I seem to have upset people by pointing out that if the 70m people in the UK, only 32m pay income tax. Of those 32m, only about 9m are net contributors to tax.
So in our hypothetical street, just over 13% of houses put in more than they take out... and other households resent them.
The point of these posts is this:
- overall the UK is not taxed very heavily
- but a vast majority of tax is paid but a relatively small group
- that relatively small group is constantly told they must pay more because that's "fair"
- if the UK wants services and infrastructure that works then it has 2 choices: 1) tax everyone more, especially lower earners, or; 2) cut spending in ways that reduce dependency on the state.
My preference is the latter, we should means test state pensions, we should move public sector workers into DC pensions, there's a large and rapidly growing people claiming all kinds of benefits who really don't need it. All this money is taken from other taxpayers.
All the about would increase the number of net contributors.
Someone has tried to attach a Community Note to my post but the note confuses "households" with individual payers. Which is incorrect.
To be clear, my post is about individual taxpayers. I used the metaphor of a street of houses because it makes it easier to picture than abstracted numbers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This chart might look like a chart of CO2 emissions but it's not. It's a Rorschach Test.
For some reason, otherwise intelligent Brits will look at it and conclude that:
- China is doing an amazing job building renewables
- the UK is a unique villain because of "historic emissions"
- China's emissions are set to decline... next year
The reactions are utterly bizarre, it's a cult.
Let's look at the farcical "historical emissions" claim.
Another way of saying "historical" is "cumulative". China's cumulative emissions overtook the UK nearly 30 years ago. And then look what happened?
Activists use the term "historical" rather than cumulative because they want to imply that the UK is somehow uniquely culpable. By doing this they're being China's useful idiots.
Next let's look at emissions per capita.
You often hear "well Chinese people don't emit that much, in the UK we're far more wasteful etc".
In reality Chinese EPC overtook the UK a decade ago. Today the average Chinese person emits nearly 2x the average UK person.
The only reason the myth persists is because of the ignorance of activists in the UK who cannot conceive of a nation of over a billion avid consumers in a thriving economy. In their heads China is still full of peasant farmers.
So i've been turning a thought over in my head and wanted some feedback. It relates to people who are intrinsically motivated by their work.
1/n
In my model these types of workers fall into two categories: 1. Craftspeople - Motivated to produce quality work for the sake of the work itself. 2. Activists - Motivated to do work because they have a moral drive and work is their vehicle.
As a GenX, I came up through the workforce at a time where Craftspeople were ascendant. You derived personal satisfaction and professional status (and earnings) based on the quality of your work.
3/n
Noticed how tech companies are extraordinarily good places to work because they're so accommodating? Seriously, if you look at things like remote work etc (eg. Amazon only needs you to be within 24 hrs of an office for a physical meeting) tech is incredibly generous.
We didn't get here through organised labour, we got here because these wonderful perks are a side effect of tech companies doing everything they can to attract and accommodate the really outstanding employees.
This is pretty much the opposite of historical efforts of organised labour where you gather a lot of very average and ultimately replaceable labour and negotiate collectively.
Instead companies focus on a handful of really valuable employees & everyone gets a slice of largesse.
Evolution of a tech cluster:
Beers & laptops in bedroom
Holy crap XYZ got VC funding
Holy crap so did ABC
We're the next Silicon Valley (laughs)
Local paper says we're the next SV (awkward laughs)
We have our own VCs now
National paper says we're the next SV (stop saying that)
First acquihires! Hooray
First M&A exit! Hooray
Our first accelerator
God who are all these VCs?
Second M&A exit? Hooray
God here come the corporates
Why do we need another 12 accelerators?
More M&A
Why to tech companies keep selling?
First IPO! Hooray
Saturation bombing of VC
I can't rent space
I can't find talent
Why aren't the exits bigger?
This place has changed man, it's lost its soul
"Why I'm leaving [cluster]" blogposts
"Have you seen [new cluster]?" blogposts
"Decentralisation is the new cluster" blogposts
Beers and laptops in bedroom