Jamie Oliver: 'sugar tax'

[Cyclone]

I'd agree about Labour.

 

But a lot of the conservative policies that benefit the poor in the last parliament were liberal policies.

This 'obsession' is very important. The gap between the rich and poor is the single best predictor of the average happiness level of a nation.

[unbeliever]

I'd agree about Labour.

 

But a lot of the conservative policies that benefit the poor in the last parliament were liberal policies.

This 'obsession' is very important. The gap between the rich and poor is the single best predictor of the average happiness level of a nation.

 

I suppose that a small gap suppresses envy. But that can be countered by giving people more opportunity to better themselves.

I think you'll find that if cutting income tax for the poor was a Liberal only policy before 2010, the Conservatives have now made it their own and that's partly why I switched from a Conservative/Liberal floater to a Conservative.

But surely practical as well as psychological welfare is important as well. And if more people understood that the gap is not associated with other people having what should be theirs, they'd feel better about it. I honestly believe that this is the case. Too much obsession with dividing up the pie at the expense of the size of the pie, and everybody ends up with less pie.

[Cyclone]

FYI, some reading.

 

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/features/2014/spirit-level/

 

https://activeeconomist.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/the-rising-gap-between-rich-and-poor-is-not-just-bad-for-society-it-is-bad-for-growth-discuss/

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/09/revealed-wealth-gap-oecd-report

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/inequality-and-happiness

 

A large gap causes unhappiness (amongst everyone, not just the poor), it also harms economic growth and is generally bad for society.

[unbeliever]

FYI, some reading.

 

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/features/2014/spirit-level/

 

https://activeeconomist.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/the-rising-gap-between-rich-and-poor-is-not-just-bad-for-society-it-is-bad-for-growth-discuss/

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/09/revealed-wealth-gap-oecd-report

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/inequality-and-happiness

 

A large gap causes unhappiness (amongst everyone, not just the poor), it also harms economic growth and is generally bad for society.

 

 

I can respect these opinions, but I honestly and firmly disagree.

Historically, states with more redistribution experience slower growth.

I suppose there's a redistribution peak which maximises growth. perhaps all we're disagreeing on is where that peak is. Obviously it moves as the world changes.

[El Cid]

I disagree. I make a distinction between the working poor who are a high priority to me; and the wilfully, chronically unemployed who I want to offer basic support to but no more.

 

We give them more money, and they go and spend it on chips, sugary foods, big TVs and mobile phones - the joy of capitalism. Its just a shame that very few TVs and mobile phones are made in the UK, at least we still make our own chips and buns.

 

Did I do well to stay on topic

[Cyclone]

I can respect these opinions, but I honestly and firmly disagree.

Historically, states with more redistribution experience slower growth.

I suppose there's a redistribution peak which maximises growth. perhaps all we're disagreeing on is where that peak is. Obviously it moves as the world changes.

 

I'm not particularly in favour of active redistribution, I am more in favour of a more progressive tax system (or perhaps I should say less regressive).

 

Edit - those aren't opinions btw, they're scientific studies of happiness and income equality, or at least that's the underlying basis for the opinions.

[unbeliever]

I'm not particularly in favour of active redistribution, I am more in favour of a more progressive tax system (or perhaps I should say less regressive).

 

Edit - those aren't opinions btw, they're scientific studies of happiness and income equality, or at least that's the underlying basis for the opinions.

 

But there is a difference between happiness and welfare. There are other ways to improve happiness without damaging growth. Opportunity is vital.

For example I'm all in favour of more state education spending, but I think we need to learn from the far east and the success they've achieved with imposing heavier workloads and academic rigour as well as more investment in education.

 

I'm all in favour of progressive taxation. I love the recent increases in the income tax threshold. I would like to see the working poor taken out of NI as well. I think there's reason to hope for this with the current government.

I also think more basics should be zero rated for VAT. The EU currently prevents this, but even if we stay in it may be possible to persuade them. It would be very useful to reduce the VAT burden on the working poor.

I'm not in favour of increasing the top rates of income tax. I don't pay them myself, but I think that it would be economically damaging and thereby hurt everybody. I feel the same way about CGT as that's already above the revenue optimising rate in my opinion.

Edited September 4, 2015 by unbeliever

[Cyclone]

Like the links say, a large income gap damages economic growth.

 

I don't think South Korea is a good model for education at all. The children don't have any time to be children. I think the Scandinavian states are a better example, where formal schooling doesn't even start until 7, yet they have better results than we do (and without the 12 hr/6 day workloads the Korean children have).

[unbeliever]

Like the links say, a large income gap damages economic growth.

 

 

We may just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Edited September 4, 2015 by unbeliever

[Cyclone]

Well, I suppose you're free to have a different opinion... But on what are you basing it, given that you said you don't understand economics and it's not a controversial opinion that a large gap damages growth...