[Gllug] VACANCY: Junior Systems Support

[David Damerell]

On Wednesday, 9 Sep 2009, Hari Sekhon wrote:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>On Wednesday, 9 Sep 2009, Hari Sekhon wrote:
>>>On the contrary, a professional earning £20K could easily get a few £K 
>>>pay rise if said individual works hard, gets a promotion or changes job 
>>>etc
>>Changing job isn't a raise
>A technicality in wording.

Hardly. I used the word "raise" to mean "raise". When it turned out
you were using it to mean "change job" as well, I pointed out the same
applies; the marginal tax rate might be higher but the sums involved
are higher as well.

>>minimum wage; minimum wage on a (say) 37.5h week works out at a
>>smidgeon over L11K.
>As already mentioned it's a waste of time discussing minimum wage for 
>the previously mentioned reasons.

As far as I can make out, that's because it doesn't suit you;
consideration of people on or near the minimum wage demonstrates that
your idea that there is inventive on low wages but not high ones is
nonsense, so you handwave them away.

>>>it balances out. Ultimately those are the best jobs to automated where 
>>>possible,
>>Thus putting people out of work - to starve, in your utopia?
>No, it will just mean less immigration is required to support the jobs 
>that British people tend to not want to do.

Obviously someone who doesn't immigrate simply disappears and does not
then require work, benefits, food or accomodation in their home country.

>>It should also be obvious that the vast majority of families with
>>houses (and dogs, etc) in Britain are not upper-rate tax payers.
>That's why I said "now", think new generation, not people who were set 
>up in the better time pre-labour. Ok so older people were comfortably 
>set up before the era of labour brought higher immigration and higher 
>house prices,

I'm sure we all remember that there was no house-price bubble under
Thatcher, ever.

I've had effectively my entire working life (less a few months) under
Labour. I am perfectly comfortably set up.

>Anyone in the new generation not in the upper tax band is going to 
>really struggle now to get on the property ladder

So who _is_ going to buy all the houses? Houses are owned either by
people who live there; as people's second homes; or by landlords. To
get into the second and third categories you need to have a lot of
money. So you propose to... reduce tax for the well-off. That'll get
more people into the first category!

>and the point was that 
>the tax threshold for that excessively taxed upper bad has not been 
>revised accordingly to take this in to account.

Under Thatcher from '79 to '88 the upper band was taxed at 60%. So why
didn't that have the same effects then?

-- 
David Damerell <damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies
Yesterday was Brieday, August.
Today is Gouday, August.
Tomorrow will be Chedday, August.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug