The Labour Government

You’re wrong. It’s not 25m, it’s much lower. 15.75m of tax payers are not dependent on the state (through direct and indirect benefits). That’s 23.5% of the entire population.

Our net dependency ratio for tax payers is 58% and that isn’t sustainable if we want to do anything other than exist as a nation slowly spiralling to oblivion. We need bold ideas, growth is great and necessary but moreover we just need salaries to rise more quickly than inflation so we can reduce in work benefits but how you do that without causing inflation or making the public sector too fat - given that’s the only pay the government controls and you can only employ so many people if pay is more attractive in the public sector. Maybe a new corporation tax for profits in companies where the median salary is below £xx,xxx would work - I’d like to see something like that as this topic boils my piss. It’s certainly going to take some nifty tricks to stave off a world that demands quick fixes.

Can Labour do it? I don’t know. I don’t know how much they see it as the problem but the noises I’ve heard in the last couple of weeks indicate they might well do. I hope they can as it’s in all our interests.
Before we go any further, what's the source either for the 25m or the 15.75m?

I thought the 25m was taxpayers in the private sector. What does your "not dependent on the state" mean? Does that inlcude recipients of child benefit? (Do two parents count as two recipients?)
 
Last edited:
Before we go any further, what's the source either for the 25m or the 15.75m?

I thought the 25m was taxpayers in the private sector. What does your "not dependent on the state" mean? Does that inlcude recipients of child benefit? (Do two parents count as two recipients?)

It’s dependent on the state to provide benefits. Those benefits are either cash style or in services - health or education. Broadly speaking it’s those people who, if the state took it away, could not themselves make good the situation.


Now that shows 54% as net recipients across the entire nation however when you drill in to tax payers it’s 58% (world bank). If you take the number of tax payers 37.5m x 42% you’re left with 15.75m. I’m not entirely sure of the 4% disparity as I’d expect it to be uniform but perhaps 4% is those who have access to other means etc or excluded on account of age - I’m not sure how they don’t drawer from society or net contribute more if not via tax and I’ve not had the time to look in to it.

Ultimately though, whichever side of the fence you find yourself on, it’s not a them versus us situation as there will always be people who need more than they contribute - it’s what a fair society is and should be - for sustainability and the good of those who need it most you really want the net dependency rate to be below 50%. Our system only works if those who can do and those who can’t are taken care of and right now we are taking care of more people than are contributing and that is damaging our public services which is not helping those who need it - it’s a vicious circle.
 
Why are you still here? Can't you just admit you misread something?

I don't think you understand the point. The tax they pay obviously contributes to their salaries, but essentially it's just an economic circular moving of monies exercise.

There is an argument for saying public sector workers, despite being highly important for any society, should pay no tax as its essentially just an administrative task.
 
The work from home wankers will feel event more empowered - we are fucked! I am telling you we are fucked.
 
vat on private schools wankers
It's an interesting policy as the headline figure of 6,500 teachers sounds impressive until you are told that there are over 32k schools in the UK. So roughly 1 in 5 schools will receive one additional teacher and whilst it is a start it's like pissing in the wind. The other issue is of course that the stats show that maybe 20% of pupils who are currently at private schools will move to state schools so around 100 - 120k pupils. Each pupil costs just under £8k per annum so whilst the policy will raise some money, according to Labour's own figures 65% will be lost, whilst according to the Tories the figure will be 123% meaning the policy will cost the country money as opposed to raising it. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
 
It's an interesting policy as the headline figure of 6,500 teachers sounds impressive until you are told that there are over 32k schools in the UK. So roughly 1 in 5 schools will receive one additional teacher and whilst it is a start it's like pissing in the wind. The other issue is of course that the stats show that maybe 20% of pupils who are currently at private schools will move to state schools so around 100 - 120k pupils. Each pupil costs just under £8k per annum so whilst the policy will raise some money, according to Labour's own figures 65% will be lost, whilst according to the Tories the figure will be 123% meaning the policy will cost the country money as opposed to raising it. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

It’s a disgrace / my kids have been to private schools and I am mates with one of the bursars. She says 20 percent are behind on fees and most are just relatively successful hard working people with good jobs such as doctors or lawyers.

They pay significant tax already and 15k a year net is a huge burden. It’s a bloody disgrace and enough reason to not vote for these wankers alone.

Hard working people penalised.

It has made my blood boil today.

Politics of envy.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top