But you can already do that. The idea that this is necessary because people cannot work more than 48 hours a week if they want to is a complete myth.
Not if you work in the airline or shipping industries where you can't currently opt out of the 48 hour limit
Though for most jobs I agree it would just move from an opt out to contractual terms which would determine whether you can work more than 48 hours
And rightly so. I do not want people in safety critical roles working excessive hours.
The Oil and Gas industry is effectively exempt from the WTD but they have separate rules that prevent anyone working more than 16 hours and then having to have a minimum of 8 hours off. This is strictly enforced under the Safety Case system. Messing with anything covered by the Safety Case is a very quick way to find your profitable managerial job has disappeared.
Yes, people working in various safety-conscious industries have their own, generally much tighter rules on work patterns and rest periods. A commercial pilot is allowed a maximum of 100 flying hours a month and 900 a year, as probably the most extreme example - yet pilot fatigue is still an issue in the industry.
The WTD rules, as you say, are there to stop excessive hours being a condition of employment, aimed at the lower end of the job market but also applying to trainee professionals in white collar jobs.
The anomaly to me has always been junior doctors, who famously used to work literally every waking hour six days a week for several years in an industry where mistakes can literally kill people.
Well, we have hours like that in teaching, as I pointed out upthread. Primary school teachers have it worst I think. That said, we do get fairly generous rest period in the school holidays.
But it's rarer for our mistakes to kill people. It can happen though - most infamously I think in this case where it is fairly obvious the teacher concerned fell asleep at the wheel.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
Well, we have hours like that in teaching, as I pointed out upthread. Primary school teachers have it worst I think. That said, we do get fairly generous rest period in the school holidays.
But it's rarer for our mistakes to kill people. It can happen though - most infamously I think in this case where it is fairly obvious the teacher concerned fell asleep at the wheel.
Working hours always seems to be a very touchy subject among my teaching friends. 48.2 is the average according to the Education Policy Institute: https://epi.org.uk/report/teacherworkload/
But I’ve never met a teacher who said they worked less than 50 hours a week.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
It exists - whether we are anywhere near it though...
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
Yes I do, within sensible limits. It is the simple idea that if you increase taxes you positively encourage alternative behaviours, whether by simply not proceeding with the opportunity or, more commonly, investing time and energy into avoidance behaviour. Of course it does not work at the extremes. But as a general proposition I do think that the tax take can be increased by a combination of simplification and lower rates. I find the idea that a Finance Minister can decide to increase taxes to increase spending without considering whether the tax rate increase will actually increase the tax return deeply depressing.
No PB thread about the poll in the Sunday Sun reporting an improvement in Theresa's personal ratings?
You mean the one where she's still trailing Jeremy Corbyn by double digits?
May leads Corbyn 54% to 34% on who voters believe will get the best Brexit deal for the UK in that poll, there was no best PM question asked, you are just pointing to the net approval rating where May, Corbyn and Cable all still have net negative approval (with Cable having the worst rating of the 3 at -33%).
Opinium did ask a best PM question today where May led Corbyn 34% to 28%.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
Wasn’t that exactly what happened in about 1988 when Lawson cut the top rate from 60 to 40%.
I thought both the amount and percentage that higher rate taxpayers paid went up.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
Wasn’t that exactly what happened in about 1988 when Lawson cut the top rate from 60 to 40%.
I thought both the amount and percentage that higher rate taxpayers paid went up.
Doubtless someone will correct me?
Same thing happened when Osborne cut the top rate. In contrast the SNP SDLT proposals which greatly increased the top rates have been a disaster resulting in a massive reduction in tax revenue.
No PB thread about the poll in the Sunday Sun reporting an improvement in Theresa's personal ratings?
You mean the one where she's still trailing Jeremy Corbyn by double digits?
May leads Corbyn 54% to 34% on who voters believe will get the best Brexit deal for the UK in that poll, there was no best PM question asked, you are just pointing to the net approval rating where May, Corbyn and Cable all still have net negative approval (with Cable having the worst rating of the 3 at -33%).
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
That was over a year ago.
Well he’s not spent the time since improving his ignorance.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
Wasn’t that exactly what happened in about 1988 when Lawson cut the top rate from 60 to 40%.
I thought both the amount and percentage that higher rate taxpayers paid went up.
Doubtless someone will correct me?
I won't comment on the 1980s, but to take the more recent example - people claimed that tax revenues going up after Osborne cut the 50p tax rate in 2012 proved the "Laffer Curve". But they ignore that, over the exact same period, US tax revenues increased by considerably more, despite no similar tax cuts for high earners in the US.
In other words, "if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" -- which is something that applies to both the weird idea that "if every individual pays less tax, then there'll be more tax overall" just as much as it does to the previous Ed Balls argument of "if we spend more, then we'll be spending less overall".
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
It makes perfect arithmetical sense if you accept that there is a point at which people will start looking to avoid tax or cut back on work as it is no longer worth working just to give money to the government. This of course applies particularly to large companies who may well choose to site their operations in countries with lower tax regimes.
No PB thread about the poll in the Sunday Sun reporting an improvement in Theresa's personal ratings?
You mean the one where she's still trailing Jeremy Corbyn by double digits?
May leads Corbyn 54% to 34% on who voters believe will get the best Brexit deal for the UK in that poll, there was no best PM question asked, you are just pointing to the net approval rating where May, Corbyn and Cable all still have net negative approval (with Cable having the worst rating of the 3 at -33%).
Tony Blair had a poor net approval rating in 2005 yet won a majority of over 60, then it was the voting intention figures and best PM figures where Blair led Howard which were key, not the net approval figures.
Who leads as best PM is relevant along with voting intention (and of course Mrs May still won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn and the second highest number of Tory seats since 1992 in June), net approval less so.
At the moment, the probably doomed boundary review leaves Rudd's Hastings seat unchanged. If however the review is redone prior to the next GE using a target of 650 seats, then it is likely that Hastings would be reduced, most likely either by being separated from Rye or by losing the rural hinterland to the north. Either would make the Hastings seat less winnable for the Tories. However a review also offers MPs the chance to move seats, and since Kent is likely to gain a seat under a 650-target review, Rudd may be handed the opportunity to slip into a nearby rural seat, giving her a safe hold.
Well, we have hours like that in teaching, as I pointed out upthread. Primary school teachers have it worst I think. That said, we do get fairly generous rest period in the school holidays.
But it's rarer for our mistakes to kill people. It can happen though - most infamously I think in this case where it is fairly obvious the teacher concerned fell asleep at the wheel.
Working hours always seems to be a very touchy subject among my teaching friends. 48.2 is the average according to the Education Policy Institute: https://epi.org.uk/report/teacherworkload/
But I’ve never met a teacher who said they worked less than 50 hours a week.
The report isn't very clear - but the implication of some of their comments is that the figure is the average across the year. It will therefore be somewhat reduced by the fact that there are twelve weeks a year in which a number of teachers do little or no work.
If we multiply 48.2 by 52 I get 2506.4 hours. If I then divide that by 40 I get 62.6 hours per week. If I divide it by 43 to come up with a slightly more realistic figure I get 58. That seems plausible to me and would go a long way to explaining the confusion.
If I tell you however that a state school contract advises that a teacher should work 1263 hours per year - you will get some idea of how far out our dear masters at the DfE working comfortable 37 hour weeks on average salaries of around sixty thousand are from Planet Earth.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
It makes perfect arithmetical sense if you accept that there is a point at which people will start looking to avoid tax or cut back on work as it is no longer worth working just to give money to the government. This of course applies particularly to large companies who may well choose to site their operations in countries with lower tax regimes.
