Bolitics The New Condem Government

[bickster]

Yes, quite a few of the Green's policies are bonkers. These policies were formed when they were a small party. They have recently had a huge surge in membership and out of the parties that stand across the UK (i.e. excluding the SNP. Plaid etc) they are now the third largest party in terms of signed up members, they overtook the Lie Dems the other week, shortly after they overtook the kippers. You hope with such a large influx of members that in time their more bonkers policies will be smoothed out as more rational people get a say in their internal democratic process. It might not happen but you'd hope so.

[chrisp65]

Isn't supporting a party you know to have some truly bonkers ideas just the other swing of the pendulum from supporting UKIP on one issue, hoping all the gay weather and making sluts clean behind the fridge stuff goes away once enough other people vote for them?

 

If somebody on here put their head over the parapet and said they supported UKIP because of their stance on 'x' but accepted lots of the stuff was simply bollocks they'd get ridiculed wouldn't they?

[bickster]

Isn't supporting a party you know to have some truly bonkers ideas just the other swing of the pendulum from supporting UKIP on one issue, hoping all the gay weather and making sluts clean behind the fridge stuff goes away once enough other people vote for them?

 

If somebody on here put their head over the parapet and said they supported UKIP because of their stance on 'x' but accepted lots of the stuff was simply bollocks they'd get ridiculed wouldn't they?

There's a huge difference between the two imo. The Kippers are the wolf in sheeps clothing party, we know that despite what they say, their real ideals are what their financial backers want them to be. An Uber Tory, privatise everything, remove all restrictions on companies, neo-lib party that in effect have no real internal democracy, whilst using the fear of immigration and dislike of the EU to garner votes. The Greens are an entirely different entity, they have internal democracy and their aims are well broadly speaking to improve everyones lot in life, not just those with money. They are entirely different beasts so the argument, whilst on the surface makes sense is very different. 20,000 people could join UKIP tomorrow and little would change in terms of policy, that isn't true of the Greens.

[snowychap]

It's not knee jerk to dismiss their stated aim as plain daft when it costs 280 billion that simply doesn't exist and can't be raised.

If people are going to refer to the cost of the policy as £280 billion as per the Citizen's Income figures from here - pdf document then perhaps we ought to also refer to their analysis when wondering what may be replaced by it?

 

 

Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits - £34 bn

Working age benefits (IS, JSA, &c.) - £27 bn

Working Tax Credits                         - £7 bn

Admin savings and Tax Credits w/off - £10 bn

Student grants and loans w/off         - £3 bn

Personal Allowances                        - £68 bn

Primary Threshold and self-employed reliefs (NI) - £23 bn

State Retirement Pension, SERPS, S2P, Pension Credit, and MIG - £90 bn

Higher rate tax relief on pension contributions - £10 bn

 

Total - £272 bn

 

 

That's against their costings of £276 billion for the policy (all of which looks to be based on 2012/13 costs).

 

Their analysis may be wrong, their numbers may be wrong and there's plenty of room for disagreement with the policy but I'm not sure how best to characterize the criticism of it that frames it as a policy that 'costs 280 billion that simply doesn't exist and can't be raised' and thus claims it is 'plain daft'.

Edited January 27, 2015 by snowychap

[snowychap]

But the arguments are complex, which is why Neill's typically shallow and sneering hitjob, and Bennett's weak response to his bullying, were both disappointing.

I've just brought myself to watch the first few minutes of that 'interview' and the performances of both were pretty dire (though I can understand Neill's performance slightly better as that's what he is, unfortunately, employed to do).

It would have been interesting to see a 'Hard Talk' style examination of the policy and I'd hope that Bennett would have performed better in giving a drier account of the costs of it.

I really don't know where Neill was going with the personal allowances bit (surely people lose the 'allowance' and therefore the actual amount they lose is the proportion of that which is withdrawn, i.e. the tax and NI taken from £10.5k?) - if he wanted to make a point about lower earners then tax credits may have been a more sensible place to go (though as this is much more difficult to calculate it would have been unlikely for him and his researchers to try).

Edited January 27, 2015 by snowychap

[blandy]

Isn't supporting a party you know to have some truly bonkers ideas just the other swing of the pendulum from supporting UKIP on one issue, hoping all the gay weather and making sluts clean behind the fridge stuff goes away once enough other people vote for them?

