Cable wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2023, 02:00
But this doesn't work for low income people because they already don't pay income taxes. But that is where the money is going to make the most difference for those kids.
No, but as the video from Token demonstrated they are still paying (as a percentage of their income) considerable amounts of other taxation.
What is the fundamental difference between spending more money on the public education system over giving that money directly to parents?
Sorry, you've lost me a bit there - what education setting are you referring to? Early Years (preschool), standard schooling, 6th form (16-18 year olds) or HE.
I see an obvious need for state funded education. To me, that's an investment in the future skills needed by the country.
tokenBG1009 wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2023, 02:23
Man, things are very different in the UK vs the US. These are talking points that'd get any Republican labeled a RINO and laughed out of the party. It's interesting to see the difference.
Yeah, I mean I don't have loyalty to the Tory party either. I don't consider myself a right-winger per se at all, but I see the absolute need for the private sector to be encouraged rather than discouraged. BUT...some of my policies would be interventionist - I fundamentally believe there is a need to offer additional tax benefits to industries in low income areas*. Drive the industry, drive employment, release the reliance on the service sector, and particularly London.
I also would fully support starting a national policy of housebuilding include state held housing stock would be considered very left wing, but it addresses a critical problem in our economy of the cost of housing and drives construction employment too.
I'm also okay with protectionism of local industry if alternative imports are only cheap because of other failings (abhorrent working conditions, environmental disregard, child labour etc.)
This polices may be be seen as "wealth redistribution" but I see a philosophical difference in state encouraged growth policies rather than simple benefits.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying. If I had faith the government would actually enact AND ENFORCE these policies I would be less inclined to think they need to put money directly into the pockets of people to fix the problem.
To reference some of my early points, I DON'T have that trust in the UK Government. Nor in any alternative party (atm). But I do think that what is happening in the UK isn't working at all and we have a fairly substantial tax burden. We're in a slow decline so something has to change now.
Blackcyclops wrote: ↑
20 Mar 2023, 03:40
I fundamentally disagree here. But not because of something as straightforward and potentially wrongheaded as maybe a UBI (which I’m not totally against) but because through taxation government can be funded to do things. And by doing things, they indirectly spur on the economy.
I am not saying the Government shouldn't do things. That's actually the opposite of what I've said.
What I've argued primarily is you need the sweet spot of low taxation to actually increase tax receipts as productivity is increased.
I know it was decades ago at this point but for the US most of our 20th Century growth was indirectly spurned on by something done by the government and not because they just put money in people’s hands.
As it’s been seen time and time again recently, when corps get extra funds they don’t pay people more or even reinvest in innovation, they fatten the pockets of shareholders. I’d much rather that money be focused on government doing things that can ignite jobs. Even if that money was given just to states to use, I’d be okay since states do have a tendency to know their people better than the federal government. Just make sure the fed has things in place to protect the vulnerable.
I don't think we're that far apart - I've been continuously talking about igniting jobs. I still believe in low corporate tax if possible as I appreciate it's a competitive macro economy and I'd prefer corps to invest in the UK versus somewhere else. That doesn't disregard that a lot of what I've talked about is also targeting growth.