Exactly if 100% of your wages are taken in tax why would you bother working at all? You may as well just live off the benefits those taxes fund. Similarly if the tax rate is 0% the government will raise no revenue at all. The best tax rate lies somewhere in between.
No PB thread about the poll in the Sunday Sun reporting an improvement in Theresa's personal ratings?
You mean the one where she's still trailing Jeremy Corbyn by double digits?
May leads Corbyn 54% to 34% on who voters believe will get the best Brexit deal for the UK in that poll, there was no best PM question asked, you are just pointing to the net approval rating where May, Corbyn and Cable all still have net negative approval (with Cable having the worst rating of the 3 at -33%).
Tony Blair had a poor net approval rating in 2005 yet won a majority of over 60, then it was the voting intention figures and best PM figures where Blair led Howard which were key, not the net approval figures.
Who leads as best PM is relevant along with voting intention (and of course Mrs May still won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn and the second highest number of Tory seats since 1992 in June), net approval less so.
Best PM has an incumbency bonus, which is why Jim Callaghan led Mrs Thatcher in the run up to the 1979 election.
The general rule is the party that leads on the economy and has the best leader approval rating wins the election.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
Yes I do, within sensible limits. It is the simple idea that if you increase taxes you positively encourage alternative behaviours, whether by simply not proceeding with the opportunity or, more commonly, investing time and energy into avoidance behaviour. Of course it does not work at the extremes. But as a general proposition I do think that the tax take can be increased by a combination of simplification and lower rates. I find the idea that a Finance Minister can decide to increase taxes to increase spending without considering whether the tax rate increase will actually increase the tax return deeply depressing.
Indeed so, and especially where marginal tax rates are relatively high such as with income tax. It’s well observed that people will actively change behaviour in relation to income tax rates, whether it’s the tradesman turning down overtime as he hits the 40% bracket, or the worker affected by the child benefit or personal allowance withdrawals stuffing his pension to avoid the punitive marginal rates - not to mention the more aggressive avoidance practices higher up the income scale, such as a small businessman paying his wife as a PA at just below the 40% bracket to take advantage of two sets of personal allowances and basic rate brackets.
Well, we have hours like that in teaching, as I pointed out upthread. Primary school teachers have it worst I think. That said, we do get fairly generous rest period in the school holidays.
But it's rarer for our mistakes to kill people. It can happen though - most infamously I think in this case where it is fairly obvious the teacher concerned fell asleep at the wheel.
Working hours always seems to be a very touchy subject among my teaching friends. 48.2 is the average according to the Education Policy Institute: https://epi.org.uk/report/teacherworkload/
But I’ve never met a teacher who said they worked less than 50 hours a week.
The report isn't very clear - but the implication of some of their comments is that the figure is the average across the year. It will therefore be somewhat reduced by the fact that there are twelve weeks a year in which a number of teachers do little or no work.
If we multiply 48.2 by 52 I get 2506.4 hours. If I then divide that by 40 I get 62.6 hours per week. If I divide it by 43 to come up with a slightly more realistic figure I get 58. That seems plausible to me and would go a long way to explaining the confusion.
If I tell you however that a state school contract advises that a teacher should work 1263 hours per year - you will get some idea of how far out our dear masters at the DfE working comfortable 37 hour weeks on average salaries of around sixty thousand are from Planet Earth.
i
Page 7 of the executive summary makes it clear that is a figure for a sampled week - not averaged out over the year.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
Yes I do, within sensible limits. It is the simple idea that if you increase taxes you positively encourage alternative behaviours, whether by simply not proceeding with the opportunity or, more commonly, investing time and energy into avoidance behaviour. Of course it does not work at the extremes. But as a general proposition I do think that the tax take can be increased by a combination of simplification and lower rates. I find the idea that a Finance Minister can decide to increase taxes to increase spending without considering whether the tax rate increase will actually increase the tax return deeply depressing.
Indeed so, and especially where marginal tax rates are relatively high such as with income tax. It’s well observed behaviour that people will actively change behaviour in relation to income tax rates, whether it’s the tradesman turning down overtime as he hits the 40% bracket, or the worker affected by the child benefit or personal allowance withdrawals stuffing his pension to avoid the punitive marginal rates - not to mention the more aggressive avoidance practices higher up the income scale.
The "Curve" is often cited in ignorance by people arguing, usually for self-interested reasons, for lower taxes. Its insight is that, since the tax take will be zero at 0% income tax and also zero at 100% income tax (since no-one would work), there must be a point somewhere between where the tax take is maximised, and hence it follows that there must be rates above this maximum take at which further increasing tax reduces income.
All fine, except that no-one knows where this maximum point falls, and given the lack of evidence (rates don't change frequently enough to do any meaningful research, economic circumstances tend to change faster than tax rates, and no-one knows how much tax is evaded or avoided) they never will. For all we know the maximum take could be at rates significantly higher than the current ones, in which case citing the curve in a debate about tax cuts would be meaningless.
No PB thread about the poll in the Sunday Sun reporting an improvement in Theresa's personal ratings?
You mean the one where she's still trailing Jeremy Corbyn by double digits?
May leads Corbyn 54% to 34% on who voters believe will get the best Brexit deal for the UK in that poll, there was no best PM question asked, you are just pointing to the net approval rating where May, Corbyn and Cable all still have net negative approval (with Cable having the worst rating of the 3 at -33%).
Tony Blair had a poor net approval rating in 2005 yet won a majority of over 60, then it was the voting intention figures and best PM figures where Blair led Howard which were key, not the net approval figures.
Who leads as best PM is relevant along with voting intention (and of course Mrs May still won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn and the second highest number of Tory seats since 1992 in June), net approval less so.
Best PM has an incumbency bonus, which is why Jim Callaghan led Mrs Thatcher in the run up to the 1979 election.
The general rule is the party that leads on the economy and has the best leader approval rating wins the election.
The Tories of course still frequently lead on the economy as well as Mrs May leading on best PM
No PB thread about the poll in the Sunday Sun reporting an improvement in Theresa's personal ratings?
You mean the one where she's still trailing Jeremy Corbyn by double digits?
May leads Corbyn 54% to 34% on who voters believe will get the best Brexit deal for the UK in that poll, there was no best PM question asked, you are just pointing to the net approval rating where May, Corbyn and Cable all still have net negative approval (with Cable having the worst rating of the 3 at -33%).
Tony Blair had a poor net approval rating in 2005 yet won a majority of over 60, then it was the voting intention figures and best PM figures where Blair led Howard which were key, not the net approval figures.
Who leads as best PM is relevant along with voting intention (and of course Mrs May still won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn and the second highest number of Tory seats since 1992 in June), net approval less so.
Best PM has an incumbency bonus, which is why Jim Callaghan led Mrs Thatcher in the run up to the 1979 election.
The general rule is the party that leads on the economy and has the best leader approval rating wins the election.
The Tories of course still frequently lead on the economy as well as Mrs May leading on best PM
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
Wasn’t that exactly what happened in about 1988 when Lawson cut the top rate from 60 to 40%.
I thought both the amount and percentage that higher rate taxpayers paid went up.
Doubtless someone will correct me?
I won't comment on the 1980s, but to take the more recent example - people claimed that tax revenues going up after Osborne cut the 50p tax rate in 2012 proved the "Laffer Curve". But they ignore that, over the exact same period, US tax revenues increased by considerably more, despite no similar tax cuts for high earners in the US.
