hi dan and everyone else,
i totally agress with what you are saying i tried to say this without
using the simple arithmetic which would have backed up my arguments.
anyone when i say 'i tried to say' i went on the cilip website
http://www.cilip.org.uk/member/newsubscription.html
and filled in the feedback form.
it was mentioned on the emailed news bulletins.
i even got a very quick response too!
tracey
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:12:24 +0100, Bye, Dan J <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It strikes me as an extraordinary innovation to claim that it is "fair"
> to have a flat rate. It means that the less well paid pay
> a much higher percentage of their income to CILIP than the better paid.
> There are good ideas in the proposals, but adopting the
> logic of the Poll Tax is not among them.
>
> At the moment, someone on 14K pays £100, which is 0.7 per cent of their
> income.
> Someone on 22K pays £144, which is 0.65 per cent of their income.
> Someone on 42K pays £206, which is 0.49 per cent of their income.
> And someone at the top of the scale at 57K or more pays £267, or 0.46
> per cent of their income (obviously this gets better the
> more over 57K you go).
>
> So there actually is already a small regressive effect, but not so
> pronounced that it gives me fevered nightmares.
>
> If a standard rate of £150 is introduced, this is what the situation
> will look like, in comparison:
>
> 14K will pay 1.07% of their income.
> 22K will pay 0.68%
> 42K will pay 0.35%
> 57K will pay 0.26%
>
> Which starts to look a lot less "fair", and a lot less "flat".
>
> (I don't think anyone would ever actually go from earning 17K to 17K and
> a penny, but obviously there will be anomalies due to the
> way the cut-off points work. But I haven't time to work out what's
> involved.)
>
> While it is true that no extra services are available to those paying
> higher cash rates (although since the lower paid would be
> paying a higher proportion of their income, couldn't we turn the point
> around?) surely membership of a professional body is about
> more than just receiving services. Those higher up the salary scale
> have surely benefited much more from their professional
> *status* than those who are not so well paid.
>
> Hey, I know, how about having a flat rate based on percentage of income,
> so everyone pays, for example, 0.5 per cent of their
> salary? Well, that may or may not be practical. I acknowledge there
> may be scope for simplifying the salary grades, but I
> cherish the redistributionist principle and in any case the present
> system is already marginally favourable to the better paid.
>
> Dan J Bye
--
Tracey Paddon
[log in to unmask]
|