Do you want to work?

[Bookd]

I thought of this as a diversion from the closed DOO thread - do you actually want to work?
I will declare an interest as I was in the fortunate position of being able to take early retirement from a salaried job after which, for the first time since starting school, their was no-one to tell me what to do.
I still have a small self employed business, and with other unpaid jobs I am kept busy - if I have nothing to do I am easily bored.
This was forecast in the seventies when Tony Benn was minister in charge of the white heat of the technological revolution - he forecast that in the future the main problem that people would have would be how to fill their leisure time as work would all be automated. He did not as I recall forecast how this would be paid for.
More recently Bill Gates, as a leader of automation, has suggested that when robots take over jobs from humans they should in some way be taxed in the same way as the humans they replace providing funds to finance the living of the human population.
This theory probably needs more work, but I would be interested in people's thoughts.

 

[UP13]

In my experience technology has decreased our leisure time not increased it. People are now expected to work on computers and do emails etc at home as well as work. People even work while travelling to work...

Still a long way away from a sizeable number of the population being out of work due to technology...

 

[birchesgreen]

I can't wait until the day i can stop working for good. I'd probably do the PhD i've always wanted to do.

 

[Andrew*Debbie]

do you actually want to work?

Yes.

I work in higher education. HE is miss-managed and badly underfunded. University job cuts are common. My workplace has had years of voluntary redundancies, deferred maintenance and worse.
We've been told to expect a section 188 notice next week and 60 compulsory redundancies.

I need to get out while I still can. I understand why some guards might feel the same way.

I am applying for jobs in the rail industry because I want to work.

 

[Andrew*Debbie]

I'd probably do the PhD i've always wanted to do.

Please do. We need the money.

 

[404250]

Of course not. Anyone who wants to work for fun needs a few more hobbies, or at least give time to charity instead.

 

[birchesgreen]

Please do. We need the money.

Ha, i did work for a uni for 12 years, i know what you mean about the sector being badly managed!

 

[PeterC]

I can't wait until the day i can stop working for good. I'd probably do the PhD i've always wanted to do.

I recently thought about studying for a masters but since retirement I have been far to busy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do (and I quite enjoy my job) but equally if I had the backing of something like Universal Basic Income I'd probably choose to work more flexibly - with that "safety net" the "gig economy" would be genuinely appealing.

 

[whhistle]

I too enjoy my job, but if I could change my working hours to work more in the day and have extra days off I would.

To be honest though, if I won a substantial amount of money (IE, £1 million wouldn't be enough), I'd go on some sort of career break, or even give up all together and do some travelling for a good few years. I'd probably be a bit wasteful of some of the money (ie, wouldn't bother looking for super cheap tickets).

But I don't think I'd be able to literally do nothing for more than a few months.

Not sure how taxing robots would work though as they would have to earn money, and thus may as well just pay humans to do the job.

 

[underbank]

I do (and I quite enjoy my job) but equally if I had the backing of something like Universal Basic Income I'd probably choose to work more flexibly - with that "safety net" the "gig economy" would be genuinely appealing.

I don't think it would be "appealing" if you had to pay 50% (or more) tax on you wage. It's inevitable that tax would be a lot higher for 2 reasons - firstly, someone has to pay the UBI to everyone and secondly, somebody needs to pay for all other government funded services. Either that, or you'd have much higher indirect taxes such as VAT and stamp duty etc which would therefore drive up inflation and mean UBI bought less. The sums simply don't stack up for UBI without massive changes to the worldwide tax system which would be impossible unless all other countries adopting UBI too.

 

[GB]

I would rather work than have to claim some kind of government benefit, but I'd rather be a millionaire and not need to work in the first place.

 

[al78]

In my experience technology has decreased our leisure time not increased it. People are now expected to work on computers and do emails etc at home as well as work. People even work while travelling to work...

Still a long way away from a sizeable number of the population being out of work due to technology...

One of the theories of technological advancement is that it would decrease working hours and increase leisure time. The reverse has happened. Businesses either use high speed WIFI or mobile networks to get staff to work remotely out of hours, or employ less staff and dump more work on the remainder. It is a fallacy to try and squeeze more and more work time out of people when there are plenty of unemployed people around who could share the workload.

Yes I enjoy working, it gives me satisfaction to know that skills I have can contribute to something sufficiently useful that someone is willing to pay me, with the added benefit that I find the work interesting.

 

[GB]

Not sure how taxing robots would work though as they would have to earn money, and thus may as well just pay humans to do the job.

