Discussion
tim0409 said:
Europa1 said:
I saw on the news last night that Owen Smith is proposing to resurrect the 50% tax rate for high earners to fund the NHS. If he believes that will have any impact on the NHS, he is a fool.
A 50% tax rate will bring in less revenue so I wonder how he proposes to make up the shortfall?I watched Smith last night, and if he is Labour's saviour they really are doomed.
Timmy40 said:
Yep. The problem is they lost a GE because the public saw them as too far to the left, so they went even further left and elected Corbyn, and now the only way a challenger can try and remove Corbyn is to try and be even more left. Which might be what Labour members want, but certainly isn't what the voting public want.
The membership will get a lobby party with ~150 MPs with no route to power.Europa1 said:
I saw on the news last night that Owen Smith is proposing to resurrect the 50% tax rate for high earners to fund the NHS. If he believes that will have any impact on the NHS, he is a fool.
Corbyn wants to reintroduce the 50% too. The Laffer curve suggests that the only reason to do this is out of spite. The 50% tax rate brought in so much money for the last Labour government that they didn't introduce it until the very end of their term, probably so that they can claim that the Tories are giving tax cuts to the rich when they reduced it again... which is exactly what has happened.I wonder how many NHS doctors this would affect given the NHS doctor over time pay thread?
IIRC when the French implemented this recently this actually decreased their tax take.
AFAIK the SNP had the 50% top tax rate in their manifesto, but haven't introduced it despite having the powers to do so.
The higher you squeeze the top rate payers, the more incentivised they are to look for alternatives. As they're higher earners, they have the resources and motivation to take professional advice and put effort into reducing their tax burden. Hence raising the top rates for very high earners is typically counter-productive.
You'd be better off reducing the top rates and encouraging high earners into the country, who will buy lots of stuff, piling VAT and stamp duty into the coffers, not to mention the income tax itself.
Or, alternatively, you can bump up the top rate and lie to the country about how you're getting the bankers to fund the benefits, whilst the reality is the pot is reduced.
You'd be better off reducing the top rates and encouraging high earners into the country, who will buy lots of stuff, piling VAT and stamp duty into the coffers, not to mention the income tax itself.
Or, alternatively, you can bump up the top rate and lie to the country about how you're getting the bankers to fund the benefits, whilst the reality is the pot is reduced.
janesmith1950 said:
The higher you squeeze the top rate payers, the more incentivised they are to look for alternatives. As they're higher earners, they have the resources and motivation to take professional advice and put effort into reducing their tax burden. Hence raising the top rates for very high earners is typically counter-productive.
You'd be better off reducing the top rates and encouraging high earners into the country, who will buy lots of stuff, piling VAT and stamp duty into the coffers, not to mention the income tax itself.
Or, alternatively, you can bump up the top rate and lie to the country about how you're getting the bankers to fund the benefits, whilst the reality is the pot is reduced.
Sir Phillip Green is a 'top earner' and he just lined his pockets at his pension holders expense.You'd be better off reducing the top rates and encouraging high earners into the country, who will buy lots of stuff, piling VAT and stamp duty into the coffers, not to mention the income tax itself.
Or, alternatively, you can bump up the top rate and lie to the country about how you're getting the bankers to fund the benefits, whilst the reality is the pot is reduced.
The really rich dodge/evade/avoid (call it what you like, they don't pay) tax, so it's actually the low-end-high-end people who would be hit by a 50% tax. Ideally, they should tax everyone at 20% and actually collect the tax from the super-rich.
If you don't pay tax in the UK, but earn money here you shouldn't be allowed residency or citizenship - That'd make a difference!
Of course, we NEED people with loads of money living here and not paying tax because, errr... No, tell me again?
We seem to have strayed off Corbyn though. It amuses me that he causes such frothing facebook posts from right-wingers. Speaking as someone left of centre, he seems to be the right-winger's best friend! No-one in their right (or left) mind would vote Labour with him in charge...
M
marcosgt said:
Of course, we NEED people with loads of money living here and not paying tax because, errr... No, tell me again?
M
Initial thoughts necessarily looking at positives from the past but not excusing anything proven in future to be unlawful:M
- not all such businessmen register their enterprise under their wife’s name in a tax haven e.g. Monaco
- that ^ transfer took place in 2004, purchase was in 2000, so "not paying tax" in this case isn't the full SP
- Like Green, not all such business men (and women) are tax exiles themselves
- when the business was sold, £210m in loans were written off, the business was left with £64m in cash and property worth more than £100m
- 11,000 jobs did exist, here, over many years and other entrepreneurs at that level also provide and sustain large numbers of jobs
I'm all for Theresa May living up to her fine words on becoming PM, as long as the 'fair' thing that lots of people speak about actually applies to everyone. It looks like an appalling mess has been left, and if any part of it is unlawful and follows from Green's deliberate acts then he deserves to be held to account. It was right that he answered MPs questions but not all the answers we need are currently available.
