Income Tax Capped At £100k

[Skeddan]

For the economy to continue to prosper could it be a better strategy to attract more people with reasonable incomes who would all be contributing to VAT as well as income tax rather than just a few VHNW people?

If so, I think there is something to be said for the Irish strategy of targeting specific sectors - e.g. creative industries. Film industry is a successful area which could be developed far more. Attracting skilled crews - DP's, cam ops, editors, gaffers etc. to IoM would be a benefit and increase attractiveness for production - not only features, but also tv drama, tv commercials etc. (and increase GDP and VAT revenues that way). It adds to local economy by multiplier effect and provides employment, skills, and has local benefit. (extras, local catering companies, hotels, restaurants, taxis, etc. etc. etc.).

 

However you then run into the 180 day rule. Some of these might be working overseas on location and not qualify, even if genuinely have permanent residence in IoM. NZ has 'permanent place of residence' rule for tax - maybe something along these lines could be interesting.

[WTF]

Yes, it may be true that social mobility is improving but the level of mobility for the middle classes far exceeds that of the working.

 

That's really not true. Since WW2, working class people in the British Isles (and elsewhere) have seen a much bigger increase in their incomes and living standards than middle class people.

 

S

 

that could because the working class can now afford ( in theory ) the trappings of the middle class on credit, but the middle class can't afford a millionaires lifestyle on credit. so the workers have caught up, the millionaires have pissed off in the distance and the middle class have stalled.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Yes, it may be true that social mobility is improving but the level of mobility for the middle classes far exceeds that of the working.

 

That's really not true. Since WW2, working class people in the British Isles (and elsewhere) have seen a much bigger increase in their incomes and living standards than middle class people.

 

S

 

I actually misunderstood what was meant by social mobility, I thought it meant something very different.

 

I would have to say then that I would agree that today's workers do have better living standards and incomes than they used to. However, this does not have anything to do with moving between one class and another. Class is not necessarily about how much someone earns. If social mobility is about how easily people can improve on their salaries then I wouldn't know enough to comment, though I would think that such a statement is correct, and it is a good thing. However, if social mobility is actually about moving from worker class to middle class I cannot see any merit in it. Depends on what the definition of class is being used and whether class is the relevant issue or simply their incomes.

[Sebrof]

Yes, it may be true that social mobility is improving but the level of mobility for the middle classes far exceeds that of the working.

 

That's really not true. Since WW2, working class people in the British Isles (and elsewhere) have seen a much bigger increase in their incomes and living standards than middle class people.

 

S

 

I actually misunderstood what was meant by social mobility, I thought it meant something very different.

 

I would have to say then that I would agree that today's workers do have better living standards and incomes than they used to. However, this does not have anything to do with moving between one class and another. Class is not necessarily about how much someone earns. If social mobility is about how easily people can improve on their salaries then I wouldn't know enough to comment, though I would think that such a statement is correct, and it is a good thing. However, if social mobility is actually about moving from worker class to middle class I cannot see any merit in it. Depends on what the definition of class is being used and whether class is the relevant issue or simply their incomes.

 

Class is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Really, you are whatever class you think you are.

 

S

[Moghrey Mie]

Yes, it may be true that social mobility is improving but the level of mobility for the middle classes far exceeds that of the working.

 

That's really not true. Since WW2, working class people in the British Isles (and elsewhere) have seen a much bigger increase in their incomes and living standards than middle class people.

 

S

 

I actually misunderstood what was meant by social mobility, I thought it meant something very different.

 

I would have to say then that I would agree that today's workers do have better living standards and incomes than they used to. However, this does not have anything to do with moving between one class and another. Class is not necessarily about how much someone earns. If social mobility is about how easily people can improve on their salaries then I wouldn't know enough to comment, though I would think that such a statement is correct, and it is a good thing. However, if social mobility is actually about moving from worker class to middle class I cannot see any merit in it. Depends on what the definition of class is being used and whether class is the relevant issue or simply their incomes.

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently the happiest countries are those where there is most equality and least differential between people's earnings and life-style eg Scandinavia

[Bananaman]

Class is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Really, you are whatever class you think you are.

 

S

 

 

Mmmmmm, maybe I'm old fashioned. I'm working class (though I carry it damned well cough cough) but my wife is a professional. Just because I'm married to one will not make me be one.