In other words, "if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" -- which is something that applies to both the weird idea that "if every individual pays less tax, then there'll be more tax overall" just as much as it does to the previous Ed Balls argument of "if we spend more, then we'll be spending less overall".
I think the empirical research suggests 70% as the region of where you start thinking about the Laffer curve - Saez from memory. In the past rates have been above that in the US.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
That was over a year ago.
Well he’s not spent the time since improving his ignorance.
There's footage of him asking some Tory MSP a detailed technical question on the specifics of the larger curve as a response to some needling.
No PB thread about the poll in the Sunday Sun reporting an improvement in Theresa's personal ratings?
You mean the one where she's still trailing Jeremy Corbyn by double digits?
May leads Corbyn 54% to 34% on who voters believe will get the best Brexit deal for the UK in that poll, there was no best PM question asked, you are just pointing to the net approval rating where May, Corbyn and Cable all still have net negative approval (with Cable having the worst rating of the 3 at -33%).
Tony Blair had a poor net approval rating in 2005 yet won a majority of over 60, then it was the voting intention figures and best PM figures where Blair led Howard which were key, not the net approval figures.
Who leads as best PM is relevant along with voting intention (and of course Mrs May still won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn and the second highest number of Tory seats since 1992 in June), net approval less so.
Best PM has an incumbency bonus, which is why Jim Callaghan led Mrs Thatcher in the run up to the 1979 election.
The general rule is the party that leads on the economy and has the best leader approval rating wins the election.
The Tories of course still frequently lead on the economy as well as Mrs May leading on best PM
Best PM is not the same as net approval ratings
You have to go back to 1979 to find the leader who led on best PM not winning the general election outright or most seats and then Labour did not lead on the economy as the Tories still frequently do now.
Yes I do, within sensible limits. It is the simple idea that if you increase taxes you positively encourage alternative behaviours, whether by simply not proceeding with the opportunity or, more commonly, investing time and energy into avoidance behaviour. Of course it does not work at the extremes. But as a general proposition I do think that the tax take can be increased by a combination of simplification and lower rates. I find the idea that a Finance Minister can decide to increase taxes to increase spending without considering whether the tax rate increase will actually increase the tax return deeply depressing.
Indeed so, and especially where marginal tax rates are relatively high such as with income tax. It’s well observed behaviour that people will actively change behaviour in relation to income tax rates, whether it’s the tradesman turning down overtime as he hits the 40% bracket, or the worker affected by the child benefit or personal allowance withdrawals stuffing his pension to avoid the punitive marginal rates - not to mention the more aggressive avoidance practices higher up the income scale.
The "Curve" is often cited in ignorance by people arguing, usually for self-interested reasons, for lower taxes. Its insight is that, since the tax take will be zero at 0% income tax and also zero at 100% income tax (since no-one would work), there must be a point somewhere between where the tax take is maximised, and hence it follows that there must be rates above this maximum take at which further increasing tax reduces income.
All fine, except that no-one knows where this maximum point falls, and given the lack of evidence (rates don't change frequently enough to do any meaningful research, economic circumstances tend to change faster than tax rates, and no-one knows how much tax is evaded or avoided) they never will. For all we know the maximum take could be at rates significantly higher than the current ones, in which case citing the curve in a debate about tax cuts would be meaningless.
Agreed. There was a story about that Osborne’s Treasury conducted some research when deciding to reduce the additional rate to 45% rather than scrap it completely, as 45% was the rate that generated the most revenue from high earners. 50% was apparently a symbolic rate for those paying it to take avoiding action.
The "Curve" is often cited in ignorance by people arguing, usually for self-interested reasons, for lower taxes. Its insight is that, since the tax take will be zero at 0% income tax and also zero at 100% income tax (since no-one would work), there must be a point somewhere between where the tax take is maximised, and hence it follows that there must be rates above this maximum take at which further increasing tax reduces income.
All fine, except that no-one knows where this maximum point falls, and given the lack of evidence (rates don't change frequently enough to do any meaningful research, economic circumstances tend to change faster than tax rates, and no-one knows how much tax is evaded or avoided) they never will. For all we know the maximum take could be at rates significantly higher than the current ones, in which case citing the curve in a debate about tax cuts would be meaningless.
Oh I think you are absolutely right. Also of course the Laffer curve is unique for each individual or corporate entity as it is dependent on their own resistance to paying taxes and their own philosophy of work/tax/state spending.
But I think we can see that certainly with the very high marginal tax rates in the 1960s there was evidence of the Laffer curve in action.
What I find far more interesting is the evidence that will emerge over time rom places like Hungary and the Baltic States which have flat rate tax systems but also maintain significant welfare systems. If they can make such systems work over the long term then I think that might inspire many more countries to look seriously at the idea.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Speaking of political leadership and the Laffer sweet spot, I believe the SCon MSP Annie Wells, on around £60k p.a, will be paying an extra 29p a week under the new tax regime. Do you think this will have a disastrous effect on Scottish tax revenues, and will this political titan be tempted to drain her brain to a grateful England?
Page 7 of the executive summary makes it clear that is a figure for a sampled week - not averaged out over the year.
Well, in that case I simply cannot understand where they are getting their figure from. That is ridiculously low - they're undershooting by about 20%. That's not to say I don't know lazy teachers who shouldn't be teaching. Just to say that to even survive you've got to do more work than that. Planning a lesson alone can take a long time. The 24 minutes they offer sounds on the low side, although I do teach a subject that requires intensive planning - my first hour on getting into school is always going over background reading for A-level. But let's take that as an average and say therefore that teachers spend roughly 500 minutes (8 hours) planning. Marking one set of class books usually takes 2.5-3 hours. Five of those a week (which is on the low side but would vary by subject and year group) and we could get 15 hours just marking. 21 hours to deliver the lessons, that leaves 44 hours. Throw in 2-3 hours a week for meetings and I suppose the figure is plausible. However, I see no allowance for pastoral matters or professional development (which take up a hell of a lot of my time even though I'm not officially a pastoral manager) so it is possible they forgot those and sampled only matters directly related to teaching.
Whatever way it is calculated, I simply cannot accept that as an average. I've worked in several schools now in a variety of roles and in none of them have I worked less than 55 hours a week although this role is unusually punishing.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
It makes perfect arithmetical sense if you accept that there is a point at which people will start looking to avoid tax or cut back on work as it is no longer worth working just to give money to the government. This of course applies particularly to large companies who may well choose to site their operations in countries with lower tax regimes.
Exactly if 100% of your wages are taken in tax why would you bother working at all? You may as well just live off the benefits those taxes fund. Similarly if the tax rate is 0% the government will raise no revenue at all. The best tax rate lies somewhere in between.
The optimum tax rate certainly lies between 0% and 100%!
I suspect the curve has a flat top. If the optimum is 50% then an increase of 1% point in tax rate will lead to a 2% reduction in taxable income, leaving the total tax take unchanged. I don't think there is a theoretical way to calculate the optimum rate and the experimental way is open to political manipulation. If you pre-announce a reduction from 50% to 45% for next year, then many managers will arrange for bonuses to be deferred from this year to next. The result is an apparent yearly increase in tax take which is one-off and entirely due to the deferral. Osborne used dodgy statistics based on this effect.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
Wasn’t that exactly what happened in about 1988 when Lawson cut the top rate from 60 to 40%.
I thought both the amount and percentage that higher rate taxpayers paid went up.
Doubtless someone will correct me?
