Milliband

chucknorris

N1AK wrote: »

Why does someone have to personally benefit from the budget to support it? The governments arguement is that the change will increase the taxation on the 'super-rich' in practice. We'll know if they're right soon enough and can judge them accordingly.

Personally I do think there is something wrong with people having more than half the money they earn taken away in taxation. If someone is paying £2,000,000 in tax then I'm not going to begrudge them the ~£50,000 they just got back; they've already contributed a huge amount.

Do you (anyone) know if anything was said about the 60% tax band (between 100k and approx 117k)? It happens because if you earn over a 100k, for every £2 over 100k you lose £1 of your personal allowance (last year's rules) so that's another 20% tax on every pound up to the limit of the personal allowance.

I didn't hear anything about it, so I assume it hasn't changed.

chucknorris

FTBFun wrote: »

I believe they've kept that around.

Thanks, I posted after seeing this. I thought that they would probably leave it as it was.

spadoosh

N1AK wrote: »

Why does someone have to personally benefit from the budget to support it? The governments arguement is that the change will increase the taxation on the 'super-rich' in practice. We'll know if they're right soon enough and can judge them accordingly.

Personally I do think there is something wrong with people having more than half the money they earn taken away in taxation. If someone is paying £2,000,000 in tax then I'm not going to begrudge them the ~£50,000 they just got back; they've already contributed a huge amount.

Gonna be padantic here.

I think youll find if there paying £2,000,000 in tax they will now only be paying £1,800,000, a £200,000 reduction, equating to 10%, quite a lot more than your 2.5%

Where did you get ~£50k from, the news?

Rotor

spadoosh wrote: »

Highlighted the keyword for you.


The 50p rate generated an extra £1billion pound last year even when most companies were legally hiding it. Fair enough its down on expected of £3billion but its earning £1billion more than the 45p rate, throwing away money.

But it's not £1 billion "thrown away" . To quote only the tax foregone without estimating revenues created by reducing the disincentive to work is misleading.

I could 'save' the country £10 billion by abolishing the police force but we all know that really it would cost trillions as the country quickly descended into anarchy.

taxes are routinely used to change behaviour ; see the "green" taxes. Raise it on those activities you want to discourage , reduce on those you want to encourage. Why should income tax be different? Raise it and discourage the very people who are good at business ( and therefore empolyment and GDP)

abaxas

I wont bother reading this thread. Just assuming everyone else in the world thinks he's an !!!!.

spadoosh

FTBFun wrote: »

How? Are you insinuating they weren't operating PAYE correctly?

To be fair im owed one :-D

I was refering to directors and individuals who earn over the £150k

I wasnt insinuating anything to do with PAYE.

My appologies!

Graham_Devon

I have to say, for rousing the rabble, Ed certainly excellened himself.

I only heard it on the radio, but the whole "put your hand up if you are better off" to the MPs was good politics. However, on the same token, I don't see Ed Milliband rallying for MPs to be worse off.

The other line I liked was "Make the poor work harder by making them poorer, make the rich work harder my making them richer".

Good line, I liked it, again, for political purposes.

And I detest labours usual oppositional response to everything. In some cases, they oppose it venomly, and then a month later, state their new aim, which is exactly what they were opposing (workfare anyone!?)

tartanterra

CRASH_BANG_WALLOP wrote: »

Milliband.
the dude is ripping the budget to bits :rotfl:

Somewhat akin to being savaged by a chihuahua I imagine.

StevieJ

FTBFun wrote: »

How? Are you insinuating they weren't operating PAYE correctly?

Not PAYE but self assessment, is that like self cert in mortage applications BTW he did say 'legally'

HMRC find that an astonishing £16 billion of income was deliberately shifted into the previous tax year - at a cost to the taxpayer of £1 billion, something that the previous Government's figures made no allowance for.
Self assessment receipts this year are below forecast by some £3.6 billion, while other tax receipts have held up.

http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2012/03/tax-rate-today-britain-billion

chucknorris

ILW wrote: »

Are there people who decide not to start a business because they think they will have to pay a lot of tax if it is sucessful?

Yes there are, me for example. At the moment I am staying under the 60% tax band by paying more into my pension. If I started a new business or expanded my existing business I would pay 60% tax on that marginal profit.

Because profit is not guaranteed and is a balance between risk of losses versus net gains, it tips the balance against me willing to take on that risk for a lower net profit if successful.

Additionally as I said before you might get some people that start a business in another country with lower taxes.

It's an even larger marginal tax rate if I had agreed to work full time when my employer recently asked me to, that marginal rate would be a whopping 72% (60% tax plus 12% NI). There is just no way that I would be prepared to lose valuable leisure time for a measly 28% net gain.