at all.

Didn't they use slaves and chinese prisoners?

ICBM

Evilmags said:

In the US it is very easy to clear 40,000 dollars in a year, prices are way lower and average living standards are much higher.

Not if you get ill and can't earn 40K, or the other way round.

quarky

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05102t3

An interesting listen on inequality with comments from both the left and the right. If nothing else, the last eight-ten minutes are great.