 

If somebody on here put their head over the parapet and said they supported UKIP because of their stance on 'x' but accepted lots of the stuff was simply bollocks they'd get ridiculed wouldn't they?

I dunno. I don't "support" any party really. They seem to me to all have a number of harmful/mad policies. Some more than others. I don't think anyone would be ridiculed for saying "I agree with UKIP's stance on (say) immigration, whilst accepting they're wrong on (say) Education, but will vote for them because the main thing is their immigration approach". Though no doubt some will or has prove me wrong. 

 

 

It's not knee jerk to dismiss their stated aim as plain daft when it costs 280 billion that simply doesn't exist and can't be raised.

If people are going to refer to the cost of the policy as £280 billion as per the Citizen's Income figures from here - pdf document then perhaps we ought to also refer to their analysis when wondering what may be replaced by it?

 

 

Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits - £34 bn

Working age benefits (IS, JSA, &c.) - £27 bn

Working Tax Credits                         - £7 bn

Admin savings and Tax Credits w/off - £10 bn

Student grants and loans w/off         - £3 bn

Personal Allowances                        - £68 bn

Primary Threshold and self-employed reliefs (NI) - £23 bn

State Retirement Pension, SERPS, S2P, Pension Credit, and MIG - £90 bn

Higher rate tax relief on pension contributions - £10 bn

 

Total - £272 bn

 

 

That's against their costings of £276 billion for the policy (all of which looks to be based on 2012/13 costs).

 

Their analysis may be wrong, their numbers may be wrong and there's plenty of room for disagreement with the policy but I'm not sure how best to characterize the criticism of it that frames it as a policy that 'costs 280 billion that simply doesn't exist and can't be raised' and thus claims it is 'plain daft'.

They aren't planning, as far as I've been able to find out, to replace all those expenditures with the single 73 quid a week citizen's allowance for everyone. it seems to be the plan to provide it on top of some/all/most of those alowances. Otherwise clearly many people would lose out, when the stated aim is to help and boost people.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 

If somebody on here put their head over the parapet and said they supported UKIP because of their stance on 'x' but accepted lots of the stuff was simply bollocks they'd get ridiculed wouldn't they?

 

The major difference being that UKIP are full of racist, sexist, homophobic old farts. They are a nasty, nasty class of people.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

If somebody on here put their head over the parapet and said they supported UKIP because of their stance on 'x' but accepted lots of the stuff was simply bollocks they'd get ridiculed wouldn't they?

 

The major difference being that UKIP are full of racist, sexist, homophobic old farts. They are a nasty, nasty class of people.

 

 

Although members of the Green party might be perceived as 'nice', the outcome which their beliefs and policies suggest they want, is definitely not nice.

 

The only way that their vision of how the world should be could function, would be through a command economy which allocates and rations resources.

 

I don't think everyone shares that vision and therefore the Greens would need to use coercion to create their Green utopia and deal with the dissenters.

 

It is irrational for someone whose main complaint against the present government, is that they deprive people of stuff, through austerity, to vote for a party whose central aim is to reduce the amount of stuff every individual consumes.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Austerity targets certain sections of society while leaving others alone, if not giving them more 'stuff'. That inequality is the issue. If we are truly 'all in this together', then 'austerity' should be distributed fairly, and it isn't.

 

On the wider point, we're going to have to reduce the amount we consume (energy, food, etc) whether we like it or not. Most people don't think beyond their own front doors, so it isn't going to change any time soon.

[snowychap]

They aren't planning, as far as I've been able to find out, to replace all those expenditures with the single 73 quid a week citizen's allowance for everyone.it seems to be the plan to provide it on top of some/all/most of those alowances...

EC730 A Citizen's Income sufficient to cover an individual's basic needs will be introduced, which will replace tax-free allowances and most social security benefits (see EC711).

...

EC711 Personal tax-free allowances will be abolished, having effectively been replaced by the Citizen's Income (see EC730).

I think the further detail of what they're planning to replace is what Bennett said would be published in their manifesto but it will likely be a shade different as they're treating pensions separately according to their policy page. I'd be very surprised if it isn't something like the list of things from that previous link for working age expenditures.

If we're just talking about the Citizen's Income as per their policy as in a payment to every adult citizen between the ages of 18 and 65, with the aid of the back of a fag packet (if it's good enough for the Chancellor...), the cost of the policy would be somewhere close to £151bn pa (taking rough figures from the census data - 40 million people at £72 per week) and then any child supplement on top of that, I think. Apologies if I have those figures wrong.