 

My son on the other hand will be classed as 'Middle class' as he's the son of a professional.

 

 

Scarily and I rarely agree with this man - Tony Benn once said: 'If you have to work for a living, then you're working class'. That struck a chord with me. Not too hard obviously as I've been lucky enough to not have to work for a living for nearly three years now.

[Gladys]

My two pennyworth: we should be creating a USP now and live up to it. Don't back down in front of the IMF etc, face them and say this is what we do, how can we improve? And be prepared to face these guys as equals; if you go into any situation accepting you are the underdog and that is what you will be. But go in as a lion, you will be treated as a lion, not a mongoose.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Class is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Really, you are whatever class you think you are.

 

S

 

I think what you may possibly mean, is that from your opinion is that the worker class are less conscious of their place in society because of better living standards.

 

As for the second statement I think you need to expand more about what you mean about it becoming less relevant. If you mean that class is about your income then undoubtedly it would be if incomes are rising. But this isn't what class is about.

 

Am I neither upper class nor middle class, I am working class. I know that because I recognise my position in society.

 

 

Mmmmmm, maybe I'm old fashioned. I'm working class (though I carry it damned well cough cough) but my wife is a professional. Just because I'm married to one will not make me be one.

 

My son on the other hand will be classed as 'Middle class' as he's the son of a professional.

 

Scarily and I rarely agree with this man - Tony Benn once said: 'If you have to work for a living, then you're working class'. That struck a chord with me. Not too hard obviously as I've been lucky enough to not have to work for a living for nearly three years now.

 

 

But what he said is right. A working class person is someone who HAS to work for a living. And most of this group are wage slaves. Having to sell their labour in order to simply survive, which involves having to gain PERMISSION to work on somebody's elses property, and then accept that your work is now the property of your employer who only gives you a wage in exchange.

 

Your son would not be middle class based by my definition (a Marxist definition, not a useless categorisation of people by specific job types) if he still had to work in order to survive, he would be working.

Simply being a professional does not even make someone middle class. Most professionals would not be able to sustain themselves if they left their job. But then it all depends on your definition, but the definition you are using is not very useful in terms of recognition class division, but I would say class division is not absolutely clear cut.

[Chinahand]

Class is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Really, you are whatever class you think you are.

 

S

 

I think what you may possibly mean, is that from your opinion is that the worker class are less conscious of their place in society because of better living standards.

 

A working class person is someone who HAS to work for a living. And most of this group are wage slaves. Having to sell their labour in order to simply survive, which involves having to gain PERMISSION to work on somebody's elses property, and then accept that your work is now the property of your employer who only gives you a wage in exchange.

 

Your son would not be middle class based by my definition (a Marxist definition, not a useless categorisation of people by specific job types) if he still had to work in order to survive, he would be working.

 

I think it is more complex than this - my view is that society is becoming far more diverse - people have far more career and lifestyle choices and it is this which is changing attitudes to "class".

 

When everyone in an area worked for a ship yard, a mill or a mine, or whatever, then solidarity was obvious - interests aligned. Society is now much more diverse and it is not as obvious at all that someone working in a call centre has the same interests as one working in a bar or one working on a production line.

 

Marxists see this as a capitalist plot, but I find that really putting the cart before the horse - society is better today that people have more diversified sources of income - if a shipyard, or coal mine shut thousands of people simultaneously lost their livelihoods - it was a hugely risky enterpirse and ended up with subsidies and loss making industries being supported because it was thought they were too big to fail [i do see the irony concerning this and today's bank bailout - I do wonder if the same mistakes are being made yet again]. Today communities are simply not as at risk to these types of shocks - there are far more options available to people.

 

I also find your ideas about HAVING to work for a living no longer really apply - you can bring up simplistic examples like working class lads who form a band, cadge enough money for a transit van, and practice and tour their dole away.

 

Government welfare gives people support, they can enter education or training. If people do not want to conform to societies demands and become a wage slave they don't have to - their life won't be very nice, but that is their choice and some people genuinely do rather live in a squat, have a travelling life or whatever.

 

I also find the concept of wage slave deliberately provokative. People can change jobs, move down to the smoke, or out to the countryside, write, or whatever - you might say they still have to earn money, what has changed, but I would not underestimate the much greater freedom of choice to earn money the way you want to earn it. Previously choices were far more difficult to take - there was an inevitably to the life outcomes of kids growing up in certain areas - the pit, the production line. That is no longer so.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think it is more complex than this - my view is that society is becoming far more diverse - people have far more career and lifestyle choices and it is this which is changing attitudes to "class".

