Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:32 pm  

Dally wrote:

If it were primarily a subsidy to the employer it would be paid the the employer. The cynic in my says that working tax credits, etc were a Labour ploy to have people beholden to them. They could have raised the tax threshold, etc like the coalition have but no they prefer a dependency culture that gets them votes. Same applies to their expansion of public sector jobs.

Raising the tax threshold is not the answer, the main beneficiaries of that are middle and higher income earners. The lowest paid will see no benefit simply because their working credits will reduce as their take-home pay increases.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:00 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Raising the tax threshold is not the answer, the main beneficiaries of that are middle and higher income earners. The lowest paid will see no benefit simply because their working credits will reduce as their take-home pay increases.

High earners don't get a personal allowance.

I was suggesting higher personal allowances rather than tax credits rather than both, although I suppose for very low earners / part-time workers it wouldn't help.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:03 pm  

Dally wrote:

If it were primarily a subsidy to the employer it would be paid the the employer ...

Not necessarily.

See my linked-to piece earlier about public health, corporates and advertising. No money (as far as I know) was ever paid to any corporate, but a specific advantage was given to them indirectly.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:42 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Not necessarily.

See my linked-to piece earlier about public health, corporates and advertising. No money (as far as I know) was ever paid to any corporate, but a specific advantage was given to them indirectly.

So another Brown disaster then.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:47 pm  

Dally wrote:

So another Brown disaster then.

That was the corporates being invited to committees on public health by this government, and brands being declared okay in 'health' advice published by this government.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:57 pm  

Mintball wrote:

That was the corporates being invited to committees on public health by this government, and brands being declared okay in 'health' advice published by this government.

I thought we were talking about tax credits?

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:16 pm  

Dally wrote:

High earners don't get a personal allowance.

They do up to £100k "adjusted net income" and only then does it reduce on a £1 for £2 basis. That's why I said "high earners" and not "very high earners"

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:08 pm  

Dally wrote:

I thought we were talking about tax credits?

As I said a couple of posts ago, I responded to you generally in terms of illustrating ways in which big business gets treated especially well.

This is a particularly good way – and shows a subsidy from the taxpayer to corporates that is not paid directly, but is none the less a subsidy.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:54 pm  

Mintball wrote:

As I said a couple of posts ago, I responded to you generally in terms of illustrating ways in which big business gets treated especially well.

This is a particularly good way – and shows a subsidy from the taxpayer to corporates that is not paid directly, but is none the less a subsidy.

Are you saying tax credits should be scrapped as they have a secondary effect of "subsidising" business?

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:02 pm  

Dally wrote:

Are you saying tax credits should be scrapped as they have a secondary effect of "subsidising" business?

I imagine she's saying it is the duty of a profitable employer to sufficiently remunerate its staff, rather than relying on the taxpayer to subsidise their remuneration.