BecomingJulie
Bluelight Crew
Even when you are trying to enforce fairness, diminishing returns soon start to set in. It's actually cheaper just to let a few people make fraudulent claims, and pay a few people a little more than the bare minimum they deserve, than to chase up every suspected minor infraction.FYI I do realise that there really are a lot of dodgy benefit chasers but I also do realise that there are a lot more eople in society who need n deserve financial support.
Same principle as the penny Post: The non-trivial process of calculating a "fair" price for delivering a letter based on the distance over which it is sent adds so much to the cost of delivery that making a "local" letter sent within the same town cheaper than one sent across several counties, ends up costing more than simply charging a flat rate from anywhere to anywhere else. And the distance-based system would throw up so many anomalies where mail travelling a short distance in practice costs more than mail travelling a longer distance, it would be decried as unfair.
One thing I would definitely change is, make the threshhold level for paying income tax equal to full-time employment at the statutory minimum wage. Meaning firms could easily take on staff at minimum wage without incurring any additional tax liability. This makes it easier to create jobs. True, they are only minumum-wage jobs; but any good worker should be able to negotiate themself a pay rise after a year's probation, or leave for another job still at minimum wage, but with preferrable working conditions.
Another thing I would change would be, get rid of tax bands (which were a crude bodge, designed to simplify calculations in imperial pounds, shillings and pence without the use of a computer) and introduce a quadratic regression for income tax. The equation for amount of tax £y paid on a salary of £x would be calculated as
y = a * x ** 2 + b * x + c
where a is small, and determines how much steeper the slope gets as you climb;b is the base tax rate;
c is negative, and determines the minimum threshhold for paying tax.
If y is negative, you don't pay any tax (but you don't get a refund, either) and if y is more than 0.9 * x, then you just pay 0.9 * x in tax. New values of a, b and c would be published for each financial year.
This is no problem at all to evaluate using decimal currency (where the "notes" are simply the integer and the "coins" the fraction; for example, one-fifth of a pound = £0.2 = £0.20 = 20p.), and even easier using computers. It also prevents a "creative accounting" manoeuvre whereby payments are carefully manipulated to keep everything in the most favourable tax bands. The quadratic regression is like having each tax band exactly one penny wide.
Mind, at least we aren't yet quite as bad as the American General Public; who apparently oppose redistribution of wealth even when it would be to their own advantage, lest they suddenly achieve their dream of becoming rich and consequently have to pay slightly more taxes, even when it should be obvious to all that they are never, ever going to become that rich.