I won't comment on the 1980s, but to take the more recent example - people claimed that tax revenues going up after Osborne cut the 50p tax rate in 2012 proved the "Laffer Curve". But they ignore that, over the exact same period, US tax revenues increased by considerably more, despite no similar tax cuts for high earners in the US.
In other words, "if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" -- which is something that applies to both the weird idea that "if every individual pays less tax, then there'll be more tax overall" just as much as it does to the previous Ed Balls argument of "if we spend more, then we'll be spending less overall".
I think the empirical research suggests 70% as the region of where you start thinking about the Laffer curve - Saez from memory. In the past rates have been above that in the US.
You wonder how much this has changed with globalisation. look at how globally mobile workers in high paying jobs are now. Most jobs that exist in London exist in say, Hong Kong or Singapore, or Silicon Valley, depending on what you're into. And of course within the EU free movement makes it easy to depart to another European capital. The exodus of French bankers to London after Hollande got in turned parts of the city into Little Paris. If one country declares a war on the wealthy, it's not hard to get up and leave (Corbynistas - take note).
Of course, all this exemplifies another part of the globalisation story (and the FoM one in the EU) - how it has benefited the highly skilled and well paid, opening up new opportunities. While the working classes find themselves simply exposed to more competition that has driven wages down.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
Wasn’t that exactly what happened in about 1988 when Lawson cut the top rate from 60 to 40%.
I thought both the amount and percentage that higher rate taxpayers paid went up.
Doubtless someone will correct me?
I won't comment on the 1980s, but to take the more recent example - people claimed that tax revenues going up after Osborne cut the 50p tax rate in 2012 proved the "Laffer Curve". But they ignore that, over the exact same period, US tax revenues increased by considerably more, despite no similar tax cuts for high earners in the US.
In other words, "if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" -- which is something that applies to both the weird idea that "if every individual pays less tax, then there'll be more tax overall" just as much as it does to the previous Ed Balls argument of "if we spend more, then we'll be spending less overall".
I think the empirical research suggests 70% as the region of where you start thinking about the Laffer curve - Saez from memory. In the past rates have been above that in the US.
You wonder how much this has changed with globalisation. look at how globally mobile workers in high paying jobs are now. Most jobs that exist in London exist in say, Hong Kong or Singapore, or Silicon Valley, depending on what you're into. And of course within the EU free movement makes it easy to depart to another European capital. The exodus of French bankers to London after Hollande got in turned parts of the city into Little Paris. If one country declares a war on the wealthy, it's not hard to get up and leave (Corbynistas - take note).
Of course, all this exemplifies another part of the globalisation story (and the FoM one in the EU) - how it has benefited the highly skilled and well paid, opening up new opportunities. While the working classes find themselves simply exposed to more competition that has driven wages down.
Hence the working class and lower middle class are now throwing their toys out of the pram from Trump to Sanders, Brexit to Corbyn, Melenchon to Le Pen, much to the contempt of the upper middle class New York, Californian, London, Parisian western elite.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
It makes perfect arithmetical sense if you accept that there is a point at which people will start looking to avoid tax or cut back on work as it is no longer worth working just to give money to the government. This of course applies particularly to large companies who may well choose to site their operations in countries with lower tax regimes.
Exactly if 100% of your wages are taken in tax why would you bother working at all? You may as well just live off the benefits those taxes fund. Similarly if the tax rate is 0% the government will raise no revenue at all. The best tax rate lies somewhere in between.
The optimum tax rate certainly lies between 0% and 100%!
I suspect the curve has a flat top. If the optimum is 50% then an increase of 1% point in tax rate will lead to a 2% reduction in taxable income, leaving the total tax take unchanged. I don't think there is a theoretical way to calculate the optimum rate and the experimental way is open to political manipulation. If you pre-announce a reduction from 50% to 45% for next year, then many managers will arrange for bonuses to be deferred from this year to next. The result is an apparent yearly increase in tax take which is one-off and entirely due to the deferral. Osborne used dodgy statistics based on this effect.
I suspect the curve goes on rising until quite high levels of tax. The reason for this is that many people - and especially those who are higher paid and with the incentive and wherewithal to put their minds to it - already put in a lot of effort to keep their tax bill down by means mostly legitimate. If taxes went down I doubt they would relax their efforts to save tax, and if rates go up there is probably not much more they can do.
Certainly people move taxable income between years, particularly when rules change (another reason why researching the curve is impossible).
However the behaviours that reduce the curve below a rising 45 degree straight-line are mostly disincentive to do extra work and incentive to fiddle or illegally evade tax - making/taking more payments in cash, etc. Of course both these exist, but at 'reasonable' marginal rates I very much doubt these are sufficient to turn the marginal gain from higher taxes into a negative.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
It makes perfect arithmetical sense if you accept that there is a point at which people will start looking to avoid tax or cut back on work as it is no longer worth working just to give money to the government. This of course applies particularly to large companies who may well choose to site their operations in countries with lower tax regimes.
Exactly if 100% of your wages are taken in tax why would you bother working at all? You may as well just live off the benefits those taxes fund. Similarly if the tax rate is 0% the government will raise no revenue at all. The best tax rate lies somewhere in between.
The optimum tax rate certainly lies between 0% and 100%!
I suspect the curve has a flat top. If the optimum is 50% then an increase of 1% point in tax rate will lead to a 2% reduction in taxable income, leaving the total tax take unchanged. I don't think there is a theoretical way to calculate the optimum rate and the experimental way is open to political manipulation. If you pre-announce a reduction from 50% to 45% for next year, then many managers will arrange for bonuses to be deferred from this year to next. The result is an apparent yearly increase in tax take which is one-off and entirely due to the deferral. Osborne used dodgy statistics based on this effect.
Perhaps but 45% I think is closest to the optimum revenue raising rate.
None of the seats listed was marginal, let alone ultramarginal,* and even if they had been politics was a more gentlemanly game back then. Nowadays this would invite the mother of all decapitation strategies.
* E.g. Douglas Hume got 57% of the vote in Kinross & WP in 1963, and 67% in 1964.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
It makes perfect arithmetical sense if you accept that there is a point at which people will start looking to avoid tax or cut back on work as it is no longer worth working just to give money to the government. This of course applies particularly to large companies who may well choose to site their operations in countries with lower tax regimes.
Exactly if 100% of your wages are taken in tax why would you bother working at all? You may as well just live off the benefits those taxes fund. Similarly if the tax rate is 0% the government will raise no revenue at all. The best tax rate lies somewhere in between.
The optimum tax rate certainly lies between 0% and 100%!
I suspect the curve has a flat top. If the optimum is 50% then an increase of 1% point in tax rate will lead to a 2% reduction in taxable income, leaving the total tax take unchanged. I don't think there is a theoretical way to calculate the optimum rate and the experimental way is open to political manipulation. If you pre-announce a reduction from 50% to 45% for next year, then many managers will arrange for bonuses to be deferred from this year to next. The result is an apparent yearly increase in tax take which is one-off and entirely due to the deferral. Osborne used dodgy statistics based on this effect.
Perhaps but 45% I think is closest to the optimum revenue raising rate.
We really don't know. All we can do is think it. And our thinking will be driven by our political beliefs. We are into faith territory.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
Wasn’t that exactly what happened in about 1988 when Lawson cut the top rate from 60 to 40%.
I thought both the amount and percentage that higher rate taxpayers paid went up.
Doubtless someone will correct me?