If we take off the pension part of the figures I linked, that's about £172bn. So, again, I can't see where this policy cost is appearing from nowhere on top of everything else.

Bennett even said that the costs being talked about (and she didn't help herself by failing to challenge the figure Neill put forward) were gross costs not net.

 

Otherwise clearly many people would lose out, when the stated aim is to help and boost people.

People further up the income ladder would have to [lose out] if it's to remain largely fiscally neutral.

I think Bennett hinted at that when she was talking about 'the beauty of it' (though again she didn't really get the point across - perhaps she didn't even know what the point she should be making was).

The main area that it is seeking to address is the huge disincentive to work of large marginal withdrawal rates at the lower end of the labour market. It isn't a policy promising (more) milk and honey for all.

p.s. I'm not really arguing for the green party policy, at least how they have so far loosely set it out, as I'd like to see more detail of what they intend (and I'd also possibly like to see a return to a 10% rate for the first £x [tbd] above the basic income, for instance). What I'm railing against (as I did months back when the topic was on it before) is the dismissive nature of some people's reaction to the idea (especially as that appears to ignore some of the detail that has been suggested).

Edited January 27, 2015 by snowychap

[blandy]

I think there's a fair overlap of agreement between us, based on that, snowy - That they'll end up changing a universal citizen's income to be non-universal, and that she was rubbish at putting across whatever it was she wanted to put across. Also that it's not really credible to argue for the policy as so far set out by them.

 

Where I still differ, maybe, is I think that the detail as has been suggested, and frankly the idea is something (for me) to dismiss as daft - perhaps daft seems too rash or glib to some, but it's not (to me) remotely a credible solution - it seems to address a problem with something bad, rather than focussing on helping those who actually need help in the most efficient and effective way. People like me don't need the Gov't to give us 73 quid a week, but we do want and need the tax we pay to be put to best and most effective use to help those who need help - what's the point of me paying tax to give money to other people like myself? - Basicvally "come back Greens, when you've thought it through and worked out how it'll work. Until then don't come out with ill considered daft crap, smarten your act up, if you want me to vote for you to represent me.

 

I think it's completely fair enough to be dismissive about something that is ill explained, that spends tax money on areas and people who have no need for it and which by whichever set of figures are used is 150 billion/170 billion/200+ billion pounds every year and whose proponents in politics appear unable to understand the impact or implications.

 

"the huge disincentive to work of large marginal withdrawal rates at the lower end of the labour market.." needs addressing, and accepting that there will always be a point at which anyone starts to pay some of their income as tax, the issue is where to set that starting line, and how to help those earning below a certain level. I don't thin a "universal" type payment is an effective way to address that second part - help needs to be targetted to those who, er, need it.

[blandy]

It is irrational for someone whose main complaint against the present government, is that they deprive people of stuff, through austerity, to vote for a party whose central aim is to reduce the amount of stuff every individual consumes.

Just on that bit, I don't think that's the complaint - it's more about depriving people of servies and basic essentials than tangible "stuff". I think you've taken two entirely different things and wodged them together as some kind of incompatible ideas. They're not. There is too much "stuff" consumed and thrown away and not enough "support and help" for people shafted by the Tories.

[snowychap]

People like me don't need the Gov't to give us 73 quid a week...

And, effectively, you wouldn't be.

 

Edit.

 

"the huge disincentive to work of large marginal withdrawal rates at the lower end of the labour market.." needs addressing, and accepting that there will always be a point at which anyone starts to pay some of their income as tax, the issue is where to set that starting line, and how to help those earning below a certain level. I don't thin a "universal" type payment is an effective way to address that second part - help needs to be targetted to those who, er, need it.

Why don't you think it effectively deals with those marginal withdrawal rates?

Do you think the withdrawal rates would not significantly decrease (along with a reduction in the administrative and bureaucratic nightmare for people themselves and the state, via its institutions, of dealing with these problems)?

Edited January 27, 2015 by snowychap

[snowychap]

I think there's a fair overlap of agreement between us, based on that, snowy - That they'll end up changing a universal citizen's income to be non-universal, and that she was rubbish at putting across whatever it was she wanted to put across.

