Bikes to work 100k+ salary

Worth noting this also applies to low earners who are earning enough for their benefits to be tapered off. Similar high marginal rates apply. Obviously there's less scope for spending on non-essentials there, but it can offer huge savings.

There are few policies that annoy me more than benefits tapering.

I suppose cheaper bikes are a very faint silver lining!

Rich_cb wrote:

There are few policies that annoy me more than benefits tapering.

I suppose cheaper bikes are a very faint silver lining!

Rich, would you advocate a universal income? Genuine question - you and I are on different sides of the political spectrum, but I would be interested to know your thoughts as I'm also exasperated by the huge marginal rate faced by some people who are trying to get out of poverty.

I would advocate a universal basic income but in conjunction with a flat rate of taxation and a small or non existent tax free threshold.

The idea being that UBI would replace all other benefits for the majority of people and that regardless of your circumstance you'd always be better off working.

Rich_cb wrote:

I would advocate a universal basic income but in conjunction with a flat rate of taxation and a small or non existent tax free threshold. The idea being that UBI would replace all other benefits for the majority of people and that regardless of your circumstance you'd always be better off working.

Sounds like communism to me!

(I like the idea of UBI - far easier to administer than the UK's current system though of course that's designed to prevent as many people from claiming as possible)

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

I would advocate a universal basic income but in conjunction with a flat rate of taxation and a small or non existent tax free threshold. The idea being that UBI would replace all other benefits for the majority of people and that regardless of your circumstance you'd always be better off working.

Sounds like communism to me!

(I like the idea of UBI - far easier to administer than the UK's current system though of course that's designed to prevent as many people from claiming as possible)

Flat rate income tax is regressive, which is why it's so popular amongst rightwing policymakers.

Even with our current system the outcome is that the poorer you are the greater proportion of your wage ends up in tax to a startlingly high degree, a kind of latter-day "widows mite". Removing VAT would help to lessen this impact, although I don't necessarily advocate this per se as it has other outcomes.

Of course the above doesn't touch on the ability as you get richer to shield your wealth from the taxman - tax complexity is not about what you owe, but what you "earn". Thus the simplification argument, tenuous as it is anyway, really is immaterial when it comes to wealthier people.

me I can't see what rich folk are complaining about. I aspire to pay higher rate tax. 

I'm also interested in UBI, however it is not clear how it would be implemented wrt disabled folk, large families. It would seem that there would always be need for adjustments

I don't see that all disabled needs would be taken care of by UBI as some equipment can be ridiculously expensive, so I could see that some kind of disability benefit would be needed or maybe have the NHS provide extra equipment (not sure how that would work with building front door ramps or wheelchair lifts for vehicles).

What grinds my gears is how it's more expensive to live as a poor person - electricity key meters cost more to run; small portions of food are more expensive than buying in bulk; rent costs more than a mortgage etc. I think this is known as the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that-the-rich-were-so-rich-vimes-reasoned

Quote:

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't see that all disabled needs would be taken care of by UBI as some equipment can be ridiculously expensive, so I could see that some kind of disability benefit would be needed or maybe have the NHS provide extra equipment (not sure how that would work with building front door ramps or wheelchair lifts for vehicles).

What grinds my gears is how it's more expensive to live as a poor person - electricity key meters cost more to run; small portions of food are more expensive than buying in bulk; rent costs more than a mortgage etc. I think this is known as the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that-the-rich-were-so-rich-vimes-reasoned

Quote:

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

Gotta love a bit of Vimes

Unless it is a BBC Adaptation....

Yes Comrade!

I agree regarding the complexity of the current system and the effect this has on claims.

It also affects people's willingness to work, I know many people who dare not go above 'x' hours per week for fear of the impact on their benefits and therefore on their income. In many cases you genuinely are better off turning down extra work.

If those people were guaranteed to be better off if they took on more hours then many would. This would disproportionately benefit those on low incomes and increase the tax take simultaneously.