Britain isn t working
Discussion
Why has it become harder and harder get a weekday tee-time at my golf club? What might this tell us about contemporary Britain? And does it matter?
Are we gradually creating a system in which perfectly rational people choose to supply less labour than they otherwise would? People make choices between work and leisure. Tax creates a wedge (see Prescott) between what somebody produces through working and what they can ultimately consume from the proceeds. Increase that wedge sufficiently and, at the margin, some people will choose more leisure and less work.
That can sound rather theoretical until you see it happening. At my golf club there are many successful tradesmen and small-business owners: builders, electricians, contractors and the like. They aren’t retired and generally aren’t running large companies from behind a desk. They are still very much economically productive and often still “on the tools”. But increasingly they are working three or four days a week and playing more golf. One of them explained his reasoning to me rather neatly: “I can put eight hours into working tomorrow and perhaps get four hours’ worth of reward after tax. Or I can put eight hours into golf and get all eight hours.” Obviously the precise tax arithmetic varies enormously between individuals, and “the government takes half” is not universally accurate. But economically that isn’t really the point. His decision concerns the marginal day. His mortgage is being paid, he already has a decent standard of living, and the question is whether the additional disposable income generated by Friday’s work is worth sacrificing Friday itself. Increasingly, his answer is no.
What makes me take this more seriously than a few anecdotes is that our membership hasn’t suddenly been replaced by different people. Broadly the same people who were members five or ten years ago are playing materially more golf. Getting tee times has become noticeably harder. There will of course be many explanations for that - age, accumulated wealth, more flexible working after Covid and so on - but when people themselves say that taxation has materially changed their willingness to work the additional day, it seems unwise simply to dismiss it. The OBR effectively accepts the underlying mechanism. Its modelling of frozen personal-tax thresholds estimated that fiscal drag would reduce labour supply by around 130,000 full-time-equivalent workers by 2028-29, relative to thresholds rising with inflation, because higher marginal tax rates lead some workers to reduce their hours. That does not necessarily mean 130,000 people become unemployed. It can mean a much larger number of people each working slightly less. And that matters because our normal political conversation is obsessed with whether somebody is “in work” or “out of work”. A self-employed electrician moving from five days to four remains employed. Statistically, little dramatic has happened. Economically, however, 20% of his labour input has disappeared.
The effect is easiest to see among the self-employed and owner-managers because they can simply decide not to work the extra day, but I suspect it is much more pervasive. Salaried workers make the same trade in different ways. They move to four-day weeks, job-share, reduce hours before retirement, decline overtime, reject promotions, choose hybrid or more flexible roles over better-paid ones, or simply decide that another rung on the career ladder is not worth the additional pressure for the after-tax reward on offer. Not all of these choices reduce total hours, and working from home in particular can increase labour-market participation, so they should not all be treated as equivalent. But there is a common underlying preference: more people appear willing to exchange potential income for greater control of their time.
That matters because tax changes the exchange rate between those two things. Take a salaried professional considering a promotion from £80,000 to £105,000. The gross difference looks substantial, but the decision is not about the headline £25,000. It is about the incremental disposable income after tax and National Insurance, set against longer hours, greater responsibility, more stress and less control of evenings and weekends. At some point the perfectly rational answer becomes: “No thanks, I’d rather have the time.” That is economically very similar to the tradesman deciding he would rather have Friday on the golf course. The form is different, but the underlying choice is the same.
So perhaps the broader issue is not simply hours worked, but something closer to labour intensity. There is a continuum running from leaving the labour force entirely, through part-time work and reduced hours, to declining additional responsibility, overtime or business expansion. All involve, to varying degrees, choosing less income and more leisure or autonomy than would otherwise have been available. That does not mean tax is the only explanation. Covid changed attitudes towards commuting and flexibility, demographic ageing matters, wealthier households can afford to value time more highly, and cultural preferences may be shifting independently of fiscal policy. But if the marginal value of another pound of gross income is simultaneously being reduced by higher effective taxation, policy is pushing in the same direction.
Now look at the other end of the income distribution. Universal Credit is withdrawn at 55p for every additional £1 of relevant earnings once the applicable work allowance has been exhausted, and the taper is applied to net earnings after income tax and employee National Insurance. Again, nobody needs to be lazy or irrational for this to affect behaviour. Imagine somebody deciding whether to take another shift, increase from three days to five, or return to work at all. What matters to that person isn’t their headline gross wage. It is the improvement in household disposable income after tax, benefit withdrawal, travel, childcare and the other costs associated with working. At some point the calculation can become surprisingly unattractive.