For clarification, I'd certainly argue for a Citizen's Income (though not as well as a lot of people who will have looked in to it longer, harder and more deeply than I have) and largely along the lines that I believe the Greens probably will end up doing. What I meant was that I couldn't sit here and post a defence of their policy as it isn't fully outlined (as she said quite clearly it would be nearer the time) and I may be making assumptions based upon the much more detailed work about Citizen's Income done by others (like the bit that I linked).

I think that the only reason they may end up changing their proposal to it being non-universal would be as a sop to those who can't accept the universality of it (not because the universality isn't possible).

Were they to do that it would be a mistake.

[blandy]

[sorry the quotes got all messed up, so I did some crayoning.]

 

People like me don't need the Gov't to give us 73 quid a week...
And, effectively, you wouldn't be.

They say it would be an unconditional, non-withdrawable income payable to each individual as a right of citizenship - so that means me getting it, right?
Now if I pay for it in another way, then they have to take money from me, too, which costs admin and is thus ineffective. I have to go and collect it, or someone has to get my bank details, set up a standing order... multiply that by millions of people and it's the opposite of "an efficiency saving" which they say will help fund it. Not credible.

I think it's completely fair enough to be dismissive about something that is ill explained, that spends tax money on areas and people who have no need for it and which by whichever set of figures are used is 150 billion/170 billion/200+ billion pounds every year...
You can only allow yourself to be that dismissive by continuing to couch the idea (if not the precise policy of the green party) in such a crassly misrepresentative way.

I rather feel that's failing to explain your view and tending more towards..well... I guess if I was to call your posts crassly misrepresentative, you'd see.
 
"the huge disincentive to work of large marginal withdrawal rates at the lower end of the labour market.." needs addressing, and accepting that there will always be a point at which anyone starts to pay some of their income as tax, the issue is where to set that starting line, and how to help those earning below a certain level. I don't thin a "universal" type payment is an effective way to address that second part - help needs to be targetted to those who, er, need it.
Why don't you think it effectively deals with those marginal withdrawal rates?
Do you think the withdrawal rates would not significantly decrease (along with a reduction in the administrative and bureaucratic nightmare for people themselves and the state, via its institutions, of dealing with these problems)?
I think if they (as you quoted from them) give "A Citizen's Income sufficient to cover an individual's basic needs ..replac[ing] tax-free allowances and most social security benefits...[and].. Personal tax-free allowances will be abolished, having effectively been replaced by the Citizen's Income" then you create two immediate, serious problems. Firstly the financial one. If no one has an amount of wage, the first part of which is untaxed (aboilsh tax free allowance) then everyone pays tax on the full 100% of their earnings. So low earners start paying tax - which introduces more admin. Then they get given 73 quid a week - this may cover the tax they pay or over time it may not - it would need to be changed up every year as wage levels change. It doesn't solve the problem - it take from all and gives to all, while introducing extra admin costs (for all, not just for targetted people, as is the case under non-universal payments). It also effectively sets the threshold at a level which matches the "lost tax relief against the added citizens income money" - it potentially moves the line, but it doesn't get rid of it. The line position will vary over time and may or may not help or hinder the problem. It cannot be claimed as a fix without costed figures.
I'm not sure I understand your final question, sorry, but may have answered it in the above.

[snowychap]

It is irrational for someone whose main complaint against the present government, is that they deprive people of stuff, through austerity, to vote for a party whose central aim is to reduce the amount of stuff every individual consumes.

Does stuff = stuff?

Isn't the claim in the post that the aim is 'to reduce the amount of stuff every individual consumes' a fallacy of division?

[peterms]

Chris Dillow discusses the citizens' income, with other material linked, here.

 

I try not to watch politics programmes on TV. Andrew Neil's interview with Natalie Bennett about a basic income reminds me why.

 

I'm appalled by Natalie's inability to answer his first question: how to pay for it? The Citizens Income Trust has set out one way (pdf)* to do so: quite simply, abolishing the personal allowance and welfare benefits raises hundreds of billions.

 

Mr Neil's implication that a BI of £71pw is inferior to a personal allowance of £10,000 for the low paid is also wrong.

 

Take for example, someone earning £14,000 a year. She currently pays £800 in tax, giving a net income of £13,200. Under a basic income, she'd have to pay tax on all this £14,000. That's £2800. But she gets £3692 in BI. That gives a net income of £14,892. She's better off. BI, then, is better for the low-paid than the current £10,000 tax allowance.

