Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

£150k is not super rich but it is easily rich enough for them to pay the extra tax without making a fuss, as so many seem to do. It's only 5% more than 45%, so for someone on £200k a year this is £2.5k a year more tax - are you honestly saying that someone earning this much can't afford to pay that? It's beyond ridiculous!

Our costs for DH to be in a higher earning bracket are higher than if he were to move in to a different job in a lower earning bracket.

E.g ATM he spends more than that commuting. ( approx £5 k plus oyster costs and accommodation)

You start adding on the extra tax here, and to the other sort of expenses of being in the sort of job where you earn ' a fair whack' and yeah, it will reach a point it would be cost effective for him to stop and work in a city closer to home earning less but living at home, having a better work life balance.

Ultimately he doesn't really want to do that ( the work he does is really edge of events, he likes that) and in our position (not a choice every one will make) with more family overseas than here and no greater connection here other than affection we will soon have little argument to stay, Especially when my parents are no longer alive. Already the comparison with what our take home and keep and standard of living would be in some other places we might as feasibly call home is sobering. I have already ruled one on because I don't want to grow old there, its not 'my' home. But we both have family and home feelings towards another.

At this stage I still think we'd have to feel pretty motivated to go, We determinedly made uk our home and love it here. I feel British before any of the other places I could as rightfully or more so hang my hat personally. But where we felt determined ten years ago, we just feel'preference' now.

Tancred

prowla wrote: »

I don't think that's what was meant; the point was that if the government put in place punitive taxation then he might decide it's maybe the time to move on...

That would be up to the guy concerned. However, I doubt he would just shut up shop - he would probably sell the business to someone else and the employees with it.

flexrider

Can tell A election is looming

Politician start to get twitchy and actully never shut up on pledges or offers to Swing them the Vote back into power where they never do anything Good again-Till another Election of course

Tancred

Fella wrote: »

We seem to have strayed off-topic (or at least off the topic I started). My point is not to do with the "value" of what people do (although FWIW I think that A: Anyone who wants to pay fortunes to watch a football game is daft but it's their money and B: all remuneration should be determined by the free market because nothing else works).

My point is merely that high-earners, however they earnt it, already pay a disproportionately huge amount of tax, and that amount already goes up the more they earn. Therefore Labour claiming that taking even more from those people is "fair" is clearly nonsense. Not only that but if you follow the logic that 50% is "fairer" than 45%, then the next step is that 60% is "fairer" than 50% & so on.

It's the path that led us to an 83% top-rate in the 70s. (and 98% on unearned income).

Your argument is purely based on an extreme right wing libertarian political agenda, not on rational analysis. The bottom line is that those who can most afford to pay, should pay more. Simple as that.

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

These are all personal circumstances. What affects you won't affect thousands of others. As you are not British I couldn't give a monkey's flatulence about what you do.

I think you'll find a lot of people in this tax bracket have similar situations.

Many are on cross cultural relationships, or half British, or educated and reside here. All are paying tax here and deciding to be here...for now, but could look at other places in eu easily, or for many, beyond . They have skills and qualifications which other countries often deem suitable for meeting entry requirements if they have no right of entry through birth, and so its not so hard for them....British, half British or otherwise, to leave uk of the temperature no longer suits them.

michaels

Tancred wrote: »

Yeah right, so that means that Mr Average on £30k a year would be on a 33% tax rate, going up to 45% marginal rate with NI included. Moronic.

I agree, completely unlike the 75% marginal rate many on that sort of income will actually face when you factor in benefits withdrawal as the result of housing benefit, Clowns tax credits etc.

And would UKIP really keep the con that is seperate tax and NI, I assumed the 33% was gong to be the all in rate?

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

These are all personal circumstances. What affects you won't affect thousands of others. As you are not British I couldn't give a monkey's flatulence about what you do. Life is full of choices and you have chosen to be based here in the UK - if you want to leave because tax is too high, then you are very welcome. Why should the UK taxpayer subsidise your lifestyle? If commuting is too expensive then go and live in London.

Well, we go and live in London, then we fold the buisness and stop employing contractors and forget aiming to employ full time. and paying back into the economy that way. ( my training and business is rural industry) . Probably would consider running another business that didn't employ simply to offset , because while we have never saught to be really tax efficient if the country tries to screw us over we'd have to start considering it.

lostinrates

mayonnaise wrote: »

Another argument for lowering the top tax rate would be the fact that high earners are less of a burden on society than low earners.

- High earners probably have private medical, so don't put pressure on the NHS.
- High earners are unlikely to generate expenses from antisocial behaviour like graffiti removal.
- High earners are more likely to cook with fresh ingredients and thus do not generate mountains of kebab wrappers and pizza cartons.

While its entirely legitimate to do so and I wouldn't slam any one who made a different moral choice, we have never sort to claim dla for me because we have been able to support me during my period of not working, we just don't see the need to take from the pot that is genuine need for some and is not need for us.

My medical treatment is partly NHs, partly private.

Fella

I love the way these class warrior morons spout their bile about what "rich" people can afford.

They themselves are fabulously wealthy compared to half the world's population, and could easily afford to give away a chunk of their money to such people. Not much chance of that though.

Easy as ABC: someone richer than them has too much money & should be forced to give it up. Everyone poorer than them - someone elses problem.

TRUE equality in the world would see everyone in the UK - including the whining morons on this thread - worse off. Don't expect to hear them clamour for that any time soon.

Tancred

michaels wrote: »

I agree, completely unlike the 75% marginal rate many on that sort of income will actually face when you factor in benefits withdrawal as the result of housing benefit, Clowns tax credits etc.

And would UKIP really keep the con that is seperate tax and NI, I assumed the 33% was gong to be the all in rate?

If it's the 'all in' rate then it's obviously better, but why is NI a con? NI is a separate charge that is meant primarily for funding the state pension and unemployment benefits. This is why the over 65s don't pay it.

Personally I would favour abolishing the ceiling on NI and offset this by increasing the personal allowance.