So we potentially have the same broad phenomenon occurring at opposite ends of the labour market. The successful owner-manager thinks the additional after-tax income isn’t worth giving up another day of his life. The salaried professional decides the extra responsibility is not worth the net increase in pay. The lower-income household thinks the additional disposable income after benefit withdrawal isn’t worth the additional work and associated costs. Different circumstances, but the same underlying economic concept: government policy has reduced the private reward from supplying an additional unit of labour.
The crucial point is that these individuals may all be making completely rational decisions. The problem appears only when millions of rational individual decisions are aggregated. Less work means less output, but it also means less income tax and National Insurance, less disposable income and therefore potentially less consumption and VAT. Where reduced labour supply results in greater benefit dependency, expenditure also rises. This is where I wonder whether Britain risks getting itself into a particularly unpleasant feedback loop. The OBR currently forecasts the UK tax take rising from 34.5% of GDP in 2024-25 to 38.5% by 2030-31, which would be a historic high. Suppose higher effective taxation causes part of the productive population to work somewhat less, whether through fewer days, less overtime, reduced career intensity or simply not taking the next promotion. Tax revenues are consequently lower than they otherwise would have been. Meanwhile a substantial population outside employment, or only weakly attached to it, has to be financed. The tax base therefore has to support a given level of expenditure with fewer hours of taxable economic activity. That creates pressure for still more taxation, which further reduces the marginal reward from supplying labour.
So one possible cycle is: higher fiscal burden leads to a lower reward from additional work; that leads to less labour supplied; less labour means lower output and consumption; that weakens the tax base; weaker revenues and higher welfare costs create greater fiscal pressure; and that in turn produces a still higher burden on the remaining productive activity. This isn’t a claim that Britain has reached some simplistic “Laffer curve” point where every tax rise reduces revenue. Most tax increases will still raise money. The concern is more subtle. Suppose the Treasury increases a tax and its spreadsheet initially suggests it will raise £10bn. If behavioural changes subsequently reduce labour supply, output and consumption, perhaps the eventual improvement in the public finances is only £8bn. The tax has raised revenue, but it has also made the economy somewhat smaller. The next spending shortfall then requires another tax increase. Rinse and repeat.
There is also potentially an important composition effect. The people with greatest discretion over how intensively they work are often among the more productive people in the economy, but the point is broader than that. A builder deciding not to work Friday may quote fewer jobs, employ fewer subcontractors, train fewer apprentices and ultimately decide that growing his business simply isn’t worth the aggravation. A consultant may decline another project. A senior employee may reject promotion. A doctor may decide against an additional session. An experienced manager may move to four days rather than five. None of these people necessarily disappears from the employment statistics, but each is supplying less economically valuable labour than they potentially could.
This is why I think “Britain isn’t working” may describe something rather deeper than simply having too many economically inactive people. Perhaps Britain increasingly isn’t working because we have constructed a system which, at several important margins, makes not working - or working less intensively - more attractive relative to working more.
The uncomfortable aspect is that none of this requires bad behaviour. The golfer is making a rational decision. The salaried employee prioritising time over promotion may be making a rational decision. The Universal Credit claimant declining marginal hours may also be making a rational decision. The Treasury trying to fund health, pensions, welfare and public services is facing perfectly real expenditure. But individually rational behaviour can produce a collectively poor equilibrium.
That leaves some questions which I think government of any political colour ought to be asking. Are we measuring labour-market success properly if we concentrate on employment rather than total labour supplied? How much potential output are we losing because existing workers are voluntarily reducing hours or career intensity in response to marginal tax rates? Do we understand sufficiently well the effective marginal tax rates created by combining income tax, National Insurance and benefit withdrawal? Should tax and welfare policy be assessed together according to one simple test: how much better off is somebody from doing the next hour, day or week of work? And, most importantly, when the state needs additional revenue, are we adequately accounting for the possibility that taxing productive activity more heavily gradually reduces the amount of productive activity available to tax?
None of this proves that tax or welfare spending should simply be cut. There are obvious distributional consequences and public services have to be financed. But there seems to me to be a fairly fundamental economic principle being neglected. You cannot indefinitely increase the state’s claim on the proceeds of work while assuming that the quantity and intensity of work supplied will remain unchanged. At some point people respond to the incentives.
And perhaps one small indication that Britain really isn’t working is that it’s getting bloody difficult to get a tee time on a weekday.