A Labour voter earns say £25,000 a year down t'pit. They aren't taxed on the first £10,800 of income. They pay 25% on the rest. - keeping it simple they are going to pay around £3500 in income tax
A Tory Toff earns £250,000 a year, they get no tax free allowance and pay at 45% for everything over 100,000
Total tax - 101,500
Example 1. 14% of income in tax
Example 2. 40 of income tax
How is that fair ?
Gargamel said:
A Labour voter earns say £25,000 a year down t'pit. They aren't taxed on the first £10,800 of income. They pay 25% on the rest. - keeping it simple they are going to pay around £3500 in income tax
A Tory Toff earns £250,000 a year, they get no tax free allowance and pay at 45% for everything over 100,000
Total tax - 101,500
Example 1. 14% of income in tax
Example 2. 40 of income tax
How is that fair ?
The Toff pays 25% of 100K? = 25k? And 45% of 150k? = 67.5k? So, 92.5k?A Tory Toff earns £250,000 a year, they get no tax free allowance and pay at 45% for everything over 100,000
Total tax - 101,500
Example 1. 14% of income in tax
Example 2. 40 of income tax
How is that fair ?
Gargamel said:
A Labour voter earns say £25,000 a year down t'pit. They aren't taxed on the first £10,800 of income. They pay 25% on the rest. - keeping it simple they are going to pay around £3500 in income tax
A Tory Toff earns £250,000 a year, they get no tax free allowance and pay at 45% for everything over 100,000
Total tax - 101,500
Example 1. 14% of income in tax
Example 2. 40 of income tax
How is that fair ?
Why wouldn't the toff get a tax free allowance?A Tory Toff earns £250,000 a year, they get no tax free allowance and pay at 45% for everything over 100,000
Total tax - 101,500
Example 1. 14% of income in tax
Example 2. 40 of income tax
How is that fair ?
So the first time he gets on the ballot at the last possible minute, having gerrymandered votes from MPs who didn't want him, and the second time he gets on without any votes and after a legal challenge to prevent him.
He's got a thick skin, I'll give him that. He'll need it come 2020.
What a utter shambles of a party.
He's got a thick skin, I'll give him that. He'll need it come 2020.
What a utter shambles of a party.
Halb said:
Gargamel said:
A Labour voter earns say £25,000 a year down t'pit. They aren't taxed on the first £10,800 of income. They pay 25% on the rest. - keeping it simple they are going to pay around £3500 in income tax
A Tory Toff earns £250,000 a year, they get no tax free allowance and pay at 45% for everything over 100,000
Total tax - 101,500
Example 1. 14% of income in tax
Example 2. 40 of income tax
How is that fair ?
The Toff pays 25% of 100K? = 25k? And 45% of 150k? = 67.5k? So, 92.5k?A Tory Toff earns £250,000 a year, they get no tax free allowance and pay at 45% for everything over 100,000
Total tax - 101,500
Example 1. 14% of income in tax
Example 2. 40 of income tax
How is that fair ?
Because of the earning over £100 rule there is no tax allowance so I believe it would be as follows.
0-31k @ 25% so £7.75k
31-150k @ 40% so £47.6k
150-250k @ 45% so £45k
So £100.35 in tax or just over 40% averaged tax rate, and apparently anyone successful enough to earn this sort of cash should pay more!
Why bother?
gruffalo said:
I believe you are incorrect.
Because of the earning over £100 rule there is no tax allowance so I believe it would be as follows.
0-31k @ 25% so £7.75k
31-150k @ 40% so £47.6k
150-250k @ 45% so £45k
So £100.35 in tax or just over 40% averaged tax rate, and apparently anyone successful enough to earn this sort of cash should pay more!
Why bother?
I was asking, not stating. In the post I quoted, it said 45 over 100k.Because of the earning over £100 rule there is no tax allowance so I believe it would be as follows.
0-31k @ 25% so £7.75k
31-150k @ 40% so £47.6k
150-250k @ 45% so £45k
So £100.35 in tax or just over 40% averaged tax rate, and apparently anyone successful enough to earn this sort of cash should pay more!
Why bother?
Thank you for explaining it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff