Tim Hartford on Basic Income and other suggestions

Purple said:
Unskilled people will always earn less than skilled people. That's the way it is and that's the way it should be. If you want to earn more than make your labour more valuable. If you are unskilled and low paid then do something about it and no, that doesn't just mean going back to full or part time education. Most skills are learned in the workplace.
Click to expand...

Big +1 to this.

I can't see a Basic Income working in this country. 5 milliseconds after it's introduction someone would pop out with "Yeah, dat's grand n'all, but where's me sick?"
 
T McGibney said:
I honestly think you are paying too much attention to vested interest press releases and too little to actual statistics Gerry. Take nothing you hear on radio/tv/web news at face value and make your own inquiries.
Click to expand...
......
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
I agree with you but in the fog of what appears plausible it is hard to kill the link between what seems plausible versus actuality and like most people I don,t have the inclination to check/re-check.

eg., I see Charlie Weston in Saturdays Indo, he mentioned the neat ploy of the (rich ) were they Buy? houses for their kids (kids are supposed to live in them )and hence these (rich) avail of 52 million tax break ?
It is my niggling doubt that the system is loaded in a way that can only suit those who have money that narks me.
To be clear I am not going after the Rich but why give extra breaks that can,t be generally availed of by most people and costs us in foregone taxes?
 
That particular tax relief is open to everyone Gerry, and has been in place for decades and for a very good reason. The idea that its use by a small number of seriously well-heeled families represents some sort of conspiracy against the public is laughable. Even if a newspaper can find little else newsworthy on a slow bank holiday Saturday.
 
How can a tax relief be open to everyone , when by its nature it can only be accessed by well heeled.
To me if well-heeled families can get a break that is not able to be used by most , it becomes nothing but an unfair tax benefit to them.

I do understand there may be (very good reasons) ?
What I also understand is that it is open to abuse and if Mr Westons 52 million is anywhere near right ,it is time it was scrapped or at least policed.

Again to be clear , I am NOT in hit the RICH mode, but in fairness why give them extra advantages?
 
It is open to everyone Gerry. We're in a sorry position if having a roof over one's head qualifies one to be counted as being "well-heeled."

Like all tax reliefs this one can be abused (if you count its use in respect of valuable properties as "abuse") but like all tax reliefs it is policed.

I don't understand your question about giving "the rich" extra advantages. You might as well pose the same question about our roads network.
 
The word (everyone) , it is only open to few .


Unfairness?

Marie Antoinette reportedly said (let them eat cake )
Problem was they did not even have bread.

..............
If we lived in an equal opportunity society you are spot on .
Otherwise those in (better) positions seem incapable of accepting that some of their tax reliefs are in practise, unfair to most.


..............
I maybe am wrong ?
I think not.
 
Gerry, I think you are being influenced by Charlie Weston’s slant on this tax relief.

The more usual situation is where a son or daughter lives in the family home and inherits it on the death of their parents. Even if the property has a modest value the son or daughter, in the absence of this relief, might be forced to sell their home in order to pay the CAT.
 
Gerry Canning said:
Marie Antoinette reportedly said (let them eat cake )
Problem was they did not even have bread.
Click to expand...
That’s a good example to bring up as she never used the phrase and was a compassionate and generous woman who was deeply moved by the plight of the poor and was strongly of the opinion that she and her husband had a duty to help them.

The king for his part refused to order his soldiers to fire on a mob which was preventing his escape even though he knew not doing so would likely lead to his death.
 
Last edited:
Purple
God but I hate you smart people !
Then again, if my memory serves me, on frequent user forums you have been called a heathen by me before!

ps . I hate these suicidal Monarchs ,to the Mob he should have said , off with their heads ,or was that the Monarchs head ?

T Mc Gibney,
Your choice of word {rantings} is unwarranted and can I suggest unfair.
I have been asked on forums to check my facts . I do not propose to check all things but fairness can be very visible and does not need to be hidden in stats..
Can I suggest you read this weeks Economist Magazine , one of their stats show that the GENI co-efficient on equality has got appreciably worse these 2 decades.
 
Sophrosyne said:
Gerry, I think you are being influenced by Charlie Weston’s slant on this tax relief.

The more usual situation is where a son or daughter lives in the family home and inherits it on the death of their parents. Even if the property has a modest value the son or daughter, in the absence of this relief, might be forced to sell their home in order to pay the CAT.
Click to expand...

That has fairness in it.
I picked up that a (fair) relief is being abused by too many (smart) folk. I do not know if it is a big issue..
 
Gerry Canning said:
T Mc Gibney,
Your choice of word {rantings} is unwarranted and can I suggest unfair.
I have been asked on forums to check my facts . I do not propose to check all things but fairness can be very visible and does not need to be hidden in stats..
Can I suggest you read this weeks Economist Magazine , one of their stats show that the GENI co-efficient on equality has got appreciably worse these 2 decades.
Click to expand...

I stand by my "rantings" charge. You repeatedly ignored and tried to bend my (100% factual) comment that the dwelling house CAT exemption is open to any family who own their home. Attempting to divert the discussion to Marie Antoinette and something you read in The Economist is the essence of ranting.
 
Gerry Canning said:
Purple
God but I hate you smart people !
Then again, if my memory serves me, on frequent user forums you have been called a heathen by me before!
Click to expand...
I take exception to one of the things you said about me but an happy to be called a heathen.
 
100% factual that CAT exemption is open to everyone who can avail of it = no argument atall from me.
100% factual that only those in more favoured positions can tweak and abuse it.
AAM to my knowledge, is not a legalistic forum where everything has to be fully supported or stay exactly as (charged).

Indeed as we show on our postings we too have gone off topic.
So maybe nuff said.
 
Gerry Canning said:
100% factual that CAT exemption is open to everyone who can avail of it = no argument atall from me.
100% factual that only those in more favoured positions can tweak and abuse it.
Click to expand...

Except nobody is talking about tweaking anything. The legislation is clear and, as these things go, simple.

As for "abuse", this seems to be code for "someone better off than me has availed of it". ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top