The General Election Thread

[Chippy_boy]

The most sensible tax post I've ever read on BM

I'm not sure if any post suggesting sacking 20,000 people can ever really reach the heights of sensible to be honest.

I was being flippant about the sackings. "Free and able to contribute to society in more valuable ways" might have been better.

But the key point is there's really no need for a complicated tax system. In fact quite the opposite: having one is inefficient and actually counterproductive. If you want maximum yield from your tax system, you want the most straightforward rules, resulting in minimal chances of error or misunderstanding, minimal chance of "cheating" and lowest audit costs.

How do we pay for pensions with no NI?

Do you think that maybe sacking 20,000 people might have other economic effects?

Through the tax system. Why should someone on £15,000 a year and a zero hours contract be paying NI? It's ridiculous. Gordon Brown's legacy: take money of the poor so you can give it back to them again in credits and benefits. It's utterly idiotic.

And regards the 20,000 "sackings" - it would have excellent economic effects. It's cheaper to pay 20,000 civil servants to sit at home on unemployment benefit that pay them £30,000 each per year for a job that doesn't need doing. But they wouldn't all be unemployed, many would get jobs in the private sector. So overall we'd be miles better off.

I'm all for simplification so everyone knows where they stand and there are no loop holes to avoid paying tax

Precisely!

 

[Damocles]

The most sensible tax post I've ever read on BM

I'm not sure if any post suggesting sacking 20,000 people can ever really reach the heights of sensible to be honest.

I was being flippant about the sackings. "Free and able to contribute to society in more valuable ways" might have been better.

But the key point is there's really no need for a complicated tax system. In fact quite the opposite: having one is inefficient and actually counterproductive. If you want maximum yield from your tax system, you want the most straightforward rules, resulting in minimal chances of error or misunderstanding, minimal chance of "cheating" and lowest audit costs.

How do we pay for pensions with no NI?

Do you think that maybe sacking 20,000 people might have other economic effects?

Through the tax system. Why should someone on £15,000 a year and a zero hours contract be paying NI? It's ridiculous. Gordon Brown's legacy: take money of the poor so you can give it back to them again in credits and benefits. It's utterly idiotic.

And regards the 20,000 "sackings" - it would have excellent economic effects. It's cheaper to pay 20,000 civil servants to sit at home on unemployment benefit that pay them £30,000 each per year for a job that doesn't need doing. But they wouldn't all be unemployed, many would get jobs in the private sector. So overall we'd be miles better off.

A man after my own heart. On another thread you'll see me express similar sentiments in different language. Here's the key thing that I said earlier though:

Complexity in the tax system isn't a failure of people it's a failure to properly utilise technology.

We could create a single program that ran the entire tax system and was able to be hooked up with by certain Government regulated software and we'd do away with a shedload of jobs. The robotics revolution will put 90% of humans out of work within the next few decades anyway so it might just be middle classes are now getting modernised by technology in the same way that the working classes did in the 1980s.

Efficiency comes from embracing technology, not by reducing complexity.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I'm not sure if any post suggesting sacking 20,000 people can ever really reach the heights of sensible to be honest.

I was being flippant about the sackings. "Free and able to contribute to society in more valuable ways" might have been better.

But the key point is there's really no need for a complicated tax system. In fact quite the opposite: having one is inefficient and actually counterproductive. If you want maximum yield from your tax system, you want the most straightforward rules, resulting in minimal chances of error or misunderstanding, minimal chance of "cheating" and lowest audit costs.

How do we pay for pensions with no NI?

Do you think that maybe sacking 20,000 people might have other economic effects?

Through the tax system. Why should someone on £15,000 a year and a zero hours contract be paying NI? It's ridiculous. Gordon Brown's legacy: take money of the poor so you can give it back to them again in credits and benefits. It's utterly idiotic.

And regards the 20,000 "sackings" - it would have excellent economic effects. It's cheaper to pay 20,000 civil servants to sit at home on unemployment benefit that pay them £30,000 each per year for a job that doesn't need doing. But they wouldn't all be unemployed, many would get jobs in the private sector. So overall we'd be miles better off.

A man after my own heart. On another thread you'll see me express similar sentiments in different language. Here's the key thing that I said earlier though:

Complexity in the tax system isn't a failure of people it's a failure to properly utilise technology.

We could create a single program that ran the entire tax system and was able to be hooked up with by certain Government regulated software and we'd do away with a shedload of jobs. The robotics revolution will put 90% of humans out of work within the next few decades anyway so it might just be middle classes are now getting modernised by technology in the same way that the working classes did in the 1980s.

Efficiency comes from embracing technology, not by reducing complexity.

I kind of agree, but why not do both?

Complexity should only exist where there is good reason and something necessarily requires a complex system.

But very often, this is not the case at all. Often complexity is there because of historical reasons and multiple amendments and adjustments. Sometimes it's there to obsfucate true intentions. (For example rail fares are complex so that the train companies can fool passengers and the regulator in order to charge higher fares and maximise their revenues.)

If an opportunity exists to make something more simple and straightforward, why not embrace it?

 

[Damocles]

I was being flippant about the sackings. "Free and able to contribute to society in more valuable ways" might have been better.

But the key point is there's really no need for a complicated tax system. In fact quite the opposite: having one is inefficient and actually counterproductive. If you want maximum yield from your tax system, you want the most straightforward rules, resulting in minimal chances of error or misunderstanding, minimal chance of "cheating" and lowest audit costs.



Through the tax system. Why should someone on £15,000 a year and a zero hours contract be paying NI? It's ridiculous. Gordon Brown's legacy: take money of the poor so you can give it back to them again in credits and benefits. It's utterly idiotic.

And regards the 20,000 "sackings" - it would have excellent economic effects. It's cheaper to pay 20,000 civil servants to sit at home on unemployment benefit that pay them £30,000 each per year for a job that doesn't need doing. But they wouldn't all be unemployed, many would get jobs in the private sector. So overall we'd be miles better off.

A man after my own heart. On another thread you'll see me express similar sentiments in different language. Here's the key thing that I said earlier though:

Complexity in the tax system isn't a failure of people it's a failure to properly utilise technology.

We could create a single program that ran the entire tax system and was able to be hooked up with by certain Government regulated software and we'd do away with a shedload of jobs. The robotics revolution will put 90% of humans out of work within the next few decades anyway so it might just be middle classes are now getting modernised by technology in the same way that the working classes did in the 1980s.

Efficiency comes from embracing technology, not by reducing complexity.

I kind of agree, but why not do both?

Complexity should only exist where there is good reason and something necessarily requires a complex system.

But very often, this is not the case at all. Often complexity is there because of historical reasons and multiple amendments and adjustments. Sometimes it's there to obsfucate true intentions. (For example rail fares are complex so that the train companies can fool passengers and the regulator in order to charge higher fares and maximise their revenues.)

If an opportunity exists to make something more simple and straightforward, why not embrace it?

True.

I mean, it's worth noting exactly WHAT complexity is. Complexity is just the lack of abstraction in a process - everything around us works in very complex ways but we abstract that as background information and focus only on what's in front of us. Having to sit down with a pen and paper and work out the correct fuel/air ratio in your combustion engine every time you wanted to go to the shop is time consuming and somewhat irrelevant from the goal of "buying food".

The car then is a piece of technology that allows us to abstract complexity which results in a simplification.

Going back to the tax system, the problem as presented is that to have a truly fair tax system we would need thousands of differing variables all interlocking and intermingling to produce a decent outcome OR we would use a flat tax to simplify the outcome. We're trading so called "fairness" for simplicity, treating them as sliding scales which the tax system has to work within.

My point on technology is that you can have a single IT system that works out everybody's extremely complex personal tax systems then spit out a simple figure at the end of it without having to absorb more ongoing human costs. Simplicity is only a goal if it doesn't sacrifice efficiency or fairness. No need for a flat tax, no need to employ useless workers, no need to sacrifice "fairness".

This would also allow the tax system to be much more personalised and, though I'm not a massive fan of the idea personally, tax incentives could be given to encourage certain personal behaviours much more targeted than the current system does.

 

[whp.blue]

THERE IS NO LAW THAT MAKES INDIVIDUALS LIABLE FOR INCOME TAX IN THIS COUNTRY !

Got that ?, not even a statute law that has ever gone before parliament, that's why they are referred to as "Contributions", because you agree to them when you fill out and sign a tax return without understanding.

Anyone who disagrees can look it up for themselves, feel free to post what you find.

I always thought it was The Income Tax act of 1842 ??

 

[without a dream]

I don't think PAYE is complex is it? The bands are pretty clearly defined. The complexity in the tax system comes from the self employed and corporation tax doesn't it? A flat rate wouldn't solve those issues.

 

[johnnytapia]

I'm not sure if any post suggesting sacking 20,000 people can ever really reach the heights of sensible to be honest.

I was being flippant about the sackings. "Free and able to contribute to society in more valuable ways" might have been better.

But the key point is there's really no need for a complicated tax system. In fact quite the opposite: having one is inefficient and actually counterproductive. If you want maximum yield from your tax system, you want the most straightforward rules, resulting in minimal chances of error or misunderstanding, minimal chance of "cheating" and lowest audit costs.

How do we pay for pensions with no NI?

Do you think that maybe sacking 20,000 people might have other economic effects?

Through the tax system. Why should someone on £15,000 a year and a zero hours contract be paying NI? It's ridiculous. Gordon Brown's legacy: take money of the poor so you can give it back to them again in credits and benefits. It's utterly idiotic.

And regards the 20,000 "sackings" - it would have excellent economic effects. It's cheaper to pay 20,000 civil servants to sit at home on unemployment benefit that pay them £30,000 each per year for a job that doesn't need doing. But they wouldn't all be unemployed, many would get jobs in the private sector. So overall we'd be miles better off.