 

I would agree that there is more diversity in society in respect of careers and lifestyle choices (but this is a bit of a vague term). And I do think that there is a possibility that these choices lead the worker a attach a different importance to class, and as you say have different attitudes. Buit career choices and lifestyle choices have little to do with the issue of class. Class is about one's relationship to the means of production.

 

When everyone in an area worked for a ship yard, a mill or a mine, or whatever, then solidarity was obvious - interests aligned. Society is now much more diverse and it is not as obvious at all that someone working in a call centre has the same interests as one working in a bar or one working on a production line.

 

Solidarity aligned largely because the workers in those positions had the same employer and had the same union. And unions focused and continue to focus on particular trades rather than finding solidarity across an industry.

 

I don't think CHANGES in diversity have greatly altered the mindset of the worker. Even a century ago there was not always an instanct realisation that the someone who worked in a factory might have the same interests that you have, because the work was so different and the employer was different.

 

The interests of the call centre person, the bar man, and a factory worker would all superfiscially to have a better wage, have a role that was not alienating to them, and have more say in their job. But this cannot happen. Because the interests of the employer are opposed to that of the worker. The employer wants to keeps wages as low as is possible to maintain profit levels, and whilst a worker undertakes work simply to make a profit for his employer and not as a public good or service the work becomes meaningless to them (as they have no vested interest), and they cannot have any say because by being given permission to work on an employer's property they must relinquish any ownership or control over their labour. So workers have much they find common interests in.

 

Marxists see this as a capitalist plot, but I find that really putting the cart before the horse - society is better today that people have more diversified sources of income

 

True, but black slaves in the souther United Slaves had large improvements in their living standards and some in the type of work that they did, but they were still slaves.

 

 

I also find your ideas about HAVING to work for a living no longer really apply - you can bring up simplistic examples like working class lads who form a band, cadge enough money for a transit van, and practice and tour their dole away.

 

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you explain a little more please?

 

Government welfare gives people support, they can enter education or training. If people do not want to conform to societies demands and become a wage slave they don't have to - their life won't be very nice, but that is their choice and some people genuinely do rather live in a squat, have a travelling life or whatever.

 

The government does pay welfare, education, or training but I don't see how that is relevant. This does not make it a simple thing for one to alter their position to going from the ruled to the ruler. It can happen, but it is very difficult. And nor is it a desirable thing in itself. And those who prefer to live in a squat are often barely surviving and I would think have a very unfulfilling life, though a better one from accepting the contemporary expectations of society.

 

I also find the concept of wage slave deliberately provokative. People can change jobs, move down to the smoke, or out to the countryside, write, or whatever - you might say they still have to earn money, what has changed, but I would not underestimate the much greater freedom of choice to earn money the way you want to earn it. Previously choices were far more difficult to take - there was an inevitably to the life outcomes of kids growing up in certain areas - the pit, the production line. That is no longer so.

 

Provocative? Why? People can change jobs all they like but whilst they are being paid a wage, they are wage slaves.

There is the possibility of becoming self-employer, however, it is often necessary to have skills or talents to make use of.

It also requires funding and an entrepreneurial mind to some extent.

But more importantly, it simply isn't feasible for everyone to be self-employed given requirements of society. Singular self-employed people would never be able to produce enough in society to provide society with what it needs. This requires groups of workers.

[John Wright]

Treasury have recruited 49, they hoped for 500

[WTF]

Treasury have recruited 49, they hoped for 500

 

 

just like the government to be 90% out. still, not as wrong as usual.

[Moghrey Mie]

Treasury have recruited 49, they hoped for 500

 

 

 

Is Russell Grant one of those?

[hboy]

Treasury have recruited 49, they hoped for 500

 

Is Russell Grant one of those?

 

Technically he probably counts as two of them.

[Sebrof]

Treasury have recruited 49, they hoped for 500

 

In that case it is almost certainly a failure, because, on the arguments adduced so far, I don't believe the claim made about VAT. Though I could, of course, be wrong.

 

Where did Treasury think all these billionaires were going to live? Fishermen's cottages in Peel?

 

I wonder if this scheme was suggested by Mr Profitt, the ideas man.

 

S