You wouldn't tax the actual robots. You would tax the company what ever given amount per robot. They will still get a cheaper workforce that they don't have to pay a salary, provide a uniform, pay into a pension or worry about working rights.

 

[cb a1]

One of the theories of technological advancement is that it would decrease working hours and increase leisure time. The reverse has happened. Businesses either use high speed WIFI or mobile networks to get staff to work remotely out of hours, or employ less staff and dump more work on the remainder. It is a fallacy to try and squeeze more and more work time out of people when there are plenty of unemployed people around who could share the workload.

I saw an economist talking about this a while ago. I think what you're describing is the 'hollowing out' of the workforce and on-going technological advancement keeps on doing this.

As ever, benefits (or costs) are rarely evenly spread out. Whilst in theory we could have everyone working 20 hours a week, the reality will be many more with no work and the remaining few with too much work and expected to be grateful for it such that they tolerate it (see the recent 'Kerblam' episode of Doctor Who S11E07).

 

[Ken H]

I don't think it would be "appealing" if you had to pay 50% (or more) tax on you wage. It's inevitable that tax would be a lot higher for 2 reasons - firstly, someone has to pay the UBI to everyone and secondly, somebody needs to pay for all other government funded services. Either that, or you'd have much higher indirect taxes such as VAT and stamp duty etc which would therefore drive up inflation and mean UBI bought less. The sums simply don't stack up for UBI without massive changes to the worldwide tax system which would be impossible unless all other countries adopting UBI too.

I am a freelance and work through a managed service company, who do my tax and NI. So i pyy my own employers NI out of my fees. So including NI, my marginal rate of tax is 61%. Add in the costs of getting into the office and it simply isnt worth it me working a full 40 hour week. So I just do 32. The difference in take home isnt that great. Have tax rates too high and more people will do the same. Look up Laffer curve - that shows that at a certain point, increasing tax produces a smaller tax take as people change behaviour. HMRC say decreasing the top rate from 50 to 45% increased tax take.

 

[507021]

Yes, I do.

 

[underbank]

I am a freelance and work through a managed service company, who do my tax and NI. So i pyy my own employers NI out of my fees. So including NI, my marginal rate of tax is 61%. Add in the costs of getting into the office and it simply isnt worth it me working a full 40 hour week. So I just do 32. The difference in take home isnt that great. Have tax rates too high and more people will do the same. Look up Laffer curve - that shows that at a certain point, increasing tax produces a smaller tax take as people change behaviour. HMRC say decreasing the top rate from 50 to 45% increased tax take.

That's my point exactly. High marginal tax rates discourage people from working more. Another good example is GPs and dentists, the senior/experienced of whom would earn over £100k for full time hours. There's a 62% marginal tax rate on their earnings over £100k, so what do they do? They reduce their working hours so that they earn under £100k to avoid the 62% on the extra. Likewise, the additional costs of working, i.e. commuting, etc plus only keeping 38% of the extra means it's not worth their while and they choose to do something else instead. That's the reality of stupidly high tax rates. Not only does it not bring in the expected tax yield, we've ended up making the shortage of GPs and dentists even worse. With universal income, you'd need to tax very highly those who want to work, which is a massive disincentive. Everyone who "can" work should be made to work in a UI scenario - it can't be optional, which undermines the whole ethos of it. Those who want it are the ones who don't want to work and expect everyone else to work to pay them for doing nothing.

 

[AM9]

That's my point exactly. High marginal tax rates discourage people from working more. Another good example is GPs and dentists, the senior/experienced of whom would earn over £100k for full time hours. There's a 62% marginal tax rate on their earnings over £100k, so what do they do? They reduce their working hours so that they earn under £100k to avoid the 62% on the extra. Likewise, the additional costs of working, i.e. commuting, etc plus only keeping 38% of the extra means it's not worth their while and they choose to do something else instead. That's the reality of stupidly high tax rates. Not only does it not bring in the expected tax yield, we've ended up making the shortage of GPs and dentists even worse. With universal income, you'd need to tax very highly those who want to work, which is a massive disincentive. Everyone who "can" work should be made to work in a UI scenario - it can't be optional, which undermines the whole ethos of it. Those who want it are the ones who don't want to work and expect everyone else to work to pay them for doing nothing.

Maybe the jobs themselves should be tax graded in terms of benefit to the nation. For instance those doing little except adding a margin onto goods or services provided by others contribute a lot less than those whose effort brings in capital from increased exports. Similarly, essential public services such as health, armed and civil forces, and public utilities* have a value to society far greater than gambling companies and some types of leisure providers.
* Commercial entities such as telecoms, energy and water utilities would have to demonstrate that roles within their organisations were truly part of essential services to qualify for reduced tax ratings.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

No. And I no longer do. Yesssssssss.

