Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

Tancred

michaels wrote: »

Made up numbers:
Supose those earning over 150k earn in total 100bn and pay 45bn in income tax. If the increase in rate to 50% did not change behavoiur then it would bring in an extra 5bn of income tax.

In reality it may only bring in 1bn of extra tax as the total earnings of those on the top rate fall to 92bn due to avoidance, emmigration etc. Labour would see this as an extra 1bn in revenue.

Look further though, disposable income has actually fallen by 9bn from 55bn to 46bn. If half of this income would otherwise have been spent then VAT revenue falls by 4.5bn times 20% = 0.9bn so most of the 1bn is already lost.

But then consider that those who have emigrated are no longer employing nannies, gardeners, cleaners or cooks - say this used to be 10% of their incomes, these people wil no longer be paying incoem tax so 9bn (les sincome) x 10% (share of income on employing staff) x 55% (income tax+NI+employers NI) means another loss of 0.5bn to the exchequer so overall:

Direct income tax take +1bn
Loss of VAT -0.9bn
Loss of indierct income tax from employees -0.5bn

IE nose cut off to spite face / win votes

Lots of assumptions and no evidence.............

ukcarper

There are about 28.5 million people working full time in the UK and about 300,000 earn above £150k or about 1% 50% earn less than £24k. So I would say compared to the majority people earning in excess of £150k are extremely well paid.

michaels

Tancred wrote: »

LOL! :rotfl:

I earn £68k a year and I work in a white collar IT management job. I went to a Russell Group university and graduated with a 2:1.

If I worked freelance I could easily earn £450 a day.

I think if you do the maths, factor in sick pay, pension, training etc you would find that the contracting rate is actually pretty similar and much less secure obviously (try getting a mortgage)....

Tancred

BillJones wrote: »

So as I said, low paid, bad degree, probably messed around at school, and now want to see me punished for daring to have done bettter than you.

Your little temper tantrum is not going to convince anyone that your immoral stance is right, you know?

???? Bad degree? Low paid??

Are you taking the pi** or what?

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

???? Bad degree? Low paid??

Are you taking the pi** or what?

Maybe you should pay more tax ?

Tancred

michaels wrote: »

I think if you do the maths, factor in sick pay, pension, training etc you would find that the contracting rate is actually pretty similar and much less secure obviously (try getting a mortgage)....

And that's exactly why I'm not a contractor!

Tancred

MrRee wrote: »

I shall post a quote which is as true now as it was when it was first uttered .....

"It took a lot of hard work and dedication to be as lucky as I am"

I am NOT lucky ..... far from it. I am simply rewarded for my graft, for my desire to learn, for my dreams and for the sacrifices I made.

For my night school to study Maths for 3 hours, in the cold and damp - while others went out to the pub!

For my training where I was paid a fraction of others who were working on production lines.

For my decades of climbing the corporate ladder, for my 9pm unpaid nights and 7 day weeks.

Yeah, I've been really LUCKY!!! :wall::wall:

So, why should I pay for those who chose the easy road? The road littered with beer cans and ciggie stubs? The classy tattoo's and the multi-coloured kids?

I shouldn't ........

I don't have tatoos, don't drink much at all and don't smoke. And, by the way, I write with a fountain pen, shop at Waitrose and my usual radio station is Classic FM.
I guess that makes me a real chav and hooligan. :rotfl:

danothy

Tancred wrote: »

There is reason. Without a progressive system of taxation the burden would fall unfairly on those on low and middle incomes. This is why we need to ensure that those who can more easily bear the burden of higher taxation pay their fair share.

Firstly, even with a flat tax the burden would fall on higher earners more as they would still pay more, and as such a progressive taxation system is not necessary to prevent an 'unfair' burden on those with low and middle incomes.

Secondly, fairness is a flexible concept. Deciding on what constitutes fairness is subjective. Some perceive it as unfair for one person to be forced to pay for another by way of taxation. Just because you think that it's unfair for the cost of society to be shared equally by the population doesn't mean it necessarily is.

You're presenting your opinion as if it were some inherent truth. It's not. Furthermore, my experience teaches me that in cases such as these, it's an anti-wealthy/jealousy mindset that drives the apparent sophistry.

lostinrates

michaels wrote: »

I think if you do the maths, factor in sick pay, pension, training etc you would find that the contracting rate is actually pretty similar and much less secure obviously (try getting a mortgage)....

But tancred is well up on tax avoidance it seems, and self employment is better for this.

Edit, I don't normally make personal comments, but once a post implying racism is made I feel less inclined to be polite. My apologies to other posters.

prowla

michaels wrote: »

Made up numbers:
Supose those earning over 150k earn in total 100bn and pay 45bn in income tax. If the increase in rate to 50% did not change behavoiur then it would bring in an extra 5bn of income tax.

In reality it may only bring in 1bn of extra tax as the total earnings of those on the top rate fall to 92bn due to avoidance, emmigration etc. Labour would see this as an extra 1bn in revenue.

Look further though, disposable income has actually fallen by 9bn from 55bn to 46bn. If half of this income would otherwise have been spent then VAT revenue falls by 4.5bn times 20% = 0.9bn so most of the 1bn is already lost.

But then consider that those who have emigrated are no longer employing nannies, gardeners, cleaners or cooks - say this used to be 10% of their incomes, these people will no longer be paying income tax so 9bn (less income) x 10% (share of income on employing staff) x 55% (income tax+NI+employers NI) means another loss of 0.5bn to the exchequer so overall:

Direct income tax take +1bn
Loss of VAT -0.9bn
Loss of indierct income tax from employees -0.5bn

IE nose cut off to spite face / win votes

Yup - but that logic won't serve as a rallying call for NextLab.