Are we gradually creating a system in which perfectly rational people choose to supply less labour than they otherwise would? People make choices between work and leisure. Tax creates a wedge (see Prescott) between what somebody produces through working and what they can ultimately consume from the proceeds. Increase that wedge sufficiently and, at the margin, some people will choose more leisure and less work.
That can sound rather theoretical until you see it happening. At my golf club there are many successful tradesmen and small-business owners: builders, electricians, contractors and the like. They aren’t retired and generally aren’t running large companies from behind a desk. They are still very much economically productive and often still “on the tools”. But increasingly they are working three or four days a week and playing more golf. One of them explained his reasoning to me rather neatly: “I can put eight hours into working tomorrow and perhaps get four hours’ worth of reward after tax. Or I can put eight hours into golf and get all eight hours.” Obviously the precise tax arithmetic varies enormously between individuals, and “the government takes half” is not universally accurate. But economically that isn’t really the point. His decision concerns the marginal day. His mortgage is being paid, he already has a decent standard of living, and the question is whether the additional disposable income generated by Friday’s work is worth sacrificing Friday itself. Increasingly, his answer is no.
What makes me take this more seriously than a few anecdotes is that our membership hasn’t suddenly been replaced by different people. Broadly the same people who were members five or ten years ago are playing materially more golf. Getting tee times has become noticeably harder. There will of course be many explanations for that - age, accumulated wealth, more flexible working after Covid and so on - but when people themselves say that taxation has materially changed their willingness to work the additional day, it seems unwise simply to dismiss it. The OBR effectively accepts the underlying mechanism. Its modelling of frozen personal-tax thresholds estimated that fiscal drag would reduce labour supply by around 130,000 full-time-equivalent workers by 2028-29, relative to thresholds rising with inflation, because higher marginal tax rates lead some workers to reduce their hours. That does not necessarily mean 130,000 people become unemployed. It can mean a much larger number of people each working slightly less. And that matters because our normal political conversation is obsessed with whether somebody is “in work” or “out of work”. A self-employed electrician moving from five days to four remains employed. Statistically, little dramatic has happened. Economically, however, 20% of his labour input has disappeared.
The effect is easiest to see among the self-employed and owner-managers because they can simply decide not to work the extra day, but I suspect it is much more pervasive. Salaried workers make the same trade in different ways. They move to four-day weeks, job-share, reduce hours before retirement, decline overtime, reject promotions, choose hybrid or more flexible roles over better-paid ones, or simply decide that another rung on the career ladder is not worth the additional pressure for the after-tax reward on offer. Not all of these choices reduce total hours, and working from home in particular can increase labour-market participation, so they should not all be treated as equivalent. But there is a common underlying preference: more people appear willing to exchange potential income for greater control of their time.
That matters because tax changes the exchange rate between those two things. Take a salaried professional considering a promotion from £80,000 to £105,000. The gross difference looks substantial, but the decision is not about the headline £25,000. It is about the incremental disposable income after tax and National Insurance, set against longer hours, greater responsibility, more stress and less control of evenings and weekends. At some point the perfectly rational answer becomes: “No thanks, I’d rather have the time.” That is economically very similar to the tradesman deciding he would rather have Friday on the golf course. The form is different, but the underlying choice is the same.
So perhaps the broader issue is not simply hours worked, but something closer to labour intensity. There is a continuum running from leaving the labour force entirely, through part-time work and reduced hours, to declining additional responsibility, overtime or business expansion. All involve, to varying degrees, choosing less income and more leisure or autonomy than would otherwise have been available. That does not mean tax is the only explanation. Covid changed attitudes towards commuting and flexibility, demographic ageing matters, wealthier households can afford to value time more highly, and cultural preferences may be shifting independently of fiscal policy. But if the marginal value of another pound of gross income is simultaneously being reduced by higher effective taxation, policy is pushing in the same direction.
Now look at the other end of the income distribution. Universal Credit is withdrawn at 55p for every additional £1 of relevant earnings once the applicable work allowance has been exhausted, and the taper is applied to net earnings after income tax and employee National Insurance. Again, nobody needs to be lazy or irrational for this to affect behaviour. Imagine somebody deciding whether to take another shift, increase from three days to five, or return to work at all. What matters to that person isn’t their headline gross wage. It is the improvement in household disposable income after tax, benefit withdrawal, travel, childcare and the other costs associated with working. At some point the calculation can become surprisingly unattractive.
So we potentially have the same broad phenomenon occurring at opposite ends of the labour market. The successful owner-manager thinks the additional after-tax income isn’t worth giving up another day of his life. The salaried professional decides the extra responsibility is not worth the net increase in pay. The lower-income household thinks the additional disposable income after benefit withdrawal isn’t worth the additional work and associated costs. Different circumstances, but the same underlying economic concept: government policy has reduced the private reward from supplying an additional unit of labour.
The crucial point is that these individuals may all be making completely rational decisions. The problem appears only when millions of rational individual decisions are aggregated. Less work means less output, but it also means less income tax and National Insurance, less disposable income and therefore potentially less consumption and VAT. Where reduced labour supply results in greater benefit dependency, expenditure also rises. This is where I wonder whether Britain risks getting itself into a particularly unpleasant feedback loop. The OBR currently forecasts the UK tax take rising from 34.5% of GDP in 2024-25 to 38.5% by 2030-31, which would be a historic high. Suppose higher effective taxation causes part of the productive population to work somewhat less, whether through fewer days, less overtime, reduced career intensity or simply not taking the next promotion. Tax revenues are consequently lower than they otherwise would have been. Meanwhile a substantial population outside employment, or only weakly attached to it, has to be financed. The tax base therefore has to support a given level of expenditure with fewer hours of taxable economic activity. That creates pressure for still more taxation, which further reduces the marginal reward from supplying labour.
So one possible cycle is: higher fiscal burden leads to a lower reward from additional work; that leads to less labour supplied; less labour means lower output and consumption; that weakens the tax base; weaker revenues and higher welfare costs create greater fiscal pressure; and that in turn produces a still higher burden on the remaining productive activity. This isn’t a claim that Britain has reached some simplistic “Laffer curve” point where every tax rise reduces revenue. Most tax increases will still raise money. The concern is more subtle. Suppose the Treasury increases a tax and its spreadsheet initially suggests it will raise £10bn. If behavioural changes subsequently reduce labour supply, output and consumption, perhaps the eventual improvement in the public finances is only £8bn. The tax has raised revenue, but it has also made the economy somewhat smaller. The next spending shortfall then requires another tax increase. Rinse and repeat.
There is also potentially an important composition effect. The people with greatest discretion over how intensively they work are often among the more productive people in the economy, but the point is broader than that. A builder deciding not to work Friday may quote fewer jobs, employ fewer subcontractors, train fewer apprentices and ultimately decide that growing his business simply isn’t worth the aggravation. A consultant may decline another project. A senior employee may reject promotion. A doctor may decide against an additional session. An experienced manager may move to four days rather than five. None of these people necessarily disappears from the employment statistics, but each is supplying less economically valuable labour than they potentially could.
This is why I think “Britain isn’t working” may describe something rather deeper than simply having too many economically inactive people. Perhaps Britain increasingly isn’t working because we have constructed a system which, at several important margins, makes not working - or working less intensively - more attractive relative to working more.
The uncomfortable aspect is that none of this requires bad behaviour. The golfer is making a rational decision. The salaried employee prioritising time over promotion may be making a rational decision. The Universal Credit claimant declining marginal hours may also be making a rational decision. The Treasury trying to fund health, pensions, welfare and public services is facing perfectly real expenditure. But individually rational behaviour can produce a collectively poor equilibrium.
That leaves some questions which I think government of any political colour ought to be asking. Are we measuring labour-market success properly if we concentrate on employment rather than total labour supplied? How much potential output are we losing because existing workers are voluntarily reducing hours or career intensity in response to marginal tax rates? Do we understand sufficiently well the effective marginal tax rates created by combining income tax, National Insurance and benefit withdrawal? Should tax and welfare policy be assessed together according to one simple test: how much better off is somebody from doing the next hour, day or week of work? And, most importantly, when the state needs additional revenue, are we adequately accounting for the possibility that taxing productive activity more heavily gradually reduces the amount of productive activity available to tax?
None of this proves that tax or welfare spending should simply be cut. There are obvious distributional consequences and public services have to be financed. But there seems to me to be a fairly fundamental economic principle being neglected. You cannot indefinitely increase the state’s claim on the proceeds of work while assuming that the quantity and intensity of work supplied will remain unchanged. At some point people respond to the incentives.
And perhaps one small indication that Britain really isn’t working is that it’s getting bloody difficult to get a tee time on a weekday.
I’ve taken seven additional weeks off this year because I’d rather have the time (with family) than be raped for tax. The marginal rates above £100k are a serious disincentive to actually working.
That being said, with inflation so high I’ve had to downgrade my lifestyle somewhat as my take-home has basically hit a ceiling that cannot be raised without taking a massive hit with tax.
That being said, with inflation so high I’ve had to downgrade my lifestyle somewhat as my take-home has basically hit a ceiling that cannot be raised without taking a massive hit with tax.
Speaking personally a marginal tax rate of 42% is much more of a disincentive than one of 33%. I can accept 33% on the basis that of every extra pound earned I keep two thirds.
As a result I have just increased the amount of salary paid into a salary sacrifice pension scheme to 14% and will look to increase it still further.
The marginal rates faced over £100k mean I would never bother to try and earn above that threshold.
As a result I have just increased the amount of salary paid into a salary sacrifice pension scheme to 14% and will look to increase it still further.
The marginal rates faced over £100k mean I would never bother to try and earn above that threshold.
I think golf is likely going to be white middle class types and I expect they think exactly as crumpet mentions. Obviously golf also has its fair share of old gits but for someone who has done well in their career there’s little incentive in the U.K. to keep at it when you lose half.
My wife and I are both in the upper tax band and cannot sacrifice below the cliff due to earnings, we are both going to stop working in our 40’s because it is completely galling handing over half of our salary every month for zero improvement in services. If I liked golf I’d be doing it every day too, taking up a tee time.
It’s quite mad to think how much more well off I’d be if I did my job in America, let alone sodding Dubai or Singapore.
My wife and I are both in the upper tax band and cannot sacrifice below the cliff due to earnings, we are both going to stop working in our 40’s because it is completely galling handing over half of our salary every month for zero improvement in services. If I liked golf I’d be doing it every day too, taking up a tee time.
It’s quite mad to think how much more well off I’d be if I did my job in America, let alone sodding Dubai or Singapore.
JagLover said:
Speaking personally a marginal tax rate of 42% is much more of a disincentive than one of 33%. I can accept 33% on the basis that of every extra pound earned I keep two thirds.
As a result I have just increased the amount of salary paid into a salary sacrifice pension scheme to 14% and will look to increase it still further.
The marginal rates faced over £100k mean I would never bother to try and earn above that threshold.
I'm doing exactly the same, have capped my income at £100k for the last few years as I don't want to pay the extra tax. I pay more than enough into the system already, they're not having any more from me. As a result I have just increased the amount of salary paid into a salary sacrifice pension scheme to 14% and will look to increase it still further.
The marginal rates faced over £100k mean I would never bother to try and earn above that threshold.
The government can't see that by leaving these thresholds where they are it doesn't make them more tax revenue, it reduces productivity and overall economic growth.
Perhaps there is a limit to what 'work' 'needs' doing?
All these £100k+ types loitering on golf courses are not going to be fixing potholes just because the tax regime changes.
Who is going to be paying them to work?
It would be a gain of they went to work bringing money into the country, but how many of us actually export anything, goods or services?
How many of these people would just be taking jobs from younger people?
All these £100k+ types loitering on golf courses are not going to be fixing potholes just because the tax regime changes.
Who is going to be paying them to work?
It would be a gain of they went to work bringing money into the country, but how many of us actually export anything, goods or services?
How many of these people would just be taking jobs from younger people?
Funk said:
The government can't see that by leaving these thresholds where they are it doesn't make them more tax revenue, it reduces productivity and overall economic growth.
They know exactly what it's doing, but in terms of Labour, they won't want to been seen to be giving "tax breaks to the rich" by their financially illiterate vote base, scrapping the 45% rate would probably bring in a decent chunk too, but see the s
tfit that happened in 2022 when that was proposed.Britain isn't working is the meme used by Saatchi and Saatchi in their poster campaign for Thatcher's election in 1979, the suggestion being she would put an end to the 1.5 million unemployed, which was often brought up by tory candidates pre-election. Betrayed the working class was one unintentionally ironic meme. She more than doubled it. It is, in effect, a vague phrase and essentially meaningless.
You, it seems, have discovered the concept of work/life balance. I've no idea of your age, so no idea of how long it has taken you to realise this, but you are hardly unique. I worked 60 hrs a week on average in the 1970s and 80s, when my first two kids were growing up. They were strangers to me. I chose to reduce overtime. I'm poorer but happier. My decision had nothing to do with rate of tax. I've stuck with the concept and currently own a '68' reg car. It does everything I need. I can afford a new one but there is no reason to change. I work a little despite retiring as it keeps my brain going as I am not built to sit with my feet up on the patio. The decision has nothing to do with tax rates other than the ability to claim on expenses, purchases and heating in my office. And I enjoy writing.
In many ways, those reducing their working hours have a positive effect on the labour market for obvious reasons. A local restaurant used to be closed Tues - Thurs during the day. It now closes Weds only. Staff work extra hours or, maybe, reject that and opt for family, meaning more jobs.
One of the problems with the current benefits system is that employed people depend on it which means the benefits allow companies to pay lower wages than required to maintain a reasonable lifestyle. This reduces the incentive to work longer hours for those at the bottom as they have benefits reduced if they do. You and they are similar in many ways, except they are unlikely to play golf and, according to many on here, will merely have to cut down fag consumption and nick a smaller TV.
We've had nigh on 20 years of cuts, cuts and further cuts, the sop to the public being that it means the fat is reduced. Nonsensical of course, but the meme is similar to Britain isn't working/is broken in that it means what the person hearing it wants it to mean, the antithesis of Humpty Dumpty. There's very little to cut but various government will suggest they are slashing benefits but what they do is move the cost. The only other option being families going without.
There's fraud of course, but here we return to 'Through the Looking Glass'. Investigators, and investigations, into fraud were reduced while government criticisms of fraud increased. They've recently been increased I believe, and not before time, another increase in employment rates. By the way, my son works with disadvantaged children. He helps families with regards to home organisation, cooking, sourcing of products, that sort of thing. The outstanding aspect is that they never, never being his word, claim their full entitlement.
Must cut some more.
I am pleased you have come to realise the importance of life/work balance. I interviewed a number of people in my time and the happiest, by far, were the ones who knew the value of family and didn't spend all their time working. One millionaire had an older car than mine in his drive. It was his. That was cool. A lesson for us all.
You, it seems, have discovered the concept of work/life balance. I've no idea of your age, so no idea of how long it has taken you to realise this, but you are hardly unique. I worked 60 hrs a week on average in the 1970s and 80s, when my first two kids were growing up. They were strangers to me. I chose to reduce overtime. I'm poorer but happier. My decision had nothing to do with rate of tax. I've stuck with the concept and currently own a '68' reg car. It does everything I need. I can afford a new one but there is no reason to change. I work a little despite retiring as it keeps my brain going as I am not built to sit with my feet up on the patio. The decision has nothing to do with tax rates other than the ability to claim on expenses, purchases and heating in my office. And I enjoy writing.
In many ways, those reducing their working hours have a positive effect on the labour market for obvious reasons. A local restaurant used to be closed Tues - Thurs during the day. It now closes Weds only. Staff work extra hours or, maybe, reject that and opt for family, meaning more jobs.
One of the problems with the current benefits system is that employed people depend on it which means the benefits allow companies to pay lower wages than required to maintain a reasonable lifestyle. This reduces the incentive to work longer hours for those at the bottom as they have benefits reduced if they do. You and they are similar in many ways, except they are unlikely to play golf and, according to many on here, will merely have to cut down fag consumption and nick a smaller TV.
We've had nigh on 20 years of cuts, cuts and further cuts, the sop to the public being that it means the fat is reduced. Nonsensical of course, but the meme is similar to Britain isn't working/is broken in that it means what the person hearing it wants it to mean, the antithesis of Humpty Dumpty. There's very little to cut but various government will suggest they are slashing benefits but what they do is move the cost. The only other option being families going without.
There's fraud of course, but here we return to 'Through the Looking Glass'. Investigators, and investigations, into fraud were reduced while government criticisms of fraud increased. They've recently been increased I believe, and not before time, another increase in employment rates. By the way, my son works with disadvantaged children. He helps families with regards to home organisation, cooking, sourcing of products, that sort of thing. The outstanding aspect is that they never, never being his word, claim their full entitlement.
Must cut some more.
I am pleased you have come to realise the importance of life/work balance. I interviewed a number of people in my time and the happiest, by far, were the ones who knew the value of family and didn't spend all their time working. One millionaire had an older car than mine in his drive. It was his. That was cool. A lesson for us all.
Derek Smith said:
Britain isn't working is the meme used by Saatchi and Saatchi in their poster campaign for Thatcher's election in 1979, the suggestion being she would put an end to the 1.5 million unemployed, which was often brought up by tory candidates pre-election. Betrayed the working class was one unintentionally ironic meme. She more than doubled it. It is, in effect, a vague phrase and essentially meaningless.