A man after my own heart. On another thread you'll see me express similar sentiments in different language. Here's the key thing that I said earlier though:

Complexity in the tax system isn't a failure of people it's a failure to properly utilise technology.

We could create a single program that ran the entire tax system and was able to be hooked up with by certain Government regulated software and we'd do away with a shedload of jobs. The robotics revolution will put 90% of humans out of work within the next few decades anyway so it might just be middle classes are now getting modernised by technology in the same way that the working classes did in the 1980s.

Efficiency comes from embracing technology, not by reducing complexity.

"90% of humans out of work within the next few decades” 20/30/40 years? This sounds rather like the Tory promise to cut back immigration from “the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands” which, as any mathematician would point out might be a reduction of one single person (100 000 down to 99 999).

Robots will never replace anything like that number. There are too many positions that require intellect and intuition - such that will never be reached by robots and that can never be taught by humans - creative thinkers, doctors, surgeons, sportsmen/women, educationalists, politicians (who, despite appearances, are not yet without some form of humanity) quality assurers - who checks on the robots - the robots? Then who checks on the robots who are checking on the robots….it eventually leads back to…the humans.

Oh yeah, and Page 3 birds - the moral outrage if they were to be replaced by robots would be quite something to behold.

 

[Damocles]

Robots will never replace anything like that number. There are too many positions that require intellect and intuition - such that will never be reached by robots and that can never be taught by humans

People who say this are people who don't currently understand the position that AI and robotics are in.

doctors

AI is already used in diagnostics. As more are networked and greater numbers of conditions are used this will only become better. In fact if you have some money stuck around I'd stick it directly into the companies looking at networked computer AI used for diagnosis because they're about to revolutionize the healthcare industry and somebody out there is going to make a billion pounds.

surgeons

The Da Vinci robot is already in hospitals worldwide and commonly used. That's the engineering side down already, robotic surgeons are something that has already been done. Thousands of surgeries a year are performed by robots already, mainly eye surgeries and other non-essential surgeries.

educationalists

Very possible. In fact there's a good case to support that children learn better already from Youtube and edutainement sites like Khan Academy than they do in school settings.

quality assurers - who checks on the robots - the robots? Then who checks on the robots who are checking on the robots

This is the first cause principle. There's no reason robots can't check on other robots, any more than humans who check on other humans.

I want you to remember this - in 1981 a widespread computer was launched in Britain called the BBC Micro. The purpose of this was to provide computer literacy in an age where doubters believed computers would never impact on their daily lives. Now computers aren't just impacting lives, they're ubiquitous and life without them for the newest generation is unthinkable.
The state of current robotics and AI is comparable, we already have robots creating art and music, robots driving cars, trains and planes. We have whole little eco-systems in warehouses where everything is done robotically. A robot can lay a brick, plaster a wall then paint it. This isn't future tech - this is right now.

My point is to imagine the impact on the economy where the BBC Micro robots are in a state of sophistication of the iPhone today.

People always think their job is protected from technology. Usually right up until the day they get sacked and replaced by technology.

 

[DelToro]

Robots will never replace anything like that number. There are too many positions that require intellect and intuition - such that will never be reached by robots and that can never be taught by humans

People who say this are people who don't currently understand the position that AI and robotics are in.

doctors

AI is already used in diagnostics. As more are networked and greater numbers of conditions are used this will only become better. In fact if you have some money stuck around I'd stick it directly into the companies looking at networked computer AI used for diagnosis because they're about to revolutionize the healthcare industry and somebody out there is going to make a billion pounds.

surgeons

The Da Vinci robot is already in hospitals worldwide and commonly used. That's the engineering side down already, robotic surgeons are something that has already been done. Thousands of surgeries a year are performed by robots already, mainly eye surgeries and other non-essential surgeries.

educationalists

Very possible. In fact there's a good case to support that children learn better already from Youtube and edutainement sites like Khan Academy than they do in school settings.

quality assurers - who checks on the robots - the robots? Then who checks on the robots who are checking on the robots

This is the first cause principle. There's no reason robots can't check on other robots, any more than humans who check on other humans.

I want you to remember this - in 1981 a widespread computer was launched in Britain called the BBC Micro. The purpose of this was to provide computer literacy in an age where doubters believed computers would never impact on their daily lives. Now computers aren't just impacting lives, they're ubiquitous and life without them for the newest generation is unthinkable.
The state of current robotics and AI is comparable, we already have robots creating art and music, robots driving cars, trains and planes. We have whole little eco-systems in warehouses where everything is done robotically. A robot can lay a brick, plaster a wall then paint it. This isn't future tech - this is right now.

My point is to imagine the impact on the economy where the BBC Micro robots are in a state of sophistication of the iPhone today.

People always think their job is protected from technology. Usually right up until the day they get sacked and replaced by technology.

Are any of the Mods robots?

I have my suspicions.

 

[Ducado]

How do we get from the Election to Robots?