Reduction in top, 50%, rate of tax?

pleasedelete

ben.bayliss wrote: »

O, I think those people are already contributing very highly and to slap them with an even higher rate of tax where they would be taking home less than half of the additional income they're creating is unfair and sends the wrong message out.

Even after income tax they are still paying far more in all other taxes too: council tax (no doubt on a highly banded property), national insurance, VAT from spending their disposable income, road tax (nice car?) etc. etc.

I wish! I live in a building site- not had wallpaper/carpet for 5 years in my bedroom.

Our cars cost £22k each. Bought on same day for cash (well 10k was part ex). We will keep them for 5 years. So nice enough but not extravagant!

I think the point I was trying to make but not well was that lots of high earners have a choice about where they are based in the world. The nature of the jobs they do are so etimes global and so they can as easily be based in uk, Singapore, eastern Europe etc.

We have opted to have the uk as his base whereas we would have paid less tax if we had chosen somewhere else. Maybe the 50 per cent tax is making us think differently about that.

I only gave a personal example as I think it helps to think about real people. I didn't wasn't to be criticised for tax avoidance. That simply isn't the case. He has paid uk tax for many years when he didn't have to but now we are thinking differently about it.

His monthly take home pay has gone down in past few years but our bills have risen. A lot is going into a pension as we also support his parents who don't have adequate provision and we don't want to be the same. The pension tax relief is also (or has) been reduced meaning we get less relief etc etc.

We will be paying 40 per cent tax until we die as we have ensured that the state won't have to keep us in retirement.

le_loup

Thatcher's children sure understand about community, bless 'em.

pleasedelete

le_loup wrote: »

Thatcher's children sure understand about community, bless 'em.

If that's a comment about me then yes you are so right- i do understand about community.

I also spend hours every week volunteering in a local charity with usually drug or alcohol dependent young people. It's really really crap but I hope it makes a difference.

I imagine that you are also actively involved in your community or you wouldn't have made a coment and I praise you for that.

I am not a thatchers child. Not right age but also not my political stance.

alancam

Does anyone have the actual figure showing the revenues generated from the 50% tax rate?

I think that it's more of a token political appeasement than a worthwhile "deficit busting" measure.

Regarding le loup's Thatcherite jibe, it's interesting to note that it was Labour tax reforms that ballooned tax legislation to the level that allows loopholes and wrangles to abound. And this wasn't a Gordon Brown idea--leftist financial theory is far too partial to the micromanagement of taxes.

Personally, I think that we should simplify, including abolishing the 50% rate. Remove all the sneaky traps and also their silly loopholes. Instead, means test all relief--similar to what has been proposed.

CLAPTON

alancam wrote: »

Does anyone have the actual figure showing the revenues generated from the 50% tax rate?

I think that it's more of a token political appeasement than a worthwhile "deficit busting" measure.

Regarding le loup's Thatcherite jibe, it's interesting to note that it was Labour tax reforms that ballooned tax legislation to the level that allows loopholes and wrangles to abound. And this wasn't a Gordon Brown idea--leftist financial theory is far too partial to the micromanagement of taxes.

Personally, I think that we should simplify, including abolishing the 50% rate. Remove all the sneaky traps and also their silly loopholes. Instead, means test all relief--similar to what has been proposed.

'means testing all relief'.... creates very high marginal deduction rates, well in excesss of 50% on the poorest people and creates huge disincentives to work atall
why is that a good thing

Any

I am not in the 50%, even in the 40% tax rate.
But I do think the 50% tax band is robbery in the daylight.

All that moaning about helping out a society and not be selfish... Sorry, I think it is very easy to give out of someone elses pocket!!!

150k earners would pay more taxes already, sorry but even 20% of 150k is more then 20% of 10k... And that is before we take in account the fact that there will be little tax paid on that 10k in the first place, given 7.5k tax free allowance and 150k tax band doesn't have one..
That is helping and contributing to society... Paying your share, which is larger because your income is larger, not trying to rob 1 to cover five peoples share..

It is the same just like knocking on your neighbours door and saying "you know what, you earn a little more then I do so I think you should pay my Tesco bill".

I do think it is penalising people for achievement. This is just my opinion, but just because my colleague earn more then I I am not expecting them to pay for my lunches automaticaly!!

John_Pierpoint

It is not a strictly logical thing it is just the psychological feeling that the government gets more than half of every marginal effort you make.
For what?

Actually with the myriad of new stealth taxation, that situation almost applies to the majority of us doing productive work, not just stirring the pot.

Tax freedom day is getting on for mid year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day

Mind you I'm not sure that includes all the "compulsory unmitigated payments" and the printing of money to replace what the bankers sent to money heaven - quantitative easing = taxation by inflation.

zygurat789

At the end of the day there are more people pying tax at 73% than at 52%. No one seems to care too much for them.
Means tested benefits do give rise to high marginal rates so the alternative is to increase the minimum wage and reduce taxation, at least, accordingly.
I feel that there are some who receive more than they are proportionately morally entitled to, but do we have to have a poor underclass?

John_Pierpoint

Unfortunately we also have some hard working families who are having children 5 year's apart, because they cannot afford two lots of child care costs; while others are subsisting on benefits.

There is something wrong with "values" here. Something to do with rights rather than obligations?

[I am far from convinced that immigrants with a poor command of English explains the difference]

Any

CLAPTON wrote: »

seems odd to me

there is a growing feeling from 'top' tories / businessmen and telegraph readers that people earning over £150,000 that having to pay 52% marginal deduction (50% tax + 2% NI) is a terrible disincentive to work in the UK

howeve those same people fully support the principle that successful young graduates earning only (say) £45,000 should pay 51% marginal deduction (40% tax + 2% NI +9% Student loan) and don't seem to believe this is a disincentive for them

curious

I am not saying that I agree with university fees , but I cannot see how that is comparable...

If I buy an asset to create turnover/profit/money I have to pay for it, either in cash or via finance.

A degree can be seen as the same... You are purchasing education, upgrade from what everyone else has.

How is that a tax?