You, it seems, have discovered the concept of work/life balance. I've no idea of your age, so no idea of how long it has taken you to realise this, but you are hardly unique. I worked 60 hrs a week on average in the 1970s and 80s, when my first two kids were growing up. They were strangers to me. I chose to reduce overtime. I'm poorer but happier. My decision had nothing to do with rate of tax. I've stuck with the concept and currently own a '68' reg car. It does everything I need. I can afford a new one but there is no reason to change. I work a little despite retiring as it keeps my brain going as I am not built to sit with my feet up on the patio. The decision has nothing to do with tax rates other than the ability to claim on expenses, purchases and heating in my office. And I enjoy writing.
In many ways, those reducing their working hours have a positive effect on the labour market for obvious reasons. A local restaurant used to be closed Tues - Thurs during the day. It now closes Weds only. Staff work extra hours or, maybe, reject that and opt for family, meaning more jobs.
One of the problems with the current benefits system is that employed people depend on it which means the benefits allow companies to pay lower wages than required to maintain a reasonable lifestyle. This reduces the incentive to work longer hours for those at the bottom as they have benefits reduced if they do. You and they are similar in many ways, except they are unlikely to play golf and, according to many on here, will merely have to cut down fag consumption and nick a smaller TV.
We've had nigh on 20 years of cuts, cuts and further cuts, the sop to the public being that it means the fat is reduced. Nonsensical of course, but the meme is similar to Britain isn't working/is broken in that it means what the person hearing it wants it to mean, the antithesis of Humpty Dumpty. There's very little to cut but various government will suggest they are slashing benefits but what they do is move the cost. The only other option being families going without.
There's fraud of course, but here we return to 'Through the Looking Glass'. Investigators, and investigations, into fraud were reduced while government criticisms of fraud increased. They've recently been increased I believe, and not before time, another increase in employment rates. By the way, my son works with disadvantaged children. He helps families with regards to home organisation, cooking, sourcing of products, that sort of thing. The outstanding aspect is that they never, never being his word, claim their full entitlement.
Must cut some more.
I am pleased you have come to realise the importance of life/work balance. I interviewed a number of people in my time and the happiest, by far, were the ones who knew the value of family and didn't spend all their time working. One millionaire had an older car than mine in his drive. It was his. That was cool. A lesson for us all.
Let's be honest though; the decision to choose your work/life balance is a privilege most can't afford and never will - they're working all hours just to survive.You, it seems, have discovered the concept of work/life balance. I've no idea of your age, so no idea of how long it has taken you to realise this, but you are hardly unique. I worked 60 hrs a week on average in the 1970s and 80s, when my first two kids were growing up. They were strangers to me. I chose to reduce overtime. I'm poorer but happier. My decision had nothing to do with rate of tax. I've stuck with the concept and currently own a '68' reg car. It does everything I need. I can afford a new one but there is no reason to change. I work a little despite retiring as it keeps my brain going as I am not built to sit with my feet up on the patio. The decision has nothing to do with tax rates other than the ability to claim on expenses, purchases and heating in my office. And I enjoy writing.
In many ways, those reducing their working hours have a positive effect on the labour market for obvious reasons. A local restaurant used to be closed Tues - Thurs during the day. It now closes Weds only. Staff work extra hours or, maybe, reject that and opt for family, meaning more jobs.
One of the problems with the current benefits system is that employed people depend on it which means the benefits allow companies to pay lower wages than required to maintain a reasonable lifestyle. This reduces the incentive to work longer hours for those at the bottom as they have benefits reduced if they do. You and they are similar in many ways, except they are unlikely to play golf and, according to many on here, will merely have to cut down fag consumption and nick a smaller TV.
We've had nigh on 20 years of cuts, cuts and further cuts, the sop to the public being that it means the fat is reduced. Nonsensical of course, but the meme is similar to Britain isn't working/is broken in that it means what the person hearing it wants it to mean, the antithesis of Humpty Dumpty. There's very little to cut but various government will suggest they are slashing benefits but what they do is move the cost. The only other option being families going without.
There's fraud of course, but here we return to 'Through the Looking Glass'. Investigators, and investigations, into fraud were reduced while government criticisms of fraud increased. They've recently been increased I believe, and not before time, another increase in employment rates. By the way, my son works with disadvantaged children. He helps families with regards to home organisation, cooking, sourcing of products, that sort of thing. The outstanding aspect is that they never, never being his word, claim their full entitlement.
Must cut some more.