I won't comment on the 1980s, but to take the more recent example - people claimed that tax revenues going up after Osborne cut the 50p tax rate in 2012 proved the "Laffer Curve". But they ignore that, over the exact same period, US tax revenues increased by considerably more, despite no similar tax cuts for high earners in the US.
In other words, "if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" -- which is something that applies to both the weird idea that "if every individual pays less tax, then there'll be more tax overall" just as much as it does to the previous Ed Balls argument of "if we spend more, then we'll be spending less overall".
Does the word ”feedback” exist in your vocabulary?
None of the seats listed was marginal, let alone ultramarginal,* and even if they had been politics was a more gentlemanly game back then. Nowadays this would invite the mother of all decapitation strategies.
* E.g. Douglas Hume got 57% of the vote in Kinross & WP in 1963, and 67% in 1964.
Folkestone and Hythe was.
Tory majority of nearly 6,000 over the Lib Dems, with 9,000 Labour voters to squeeze.
The Lib Dems launched a decapitation strategy.
The Lib Dem leader re-affirmed the tactic of throwing resources into unseating five senior Tories, including Michael Howard, by making a late campaign visit to the Conservative leader's Folkestone and Hythe constituency. The trip, with less than 48 hours to polling day, was intended to send a message that Mr Howard's 5,907 majority was not secure.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
It makes perfect arithmetical sense if you accept that there is a point at which people will start looking to avoid tax or cut back on work as it is no longer worth working just to give money to the government. This of course applies particularly to large companies who may well choose to site their operations in countries with lower tax regimes.
Exactly if 100% of your wages are taken in tax why would you bother working at all? You may as well just live off the benefits those taxes fund. Similarly if the tax rate is 0% the government will raise no revenue at all. The best tax rate lies somewhere in between.
The optimum tax rate certainly lies between 0% and 100%!
I suspect the curve has a flat top. If the optimum is 50% then an increase of 1% point in tax rate will lead to a 2% reduction in taxable income, leaving the total tax take unchanged. I don't think there is a theoretical way to calculate the optimum rate and the experimental way is open to political manipulation. If you pre-announce a reduction from 50% to 45% for next year, then many managers will arrange for bonuses to be deferred from this year to next. The result is an apparent yearly increase in tax take which is one-off and entirely due to the deferral. Osborne used dodgy statistics based on this effect.
Perhaps but 45% I think is closest to the optimum revenue raising rate.
We really don't know. All we can do is think it. And our thinking will be driven by our political beliefs. We are into faith territory.
Agree. Would also point out that any data will differ between countries. In Greece or India, for example, the rate is less relevant. It is about getting people to pay tax owed at all. The more "communitarian" a society, the more likely tax is paid. So, the sweet spot will vary by time, by location, and by type of tax. Really not much use as a policy guide at all. As so much in political economy, the only way to find out is to try it. Which brings us back to faith...
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
It makes perfect arithmetical sense if you accept that there is a point at which people will start looking to avoid tax or cut back on work as it is no longer worth working just to give money to the government. This of course applies particularly to large companies who may well choose to site their operations in countries with lower tax regimes.
Exactly if 100% of your wages are taken in tax why would you bother working at all? You may as well just live off the benefits those taxes fund. Similarly if the tax rate is 0% the government will raise no revenue at all. The best tax rate lies somewhere in between.
The optimum tax rate certainly lies between 0% and 100%!
I suspect the curve has a flat top. If the optimum is 50% then an increase of 1% point in tax rate will lead to a 2% reduction in taxable income, leaving the total tax take unchanged. I don't think there is a theoretical way to calculate the optimum rate and the experimental way is open to political manipulation. If you pre-announce a reduction from 50% to 45% for next year, then many managers will arrange for bonuses to be deferred from this year to next. The result is an apparent yearly increase in tax take which is one-off and entirely due to the deferral. Osborne used dodgy statistics based on this effect.
Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez calculated (for the USA) that a top marginal tax rate of 75% would maximise tax revenue.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Do you really believe in the "Laffer Curve" yourself?
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
Wasn’t that exactly what happened in about 1988 when Lawson cut the top rate from 60 to 40%.
I thought both the amount and percentage that higher rate taxpayers paid went up.
Doubtless someone will correct me?
I won't comment on the 1980s, but to take the more recent example - people claimed that tax revenues going up after Osborne cut the 50p tax rate in 2012 proved the "Laffer Curve". But they ignore that, over the exact same period, US tax revenues increased by considerably more, despite no similar tax cuts for high earners in the US.
In other words, "if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" -- which is something that applies to both the weird idea that "if every individual pays less tax, then there'll be more tax overall" just as much as it does to the previous Ed Balls argument of "if we spend more, then we'll be spending less overall".
The most obvious case is smuggling to avoid excise duties. There will be a watershed, below which people think it's not worth taking the risk, and above which, it is worth taking the risk of getting caught.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
?
cit.
It tax regimes.
.
.
Perhaps but 45% I think is closest to the optimum revenue raising rate.
We really don't know. All we can do is think it. And our thinking will be driven by our political beliefs. We are into faith territory.
Agree. Would also point out that any data will differ between countries. In Greece or India, for example, the rate is less relevant. It is about getting people to pay tax owed at all. The more "communitarian" a society, the more likely tax is paid. So, the sweet spot will vary by time, by location, and by type of tax. Really not much use as a policy guide at all. As so much in political economy, the only way to find out is to try it. Which brings us back to faith...
And, furthermore, its proponents as an argument for tax cutting always seem to assume that the curve is the same as far as tax cuts and tax rises are concerned. I don't believe this is necessarily so, and indeed it is very likely that it is dramatically different.
For example, suppose a future government whacks up income tax by 10%. Clearly, some people who currently don't bother will be driven to research ways to reduce their tax bill, and all of the various ways in which this can be done will quickly become more popular, reducing the additional tax take below what you would expect on a straight-line basis.
Now suppose a later government reduces tax by 10% back to the original figure. Why would all the extra people now clued up to reducing their taxable income suddenly go back to being lazy and not bothering? Of course, they won't - just as people driven to other fiddly means of financial benefit such as switching fuel suppliers or jiggling credit cards tend to stick with it, once they have overcome the barrier to entry in terms of knowhow. More likely, it would take years for the levels of tax avoidance (and evasion) to drift back to their original levels, as a new generation grows up in the lower tax regime.
So, even if higher tax rates reduce the tax take, it doesn't follow that dropping the rates back will restore the shortfall. Quite possibly it could magnify it.
None of the seats listed was marginal, let alone ultramarginal,* and even if they had been politics was a more gentlemanly game back then. Nowadays this would invite the mother of all decapitation strategies.
* E.g. Douglas Hume got 57% of the vote in Kinross & WP in 1963, and 67% in 1964.
Folkestone and Hythe was.
Tory majority of nearly 6,000 over the Lib Dems, with 9,000 Labour voters to squeeze.
The Lib Dems launched a decapitation strategy.
The Lib Dem leader re-affirmed the tactic of throwing resources into unseating five senior Tories, including Michael Howard, by making a late campaign visit to the Conservative leader's Folkestone and Hythe constituency. The trip, with less than 48 hours to polling day, was intended to send a message that Mr Howard's 5,907 majority was not secure.
List not numbered, infuriatingly, but 6000 is not a marginal majority; and Charlie Kennedy investing one day in having a pop at a 6000 maj is a different kettle of fish from a Labour attack on a maj of 346, with planning starting the day she ascends to the Iron Throne.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
?
cit.
It tax regimes.
.
.
Perhaps but 45% I think is closest to the optimum revenue raising rate.
