15 Jul '09 10:48>1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI don't buy this. Firstly, it's not like half your pay cheque just disappears - it pays for things like defence, police, health care, education, pensions, etc. If you didn't pay it in tax, you'd end up spending it on private insurance (at least if you were prudent), so your actual disposable income would be much the same.
What is even worse is the incentive to work. Why work when over half your pay check disappears? Then the only people working will be those who "enjoy" their jobs. In other words, there will be few and far between who work and those that do will only work when they want to work. What a productive economy that would be!!
Secondly, and this is the crucial point, I think that wages are bound to be lower in a low-tax economy. Why? Because employers will pay the lowest possible wage they can in order to persuade employees to do a job for them. That's how market forces work - David Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages states that wages for unskilled labour will remain around subsistence level. But in a highly-taxed society, employers will be forced to pay their employees more because the amount of disposable income required for subsistence is not going to change.
Let's say it costs a minimum £100 a week to live, and tax pressure is 50% of income. So the employer has to pay £200 a week minimum in order to persuade his staff to work for him: £100 pays the employee's living expenses, and £100 goes off to pay for defence, education, health care, etc. A new government cuts tax pressure to 33%. It still cost £100 to live for a week, so the employer can get away with offering his new staff £150. The employee is no better off, as he still only has £100; tax revenue has fallen so there's less of a social safety net, even though the employee has no more money to pay for private insurance; the only person better off is the employer, who now has an extra £50 in his pocket.