I am pleased you have come to realise the importance of life/work balance. I interviewed a number of people in my time and the happiest, by far, were the ones who knew the value of family and didn't spend all their time working. One millionaire had an older car than mine in his drive. It was his. That was cool. A lesson for us all.
Funk said:
The government can't see that by leaving these thresholds where they are it doesn't make them more tax revenue, it reduces productivity and overall economic growth.
It depends.As one poster has mentioned some people salary sacrifice it - which just means deferring the tax.
If people are working less it gives other people the opportunity to work more. In a friend's accountancy firm one partner has gone down to half time which means some of the Directors get more work. (Arguably better for the Company as they use slightly cheaper staff to do the same work)
You've said the people at the club haven't changed. That seems to suggest they've all got older, paid their mortgages and are now in the winding down phase. Who wants to work 40hr weeks when they are beyond 60?
As soon as I have enough money in the pot to sustain myself until the day I die, I'll be off the hamster wheel and doing what I enjoy. Life is too short to be worrying about working more.
As soon as I have enough money in the pot to sustain myself until the day I die, I'll be off the hamster wheel and doing what I enjoy. Life is too short to be worrying about working more.
Chicken Chaser said:
As soon as I have enough money in the pot to sustain myself until the day I die, I'll be off the hamster wheel and doing what I enjoy. Life is too short to be worrying about working more.
:Yes:There are several threads elsewhere on PH full of people who have retired early with significant pensions. Why not spend it while you can on stuff you enjoy?
Funk said:
Derek Smith said:
I am pleased you have come to realise the importance of life/work balance. I interviewed a number of people in my time and the happiest, by far, were the ones who knew the value of family and didn't spend all their time working. One millionaire had an older car than mine in his drive. It was his. That was cool. A lesson for us all.
Let's be honest though; the decision to choose your work/life balance is a privilege most can't afford and never will - they're working all hours just to survive.So I'm 100% positive if "Derek" interviewed more people like that, then his opinion on people being able to change their work/life balance might just bump into the dark reality that almost everyone else seems to live in.
Funk said:
Let's be honest though; the decision to choose your work/life balance is a privilege most can't afford and never will - they're working all hours just to survive.
Agreed, although maybe not most?It only takes small changes. The biggest one for me was not keeping up with neighbours. They went on holidays abroad. I camped in Devon. I took my lads to watch a local rugby club rather than pay what I thought of as a fortune (cheap now) for season tickets for a London team. We walked into town each week for the 'big shop', a 4.5 mile stroll we turned into an exciting time for them. And us. It was fun. My wife and I loved it, looked forward to it. We remember the walks with some nostalgia. And old biddy, about my age now, came out one day as we watched our kids playing on the swings and stuff about halfway. We chatted. The following week she came out with tea, biccies and orange juice.
It's how you approach life. Make cooking exciting, a family affair. When the kids have their own interests, I found them interesting as well. It's bonding. We missed out on a lot, but on balance, we've got a better deal.
On your point about most having not enough money, my lad, as I've mentioned, helps those who struggle. With a bit of knowledge it can become less of a struggle. They can have some downtime. Better still, he introduces them to sports; football and rugby in the main, but anything they like and will be cheap. Music as well. There are lots of organisations that will help with kit and intruments. I donate my old/pointlessly bought photographic gear to a charity. They train poor kids.
It's attitude I think. Stop running after something you won't catch. Concentrate on what you have. Success can still come. My kids tend to understand the value of money.
IanH755 said:
Absolutely! I very much doubt "Derek" would be getting answers like that from those like my sister who didn't do well at our council estate filled school leaving with 1 GCSE and has spent the last 35 years working 40-50 hour weeks in minimum wage jobs (cleaner, cashier etc) just so she can afford the 100 year old terrace house she lives in, can't update the battered 20 year old car she drives, can't do much home improvements, can only go abroad once every 3 years etc and I know dozens of her friends/colleagues are in exactly the same sort of position which when extrapolated to every minimum wage earner means literally millions live like that.
So I'm 100% positive if "Derek" interviewed more people like that, then his opinion on people being able to change their work/life balance might just bump into the dark reality that almost everyone else seems to live in.
Is it really most people, or ‘almost everyone’ - I suspect there’s an 8 figure number of people that wouldn’t recognise that life in the slightest. So I'm 100% positive if "Derek" interviewed more people like that, then his opinion on people being able to change their work/life balance might just bump into the dark reality that almost everyone else seems to live in.
I think there’s merit in what Derek is saying and saying it on a forum like this isn’t as tone deaf as the reaction be has got would imply.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff