neilh
So many of these threads are interlinked. I read somewhere that the average tax kick-back to the average "wealthy" person will be £17,500 per year. That would actually pay for a couple of youngsters to get into work at age-related minimum wage rates. The overall impact could be another 90 jobs in Dawlish. i posed the question on another thread - why is it better to give the rich another £17,500 ...
the sooner the better
We seem to be going round in circles. See my post above: "If we start from the premise that a couple who have children are actually providing a benefit to society then you get a different picture. Why are they providing ? - because it's their children who will keep society going, who provide the future economy, who do the building, who produce the food, who care for the increasingly aging ...
OK here goes: 1. Assume working population of 20 million 2. Assume 1% are earning more than £150,000 a year (i.e. the 50% tax bracket) 3. So this gives 200,000 in that tax bracket 4. Assume average tax kick-back for this group is £17,500 5. This is roughly equivalent to two people on minimum wage (i.e. £17,500 + JSA or income support for 2 people which state wouldn't have to pay (say £7000) = ...
And just to add to the calculation, I think it's about 1% of working population who are in this tax bracket (haven't checked so please correct me someone). If that's the case, that's about 200,000 people. So if we didn't give this tax kick-back to those people we could create about 400,000 jobs instead throughout the country - or about 90 jobs in a town the size of Dawlish. That would help to ...
Isn't it Alan Sugar who has set up trust into which pensioners could pay their unwanted/unnecessary allowances if they desired?
Good question, and the key is "irrespective of income".
OK it's a fair cop!! I'll withdraw the "in their eyes" assumption!!! Let's just ask the question direct. Do you believe in not giving the elderly preferential treatment? Do you believe in giving the wealthy preferential treatment? I'd be interested to hear your arguments about why the more/most needy in society shouldn't be given support whilst the least needy (i.e. the wealthy) should be ...
We've already seen from the "Child Benefit" thread that some people here are of the view "why give couples with children preferential treatment?". So I guess in thier eyes Osborne is at least being consistent - i.e "why give the elderly preferential treatment?" And for complete consistency we ought to ask the question about those least in need - "why give the wealthy preferential treatment?"
@burneside . you're right, i have ignored immigration but becuase it just introduces a whole host of other social issues not directly related to the child benefit thread. just so that i'm clear though, is what you're saying that we shouldn't support our own children but rely on increased immigration instead to bail the country out of its future social economic crisis? it's a valid solution but ...