We really don't know. All we can do is think it. And our thinking will be driven by our political beliefs. We are into faith territory.
Agree. Would also point out that any data will differ between countries. In Greece or India, for example, the rate is less relevant. It is about getting people to pay tax owed at all. The more "communitarian" a society, the more likely tax is paid. So, the sweet spot will vary by time, by location, and by type of tax. Really not much use as a policy guide at all. As so much in political economy, the only way to find out is to try it. Which brings us back to faith...
And, furthermore, its proponents as an argument for tax cutting always seem to assume that the curve is the same as far as tax cuts and tax rises are concerned. I don't believe this is necessarily so, and indeed it is very likely that it is dramatically different.
For example, suppose a future government whacks up income tax by 10%. Clearly, some people who currently don't bother will be driven to research ways to reduce their tax bill, and all of the various ways in which this can be done will quickly become more popular, reducing the additional tax take below what you would expect on a straight-line basis.
Now suppose a later government reduces tax by 10% back to the original figure. Why would all the extra people now clued up to reducing their taxable income suddenly go back to being lazy and not bothering? Of course, they won't - just as people driven to other fiddly means of financial benefit such as switching fuel suppliers or jiggling credit cards tend to stick with it, once they have overcome the barrier to entry in terms of knowhow. More likely, it would take years for the levels of tax avoidance (and evasion) to drift back to their original levels, as a new generation grows up in the lower tax regime.
So, even if higher tax rates reduce the tax take, it doesn't follow that dropping the rates back will restore the shortfall. Quite possibly it could magnify it.
Indeed, If it were so simple to come up with a magical revenue-maximising figure, wouldn't everywhere know about it and use it?
None of the seats listed was marginal, let alone ultramarginal,* and even if they had been politics was a more gentlemanly game back then. Nowadays this would invite the mother of all decapitation strategies.
* E.g. Douglas Hume got 57% of the vote in Kinross & WP in 1963, and 67% in 1964.
Folkestone and Hythe was.
Tory majority of nearly 6,000 over the Lib Dems, with 9,000 Labour voters to squeeze.
The Lib Dems launched a decapitation strategy.
The Lib Dem leader re-affirmed the tactic of throwing resources into unseating five senior Tories, including Michael Howard, by making a late campaign visit to the Conservative leader's Folkestone and Hythe constituency. The trip, with less than 48 hours to polling day, was intended to send a message that Mr Howard's 5,907 majority was not secure.
List not numbered, infuriatingly, but 6000 is not a marginal majority; and Charlie Kennedy investing one day in having a pop at a 6000 maj is a different kettle of fish from a Labour attack on a maj of 346, with planning starting the day she ascends to the Iron Throne.
Michael Howard Entree Resources and Soma Oil and Gas - say no more
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Speaking of political leadership and the Laffer sweet spot, I believe the SCon MSP Annie Wells, on around £60k p.a, will be paying an extra 29p a week under the new tax regime. Do you think this will have a disastrous effect on Scottish tax revenues, and will this political titan be tempted to drain her brain to a grateful England?
i.e. the SNP have proposed to raise income tax in such a way that its MSPs are hit with a smaller tax increase than those earning 20 grand less (assuming no other source of taxable income in each case) while trumpeting the progressive nature of their proposal.
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
?
cit.
It tax regimes.
.
.
Perhaps but 45% I think is closest to the optimum revenue raising rate.
We really don't know. All we can do is think it. And our thinking will be driven by our political beliefs. We are into faith territory.
Agree. Would also point out that any data will differ between countries. In Greece or India, for example, the rate is less relevant. It e of tax. Really not much use as a policy guide at all. As so much in political economy, the only way to find out is to try it. Which brings us back to faith...
And, furthermore, its proponents as an argument for tax cutting always seem to assume that the curve is the same as far as tax cuts and tax rises are concerned. I don't believe this is necessarily so, and indeed it is very likely that it is dramatically different.
For example, suppose a future government whacks up income tax by 10%. Clearly, some people who currently don't bother will be driven to research ways to reduce their tax bill, and all of the various ways in which this can be done will quickly become more popular, reducing the additional tax take below what you would expect on a straight-line basis.
Now suppose a later government reduces tax by 10% back to the original figure. Why would all the extra people now clued up to reducing their taxable income suddenly go back to being lazy and not bothering? Of course, they won't - just as people driven to other fiddly means of financial benefit such as switching fuel suppliers or jiggling credit cards tend to stick with it, once they have overcome the barrier to entry in terms of knowhow. More likely, it would take years for the levels of tax avoidance (and evasion) to drift back to their original levels, as a new generation grows up in the lower tax regime.
So, even if higher tax rates reduce the tax take, it doesn't follow that dropping the rates back will restore the shortfall. Quite possibly it could magnify it.
Indeed, If it were so simple to come up with a magical revenue-maximising figure, wouldn't everywhere know about it and use it?
Sports personality, with a few notable exceptions, a contradiction in terms.
There is that. My impression is also that it’s helpful if the relevant sport is on BBC TV. Not quite pay to play but moving towards that end of the spectrum.
Sports personality, with a few notable exceptions, a contradiction in terms.
There is that. My impression is also that it’s helpful if the relevant sport is on BBC TV. Not quite pay to play but moving towards that end of the spectrum.
Yes, completely unbelievable that sports with the highest viewerships would do well.
Sports personality, with a few notable exceptions, a contradiction in terms.
There is that. My impression is also that it’s helpful if the relevant sport is on BBC TV. Not quite pay to play but moving towards that end of the spectrum.
Well arguably the biggest UK sporting personality of the past 25 years, and still winning tournaments, Ronnie O'Sullivan, has never even made the shortlist! But Ronnie say's he'd hate to be nominated as it's not his thing sitting down for 2 or 3 hours getting bored. Top quality as usual Ronnie!
(There is of course a certain delicious irony - I slag off the DfE as useless then use their survey! But will you forgive me this once?)
It looks a lot more accurate to me, too. No doubt teaching load varies significantly, as do such things as class size and per pupil funding, but 60+ hour weeks are not uncommon, especially in primary schools.
You wonder how much this has changed with globalisation. look at how globally mobile workers in high paying jobs are now. Most jobs that exist in London exist in say, Hong Kong or Singapore, or Silicon Valley, depending on what you're into. And of course within the EU free movement makes it easy to depart to another European capital. The exodus of French bankers to London after Hollande got in turned parts of the city into Little Paris. If one country declares a war on the wealthy, it's not hard to get up and leave (Corbynistas - take note).
Of course, all this exemplifies another part of the globalisation story (and the FoM one in the EU) - how it has benefited the highly skilled and well paid, opening up new opportunities. While the working classes find themselves simply exposed to more competition that has driven wages down.
The evidencce that the rich will flee high taxes is pretty limited. They often have stronger connections/networks where they live that made them rich... also if you’re rich - I guess you want to live wherever!
According to the ST today the Finance Minister for Scotland who increased my taxes this week has not even heard of Arthur Laffer or his curve. Oh brave new world that has such leadership in it.
Speaking of political leadership and the Laffer sweet spot, I believe the SCon MSP Annie Wells, on around £60k p.a, will be paying an extra 29p a week under the new tax regime. Do you think this will have a disastrous effect on Scottish tax revenues, and will this political titan be tempted to drain her brain to a grateful England?
i.e. the SNP have proposed to raise income tax in such a way that its MSPs are hit with a smaller tax increase than those earning 20 grand less (assuming no other source of taxable income in each case) while trumpeting the progressive nature of their proposal.
