Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

I don't think anyone is arguing they are not 'well paid'. They are IMO extremely well paid.

I think what can be argued is that its not unfairly over paid in many cases, and that its not without extra costs to maintain those jobs in many cases (attire, restrictions on where you reside) and not without extra non financial costs, opting out of eu work hour directives, leaving family for overseas at little/no notice, impacts on social lives etc). Now many are not foolish enough to sell their souls, and I don't blame them. But for those that are money is often one of the main drivers. We tax that excessively what is the likely outcome?

michaels

I guess another way of looking at this might be:

Supose that reducing the top rate of tax to 35p could be proved to increase the overall revenue received as more people chose to receive high salaries in the UK and declare them for tax.

To most people it would be unfair that higher earners pay less on their extra income than those on lower pay...however those not driven by envy would accept that the higher revenue was more important than the perceived unfairness.

Tancred

danothy wrote: »

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.

Yes, they would pay more with a flat taxation system, but then they earn more in the first place! It's an obvious mathematical observation. However, it is precisely because they have so much additional cash that they can afford to pay a greater proportion of their income in tax. Someone on £200k a year does not need to worry about paying the mortgage, gas bills, etc. What they will worry about is luxury discretional spending: Mercedes/BMW/Jaguar, school fees, golf club, health spas, skiing at Davos, etc.

danothy wrote: »

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.

Fairness is not something I would consider subjective. It stands to reason that in order to have a fair and happy society you need to ensure that everyone makes the right contribution to it. It has nothing to do with anti-wealth mindset. What I would argue is that your mindset is based on greed, megalomania and self aggrandisement rather than being satisfied with your lot.

Ionkontrol

It always makes me laugh that the most vocal and supportive of top rate tax cuts are from people who are not on £150k+ or could every possible achieve that income.

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't think anyone is arguing they are not 'well paid'. They are IMO extremely well paid.

I think what can be argued is that its not unfairly over paid in many cases, and that its not without extra costs to maintain those jobs in many cases (attire, restrictions on where you reside) and not without extra non financial costs, opting out of eu work hour directives, leaving family for overseas at little/no notice, impacts on social lives etc). Now many are not foolish enough to sell their souls, and I don't blame them. But for those that are money is often one of the main drivers. We tax that excessively what is the likely outcome?

I'm sure a lot of that is true but I'm also sure that doesn't apply all people in that pay bracket and that it can apply to people earning less than £150k.


Also increasing tax to 50% would only cost someone on £160k £500 a year would that be enough to drive them abroad. There is rubbished talked on both sides about this but that's politics.

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

Fairness is not something I would consider subjective. .

Gosh, all that time philosophers could have saved.

Of course fairness is subjective. Other wise political choice would be easy and debates like this would not happen.

People, some people at least, genuinely do believe that there are different ways to do things for best outcome. Do you really believe people simply aren't sharing all their toys?

Tancred

Ionkontrol wrote: »

It always makes me laugh that the most vocal and supportive of top rate tax cuts are from people who are not on £150k+ or could every possible achieve that income.

My feelings entirely.

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm sure a lot of that is true but I'm also sure that doesn't apply all people in that pay bracket and that it can apply to people earning less than £150k.


Also increasing tax to 50% would only cost someone on £160k £500 a year would that be enough to drive them abroad. There is rubbished talked on both sides about this but that's politics.

Yes, all of that has applied as DH has been earning under the 100 k threshold too , but has been worth spending on as part of the longterm plan that it would be worth accruing over it. It would not have been with it on a long term earning threshold below a certain amount.


Its not the five hundred a year, its the fine hundred THAT year plus the rest of the tax,.....its the straw uk carper, on the camels back. Just likewhen we complain about fuel price rises, for example, we aren't complaining about the percentage rise, we complain about the percentage rise plus the amount we already pay plus the political temperature

In the eighties as a child I remember some of the conversations people had a round lunch and supper tables in the tax haven where I lived. Its funny to hear myself thinking some of the same things now.

Tancred

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't think anyone is arguing they are not 'well paid'. They are IMO extremely well paid.

I think what can be argued is that its not unfairly over paid in many cases, and that its not without extra costs to maintain those jobs in many cases (attire, restrictions on where you reside) and not without extra non financial costs, opting out of eu work hour directives, leaving family for overseas at little/no notice, impacts on social lives etc). Now many are not foolish enough to sell their souls, and I don't blame them. But for those that are money is often one of the main drivers. We tax that excessively what is the likely outcome?

This doesn't apply only to those earning over £150k. I had to leave home and work in London as a graduate in 1988, earning £12k a year.

danothy

Tancred wrote: »

Yes, they would pay more with a flat taxation system, but then they earn more in the first place! It's an obvious mathematical observation. However, it is precisely because they have so much additional cash that they can afford to pay a greater proportion of their income in tax.

Again, capability does not necessarily equate to obligation.

Tancred wrote: »

Someone on £200k a year does not need to worry about paying the mortgage, gas bills, etc. What they will worry about is luxury discretional spending: Mercedes/BMW/Jaguar, school fees, golf club, health spas, skiing at Davos, etc.

If they have a large mortgage they may well worry about it. Either way, there isn't a reason that their discretionary spending should factor into their expected contribution to society.

Tancred wrote: »

Fairness is not something I would consider subjective.

If someone else thinks something is unfair when you think the same thing is fair, then it is, deterministically, subjective. Your consideration on whether or not fairness is subjective isn't really relevant.

Tancred wrote: »

It stands to reason that in order to have a fair and happy society you need to ensure that everyone makes the right contribution to it.

It does stand to reason. What constitutes the 'right' contribution is subjective though. Should you contribute equal to what you use? That could be considered fair. What about everyone contributing equally in an absolute sense? Again, sounds fair. What about contributing in proportion to what you have? Maybe not fair in the strict sense, but not unreasonable/unethical either. What about having to contribute more than your proportional ability to contribute? You seem to assert that that is fair. I don't see how it is so.

Tancred wrote: »

It has nothing to do with anti-wealth mindset. What I would argue is that your mindset is based on greed, megalomania and self aggrandisement rather than being satisfied with your lot.

My lot is not a lot. I am dissatisfied with it. I probably would be not matter what my lot was, as it is human nature to be dissatisfied. I've no desire to make those with more than me pay more than they 'should' though. And there's no clear cut way of deciding what they 'should' pay in the first place, so I don't go round mouthing off about them needing to pay more, like some sort of lunatic.