 

This is even more true when we remember that low-paid work is often insecure. A BI is better for those who shift from work to unemployment and back again, as it ensures a continuous income with no threat of benefit delays.

 

In these senses, the interview was a car crash on both sides: Neil posing questions that are easily answered, and Bennett failing to answer even these.

 

This poses the question: what, then, are the more intelligent objections to BI?

 

The problem isn't that a BI gives too little to children, the disabled or pensioners. The CIT's costings show that they can get top-ups. Nor is it that a BI ignores housing costs. The CIT's costings show that housing benefit can be retained - though I personally think it should be phased out over time, as a big housbebuilding programme should reduce rents and hence landlord benefits.

 

Nor is it clear that a BI's treatment of immigrants is wrong. Because it's a citizens' basic income, immigrants would not be entitled to it - though they alternative insurance arrangements for them are possible and desirable. Such a restriction, though, should reduce public antipathy to immigration by removing the fears that they are "taking our benefits."

 

So, what are the more grievous problems?

 

One of the more common ones is that an unconditional income violates the norm of reciprocity and so would be unpopular. Dawn Foster says:

 

If you genuinely create a "something for nothing" culture – rather than one that exists merely in the fevered imaginations of tabloid readers – the backlash could be harsh.

To some extent,though, this is a feature, not a bug. Given that jobs are scarce it is just pointless and cruel to harrass the jobless into non-existent work. Indeed, helping some to drop out of exploitative jobs would force employers to improve their job offers, to the benefit of those who want to work.

 

However, it's doubtful how big a problem this is. Phil points out that it isn't a significant issue with Alaska's BI. And econometric simulations suggest it might not be for the UK either. In fact, insofar as a BI makes it easier to move into work - because there's no danger of losing income or of being better off on the dole - it might even reduce (pdf) unemployment.

 

For me, though, there are two other issues.

 

One is that a BI does create some losers. Anyone earning over £18,460 is worse off with a BI of £71pw than under a £10,000 personal allowance. This is a big problem. It suggests that a BI can only be popular if accompanied by more redistribution - higher taxes on the rich to pay for a lower tax rate on lower earnings and/or a higher BI.

 

Secondly, there's the question: is there the state capacity to effect such change? Everyone knows the shift to Universal Credit has been a mess. I'd like to think this because of Iain Duncan Smith's personal inadequacies. But it might also be that the state apparatus lacks the ability for reform. One of BI's great virtues - its simplicity and low administrative cost - also creates a big constituency in Whitehall opposed to it.

 

I suspect - hope - that there are solutions to this. A BI should not be introduced by the fiat of a single government. Instead, we need a new Beveridge report which would publicize its merits and ensure that it benefited as many people as possible. Only when it has such mass support should it be implemented.       

 

* This is just one possible costing. Here's a list of tax reliefs (pdf). You can make up your own savings from these. And here's a collection of papers on basic income.

 

 

 

[MakemineVanilla]

 

It is irrational for someone whose main complaint against the present government, is that they deprive people of stuff, through austerity, to vote for a party whose central aim is to reduce the amount of stuff every individual consumes.

Does stuff = stuff?

Isn't the claim in the post that the aim is 'to reduce the amount of stuff every individual consumes' a fallacy of division?

 

 

Definitely not.

 

Watch the video and see the Green party bloke who set a limit on his earnings to half of the average UK wage.

 

Listen to Bennett say that she wants people to only work part-time which is the aim of the seventy quid.

 

Their economic policy includes:

 

EC311 The Green Party would therefore replace the conventional indicators with those that measure progress towards sustainability, equity and devolution.

 

So if you follow their example, listen to what they say, and read their website, it seems clear that they want people to consume less.

[peterms]

People like me don't need the Gov't to give us 73 quid a week...

And, effectively, you wouldn't be.

They say it would be an unconditional, non-withdrawable income payable to each individual as a right of citizenship - so that means me getting it, right?

Now if I pay for it in another way, then they have to take money from me, too, which costs admin and is thus ineffective. I have to go and collect it, or someone has to get my bank details, set up a standing order... multiply that by millions of people and it's the opposite of "an efficiency saving" which they say will help fund it. Not credible.