I doubt they see it, although it is still silly if specific MPs voted for article 50and then act like any way forward is unacceptable. Those that voted against, or at least acknowledge what they think has changed to make them think they should reverse their A50 vote, that's not silly though in fairness.
Sir Mo Farah 83,524 Jonathan Rea 80,567 Jonnie Peacock 73,429 Anthony Joshua 73,411, Adam Peaty 63,739 Lewis Hamilton 60,627 Chris Froome 47,683 Harry Kane 18,759 Anya Shrubsole 15,237 Bianca Walkden 13,962 Johanna Konta 7,591 Elise Christie 6,504
My take from this:
1. If SPOTY can be anywhere near this tight at the top the odds should never be tighter than 1/3 on a favourite. 2. Women get shocking figures. Barely 20% of winners have been women.
Sir Mo Farah 83,524 Jonathan Rea 80,567 Jonnie Peacock 73,429 Anthony Joshua 73,411, Adam Peaty 63,739 Lewis Hamilton 60,627 Chris Froome 47,683 Harry Kane 18,759 Anya Shrubsole 15,237 Bianca Walkden 13,962 Johanna Konta 7,591 Elise Christie 6,504
My take from this:
1. If SPOTY can be anywhere near this tight at the top the odds should never be tighter than 1/3 on a favourite. 2. Women get shocking figures. Barely 20% of winners have been women.
Sir Mo Farah 83,524 Jonathan Rea 80,567 Jonnie Peacock 73,429 Anthony Joshua 73,411, Adam Peaty 63,739 Lewis Hamilton 60,627 Chris Froome 47,683 Harry Kane 18,759 Anya Shrubsole 15,237 Bianca Walkden 13,962 Johanna Konta 7,591 Elise Christie 6,504
My take from this:
1. If SPOTY can be anywhere near this tight at the top the odds should never be tighter than 1/3 on a favourite. 2. Women get shocking figures. Barely 20% of winners have been women.
Sir Mo Farah 83,524 Jonathan Rea 80,567 Jonnie Peacock 73,429 Anthony Joshua 73,411, Adam Peaty 63,739 Lewis Hamilton 60,627 Chris Froome 47,683 Harry Kane 18,759 Anya Shrubsole 15,237 Bianca Walkden 13,962 Johanna Konta 7,591 Elise Christie 6,504
My take from this:
1. If SPOTY can be anywhere near this tight at the top the odds should never be tighter than 1/3 on a favourite. 2. Women get shocking figures. Barely 20% of winners have been women.
Sir Mo Farah 83,524 Jonathan Rea 80,567 Jonnie Peacock 73,429 Anthony Joshua 73,411, Adam Peaty 63,739 Lewis Hamilton 60,627 Chris Froome 47,683 Harry Kane 18,759 Anya Shrubsole 15,237 Bianca Walkden 13,962 Johanna Konta 7,591 Elise Christie 6,504
My take from this:
1. If SPOTY can be anywhere near this tight at the top the odds should never be tighter than 1/3 on a favourite. 2. Women get shocking figures. Barely 20% of winners have been women.
That looks like a lowish turnout.
Good point. Andy Murray won last year with more votes than this top 3 combined.
Maybe this isn't a profound or new insight, but is it just me, or has Corbyn + Brexit overtaken and made obsolete the "fed up with all politicians" vibe of 2009-16?
You wonder how much this has changed with globalisation. look at how globally mobile workers in high paying jobs are now. Most jobs that exist in London exist in say, Hong Kong or Singapore, or Silicon Valley, depending on what you're into. And of course within the EU free movement makes it easy to depart to another European capital. The exodus of French bankers to London after Hollande got in turned parts of the city into Little Paris. If one country declares a war on the wealthy, it's not hard to get up and leave (Corbynistas - take note).
Of course, all this exemplifies another part of the globalisation story (and the FoM one in the EU) - how it has benefited the highly skilled and well paid, opening up new opportunities. While the working classes find themselves simply exposed to more competition that has driven wages down.
The evidencce that the rich will flee high taxes is pretty limited. They often have stronger connections/networks where they live that made them rich... also if you’re rich - I guess you want to live wherever!
That focuses on the question whether the rich move less than the poor, which tells us nothing - what the poor do is immaterial to the argument. The question is whether the heavily taxed rich move more than the slightly less heavily taxed. It is also purely about intra-USA, state to state migration, which is presumably less big a deal than moving country. And as a third niggle, it isn't very rigorous about defining its terms. $1m a year is nice to have but I don't think it qualifies you as super rich these days, and the chart tops out at $5.2m a year - again nice to have, but there are people in the US making vastly more than that: Elon musk allegedly paid income tax of $593m last year, and deserves studying in his own right rather than being lumped in with the 5.2m a year crowd.
Sir Mo Farah 83,524 Jonathan Rea 80,567 Jonnie Peacock 73,429 Anthony Joshua 73,411, Adam Peaty 63,739 Lewis Hamilton 60,627 Chris Froome 47,683 Harry Kane 18,759 Anya Shrubsole 15,237 Bianca Walkden 13,962 Johanna Konta 7,591 Elise Christie 6,504
My take from this:
1. If SPOTY can be anywhere near this tight at the top the odds should never be tighter than 1/3 on a favourite. 2. Women get shocking figures. Barely 20% of winners have been women.
That looks like a lowish turnout.
Good point. Andy Murray won last year with more votes than this top 3 combined.
In 2015 Murray and Sinfield together got more than the entire field this year.
Sir Mo Farah 83,524 Jonathan Rea 80,567 Jonnie Peacock 73,429 Anthony Joshua 73,411, Adam Peaty 63,739 Lewis Hamilton 60,627 Chris Froome 47,683 Harry Kane 18,759 Anya Shrubsole 15,237 Bianca Walkden 13,962 Johanna Konta 7,591 Elise Christie 6,504
My take from this:
1. If SPOTY can be anywhere near this tight at the top the odds should never be tighter than 1/3 on a favourite. 2. Women get shocking figures. Barely 20% of winners have been women.
My take: They should use AV rather than FPTP.
So Farah won on about 16pc of the vote. I would love to have seen the reaction if another 36k people had voted for Froome! Misogyny indeed.
Sir Mo Farah 83,524 Jonathan Rea 80,567 Jonnie Peacock 73,429 Anthony Joshua 73,411, Adam Peaty 63,739 Lewis Hamilton 60,627 Chris Froome 47,683 Harry Kane 18,759 Anya Shrubsole 15,237 Bianca Walkden 13,962 Johanna Konta 7,591 Elise Christie 6,504
My take from this:
1. If SPOTY can be anywhere near this tight at the top the odds should never be tighter than 1/3 on a favourite. 2. Women get shocking figures. Barely 20% of winners have been women.
My take: They should use AV rather than FPTP.
I wonder if Lewis would have won but for his Isle of Man private jet tax dodge?
Comments
But it's rarer for our mistakes to kill people. It can happen though - most infamously I think in this case where it is fairly obvious the teacher concerned fell asleep at the wheel.
The idea that cutting tax rates brings in more tax revenues, makes about as much arithmetical sense as the idea that increasing spending can reduce a budget deficit.
48.2 is the average according to the Education Policy Institute: https://epi.org.uk/report/teacherworkload/
But I’ve never met a teacher who said they worked less than 50 hours a week.
Opinium did ask a best PM question today where May led Corbyn 34% to 28%.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5156114/theresa-may-brexit-poll-support-conservative-party/
http://opinium.co.uk/political-polling-14th-november-2017-2/
I thought both the amount and percentage that higher rate taxpayers paid went up.
Doubtless someone will correct me?
Do I need to a do a thread on why leadership ratings are a better pointer on election results than VI polls?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/04/the-polling-that-should-worry-mrs-may-and-all-tories/
In other words, "if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" -- which is something that applies to both the weird idea that "if every individual pays less tax, then there'll be more tax overall" just as much as it does to the previous Ed Balls argument of "if we spend more, then we'll be spending less overall".
Who leads as best PM is relevant along with voting intention (and of course Mrs May still won almost 60 seats more than Corbyn and the second highest number of Tory seats since 1992 in June), net approval less so.
If we multiply 48.2 by 52 I get 2506.4 hours. If I then divide that by 40 I get 62.6 hours per week. If I divide it by 43 to come up with a slightly more realistic figure I get 58. That seems plausible to me and would go a long way to explaining the confusion.
If I tell you however that a state school contract advises that a teacher should work 1263 hours per year - you will get some idea of how far out our dear masters at the DfE working comfortable 37 hour weeks on average salaries of around sixty thousand are from Planet Earth.
The general rule is the party that leads on the economy and has the best leader approval rating wins the election.
Page 7 of the executive summary makes it clear that is a figure for a sampled week - not averaged out over the year.
All fine, except that no-one knows where this maximum point falls, and given the lack of evidence (rates don't change frequently enough to do any meaningful research, economic circumstances tend to change faster than tax rates, and no-one knows how much tax is evaded or avoided) they never will. For all we know the maximum take could be at rates significantly higher than the current ones, in which case citing the curve in a debate about tax cuts would be meaningless.
But I think we can see that certainly with the very high marginal tax rates in the 1960s there was evidence of the Laffer curve in action.
What I find far more interesting is the evidence that will emerge over time rom places like Hungary and the Baltic States which have flat rate tax systems but also maintain significant welfare systems. If they can make such systems work over the long term then I think that might inspire many more countries to look seriously at the idea.
Whatever way it is calculated, I simply cannot accept that as an average. I've worked in several schools now in a variety of roles and in none of them have I worked less than 55 hours a week although this role is unusually punishing.
I suspect the curve has a flat top. If the optimum is 50% then an increase of 1% point in tax rate will lead to a 2% reduction in taxable income, leaving the total tax take unchanged. I don't think there is a theoretical way to calculate the optimum rate and the experimental way is open to political manipulation. If you pre-announce a reduction from 50% to 45% for next year, then many managers will arrange for bonuses to be deferred from this year to next. The result is an apparent yearly increase in tax take which is one-off and entirely due to the deferral. Osborne used dodgy statistics based on this effect.
Of course, all this exemplifies another part of the globalisation story (and the FoM one in the EU) - how it has benefited the highly skilled and well paid, opening up new opportunities. While the working classes find themselves simply exposed to more competition that has driven wages down.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/romanias-princess-margareta-was-gordon-browns-girlfriend-5vlflzjjq
Certainly people move taxable income between years, particularly when rules change (another reason why researching the curve is impossible).
However the behaviours that reduce the curve below a rising 45 degree straight-line are mostly disincentive to do extra work and incentive to fiddle or illegally evade tax - making/taking more payments in cash, etc. Of course both these exist, but at 'reasonable' marginal rates I very much doubt these are sufficient to turn the marginal gain from higher taxes into a negative.
* E.g. Douglas Hume got 57% of the vote in Kinross & WP in 1963, and 67% in 1964.
Tory majority of nearly 6,000 over the Lib Dems, with 9,000 Labour voters to squeeze.
The Lib Dems launched a decapitation strategy.
The Lib Dem leader re-affirmed the tactic of throwing resources into unseating five senior Tories, including Michael Howard, by making a late campaign visit to the Conservative leader's Folkestone and Hythe constituency. The trip, with less than 48 hours to polling day, was intended to send a message that Mr Howard's 5,907 majority was not secure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1489270/Defiant-Kennedy-takes-decapitation-strategy-into-Tory-heartland.html
Found this survey. Not only is its methodology far more transparent but its findings seem a hell of a lot more realistic:
https://www.isc.co.uk/media/4410/tws_2016_final_research_report_feb_2017.pdf
(There is of course a certain delicious irony - I slag off the DfE as useless then use their survey! But will you forgive me this once?)
Would also point out that any data will differ between countries. In Greece or India, for example, the rate is less relevant. It is about getting people to pay tax owed at all.
The more "communitarian" a society, the more likely tax is paid.
So, the sweet spot will vary by time, by location, and by type of tax.
Really not much use as a policy guide at all. As so much in political economy, the only way to find out is to try it.
Which brings us back to faith...
For example, suppose a future government whacks up income tax by 10%. Clearly, some people who currently don't bother will be driven to research ways to reduce their tax bill, and all of the various ways in which this can be done will quickly become more popular, reducing the additional tax take below what you would expect on a straight-line basis.
Now suppose a later government reduces tax by 10% back to the original figure. Why would all the extra people now clued up to reducing their taxable income suddenly go back to being lazy and not bothering? Of course, they won't - just as people driven to other fiddly means of financial benefit such as switching fuel suppliers or jiggling credit cards tend to stick with it, once they have overcome the barrier to entry in terms of knowhow. More likely, it would take years for the levels of tax avoidance (and evasion) to drift back to their original levels, as a new generation grows up in the lower tax regime.
So, even if higher tax rates reduce the tax take, it doesn't follow that dropping the rates back will restore the shortfall. Quite possibly it could magnify it.
List not numbered, infuriatingly, but 6000 is not a marginal majority; and Charlie Kennedy investing one day in having a pop at a 6000 maj is a different kettle of fish from a Labour attack on a maj of 346, with planning starting the day she ascends to the Iron Throne.
He was over 100-1 (about an hour ago - haven't checked since)!
Fuck me.
I did not see that coming at all in anyway.
After years of not getting it when he should he finally does when a total outsider. Blimey.
If it were so simple to come up with a magical revenue-maximising figure, wouldn't everywhere know about it and use it?
I wonder if Chris Froome would have won but for the current issue.
Joshua 1.11
Hamilton 16
Peaty 50
Bar 100
So everyone in the top 3 was above 100-1!
Bang up the licence fee ....
Dives for cover ....
Win double olympic gold at your home games - can't even make to three.
Be dogged with drug stories for a year - win SPOTY.
That's why I don't bet on SPOTY.
No doubt teaching load varies significantly, as do such things as class size and per pupil funding, but 60+ hour weeks are not uncommon, especially in primary schools.
For instance:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.citylab.com/amp/article/487835/
Sir Mo Farah 83,524
Jonathan Rea 80,567
Jonnie Peacock 73,429
Anthony Joshua 73,411,
Adam Peaty 63,739
Lewis Hamilton 60,627
Chris Froome 47,683
Harry Kane 18,759
Anya Shrubsole 15,237
Bianca Walkden 13,962
Johanna Konta 7,591
Elise Christie 6,504
My take from this:
1. If SPOTY can be anywhere near this tight at the top the odds should never be tighter than 1/3 on a favourite.
2. Women get shocking figures. Barely 20% of winners have been women.
In Yorkshire they are showing a fine action film that was released in July 1988.
This year: 545,033
They just referenced Ebenezeer Scrooge
Next you’ll be saying Captain America: The First Avenger is a WWII film not a Marvel film.