Work is very much over-rated. Now, I wonder how I ever found time to fit it in!

Some people do enjoy their jobs, and it may be for a relatively small salary. A higher salary helps you put up with a rubbish job / colleagues / management / workplace for longer.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

More recently Bill Gates, as a leader of automation, has suggested that when robots take over jobs from humans they should in some way be taxed in the same way as the humans they replace providing funds to finance the living of the human population.
This theory probably needs more work, but I would be interested in people's thoughts.

That would only work if the value generated by the new technology was paid to those displaced by it. In reality the owners of the machines will take all the money and leave the unfortunates behind in the gutter.

 

[HH]

I'm at the end of my working life, but enjoying my work more than I've ever done - probably because I work with lots of different people and get good, positive feedback. I work 4 days a week and enjoy the extra time off, but I wouldn't want to stop entirely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm at the end of my working life, but enjoying my work more than I've ever done - probably because I work with lots of different people and get good, positive feedback. I work 4 days a week and enjoy the extra time off, but I wouldn't want to stop entirely.

I'd give a 4 day week (at 4/5 of current pay) significant consideration, personally. Not an option for me at the minute, but a 3 day weekend (or a day off on a Wednesday) would give me a substantially better work-life balance which would be worth paying for.

 

[cf111]

I like my job but if I won the lottery tomorrow night I would write my resignation letter on a £50 note, walk out and never return.

 

[Howardh]

Strange one for me - I've worked virtually non-stop since college, I'm now the wrong side of 60; in 2014 I had to terminate my (it now looks like) final job to become a full-time carer of my mother and father - father now passed away. In 2014 I had no idea whether my caring duties would be a week, year or decade; so never really had a retirement send-off as at the time I might have been returning. Now I have a reasonable pension + carer's allowance and at 66 I get my full state one + I will put my savings into an annuity + any inheritance; so I think "having" to work has now finished unless there's a calamity. Just need to make sure I am covered until 66.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Well, given that I have over 33 years continuous service where I am, I would say I don't have a problem with working...

 

[Ken H]

I'd give a 4 day week (at 4/5 of current pay) significant consideration, personally. Not an option for me at the minute, but a 3 day weekend (or a day off on a Wednesday) would give me a substantially better work-life balance which would be worth paying for.

Why not? Have you done the sums? Have you enquired about part time? I started doing a 9 day fortnight for 18 months before going to 4 day weeks. Even taking 5 days unpaid leave a year can make a difference to your work-life balance.

 

[al78]

I am a freelance and work through a managed service company, who do my tax and NI. So i pyy my own employers NI out of my fees. So including NI, my marginal rate of tax is 61%. Add in the costs of getting into the office and it simply isnt worth it me working a full 40 hour week. So I just do 32. The difference in take home isnt that great. Have tax rates too high and more people will do the same. Look up Laffer curve - that shows that at a certain point, increasing tax produces a smaller tax take as people change behaviour. HMRC say decreasing the top rate from 50 to 45% increased tax take.

The only way deliberately keeping your salary below a higher tax threshold can be financially logical is if going over the tax threshold somehow reduces or doesn't increase your take home pay. As I understand it, it is only the proportion of the salary over the threshold that is taxed at the higher rate, so unless 100% of the salary above the threshold went to the tax man in some way, you will always take more pay home with a higher income, regardless of whether you cross a tax threshold. Whether the marginal increase in take home pay adequately compensates for the disadvantages of working for a higher income is another matter.

 

[al78]

Of course not. Anyone who wants to work for fun needs a few more hobbies, or at least give time to charity instead.

It is possible to enjoy your work, and do voluntary work at the same time if your working hours and family responsibilities allow it.

If you don't like your job, the power is with you to do something about it.

 

[underbank]

Whether the marginal increase in take home pay adequately compensates for the disadvantages of working for a higher income is another matter.

It's not only the "take home" difference, there's other real costs such as commuting, child care, etc. There are also associated costs such as needing a cleaner, gardener or handyman if working full time means you don't have time to do those things yourself, whereas working part time may mean you didn't need to pay for external help for those "household" tasks. Also unquantifiable things like more time to pursue hobbies, being more flexible with dates to get cheaper holidays etc. If you've a marginal tax/nic rate of 60-70% meaning you only get to "take home" 30-40% of your wages for working every Friday, it may well incentivise you simply not to bother, accept the 30/40% wage cut, which may be halved by saving on costs, so a 10/20% cost of a day off may well be worth it for someone to have more time to enjoy.