 

The proposal is to give the citzens' income and take away the tax allowance.  Since the tax allowance system is already being administered, it is an adjustment to an existing system, not a whole new apparatus of collection.

 

Whether people are better or worse off depends on their income.  The Dillow piece I linked gives the example of someone on £14k who would be better off.

 

It would certainly be better for people who move in and out of low paid jobs, or who are forced to take shitty jobs for shitty pay.  And these are the people we should be most concerned about.

 

Interestingly, it would also encourage people setting up enterprises, by providing a buffer while they were earning little from their enterprise.  It could support a more genuine form of self-employment than the much-trumpeted but largely nominal "new businesses" which Cameron keeps on about, and which are mostly people underemployed in something they call self-employment but isn't actually working.

 

There are valid criticisms of the idea, but the notion that it would cost the earth and can't be funded, or that it would mean a vast new bureaucracy, is simply wrong.  It's a pity that Bennett wasn't able to put across this more clearly - she must certainly know it, as CI has been a Green Party policy for some time, and she will have been involved with many discussions about it over a period of years.  I can only imagine she was thrown by his attack dog style, but then again, that should have been no surprise.

[snowychap]

They say it would be an unconditional, non-withdrawable income payable to each individual as a right of citizenship - so that means me getting it, right?

Yes.

Now if I pay for it in another way, then they have to take money from me, too, which costs admin and is thus ineffective.

Not unless it's by a way that isn't already happening/a possibility.

It's not about people walking through one door to be given money and walking through another to have it (or more) taken away - it would be about making the overall policy (relatively) fiscally neutral (by removing other things as per the previous table and by amending taxation rates). That is, if that's the intent of the policy (to be fiscally neutral).

 

I rather feel that's failing to explain your view and tending more towards..well... I guess if I was to call your posts crassly misrepresentative, you'd see.

I didn't suggest your posts were crassly misrepresentative of things as set out but that comments like the one I quoted were.

All it did was have us dancing around with you maintaining your original stance whatever evidence was put in front of you that may have cast doubt upon some of your supposed bases for that stance.

Edit: I did, though, go back and edit that bit out as I reread it and thought that I'd, ironically, put what I wanted to say across rather crassly.

 

I think if they (as you quoted from them) give "A Citizen's Income sufficient to cover an individual's basic needs ..replac[ing] tax-free allowances and most social security benefits...[and].. Personal tax-free allowances will be abolished, having effectively been replaced by the Citizen's Income" then you create two immediate, serious problems. Firstly the financial one. If no one has an amount of wage, the first part of which is untaxed (aboilsh tax free allowance) then everyone pays tax on the full 100% of their earnings. So low earners start paying tax - which introduces more admin.

Why?

Employers deal with employees PAYE and payroll and they still have to deal with the payroll whether or not the employee pays tax, don't they?

As to notifying HMRC of those PAYE liabilities, I thought that all employers notified these to HMRC by PAYE RTI?

The point of this was to allow real time updates of income (and thus the withdrawals of benefits for Universal Credit).

The only thing that would appear to increase any admin costs would be to have increased numbers of employees.

 

Then they get given 73 quid a week - this may cover the tax they pay or over time it may not - it would need to be changed up every year as wage levels change.

People would get the citizen's income first and foremost and regardless of what else they were doing.

The level of the CBI would need to be amended, of course.

 

It doesn't solve the problem - it take from all and gives to all, while introducing extra admin costs (for all, not just for targetted people, as is the case under non-universal payments). It also effectively sets the threshold at a level which matches the "lost tax relief against the added citizens income money" - it potentially moves the line, but it doesn't get rid of it. The line position will vary over time and may or may not help or hinder the problem. It cannot be claimed as a fix without costed figures.

I'm not sure I understand your final question, sorry, but may have answered it in the above.

As above, I disagree about the admin costs. I don't think your claim is correct and I think you've failed to demonstrate an appreciation of the accepted increased administration in means testing (as acknowledged in debates about the removal of the universal nature of the winter payment to pensioners, for example).

With regard to marginal withdrawal rates for people at the lower end of the labour market, they are anything from 65% up to close to 95% (admittedly that does include council tax support schemes and housing benefit) - are you claiming that a policy of a CBI would not reduce these (CTS and HB withdrawals would obviously not make the withdrawal rate simply the basic rate of income tax and NI)?

Edited January 27, 2015 by snowychap