Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

michaels

Taxing the rich until the pips squeak is working so well in France. Some it seems would be willing to cut of their noses to spite their faces and would like to see high earners hit even if overall tax revenue falls.

Don't forget, if every family in the UK were on exactly 10k no children would be living in poverty....

Fella

lostinrates wrote: »

Tbf there are people on excellent salaries who do not work too hard for them, and loads on less great ones who work like stink for very modest return. I don't think that's necessarily the sole issue.

Yes, although tbh the overwhelming majority of people I know on £100K+ work very hard indeed. (Much too hard IMO, most of them their lives revolve around their job & they effectively never leave the office as they're constantly logging on / being called / working 7 days a week etc - something I wouldn't fancy for £100k, £150K or a lot more than £150K but it's their choice I guess).

My basic point though is that there's nothing "fair" about taking the group of people who already contribute more than anyone else & demanding they contribute still more. And indeed, Balls knows full well there's nothing fair about it. The sole point of this policy is that Labour want to put the Tories in the position of appearing to be "looking after all their rich mates" etc & are banking on the fact that so few people earn £150K+ & vote Labour that it won't cost them many votes to raise this particular tax.

So the Tories are left with the choice of supporting a policy that's very clearly unfair, not to mention very probably counter-productive - or being painted as giving a tax-cut to the rich. (yes everyone with 2 braincells knows that NOT increasing a tax is not the same as a tax cut, nevertheless you can bet Labour will spend the next year calling it a tax cut).

Pure scumbag politics from someone who excels at them.

vivatifosi

Fella wrote: »

So the Tories are left with the choice of supporting a policy that's very clearly unfair, not to mention very probably counter-productive - or being painted as giving a tax-cut to the rich. (yes everyone with 2 braincells knows that NOT increasing a tax is not the same as a tax cut, nevertheless you can bet Labour will spend the next year calling it a tax cut).

Pure scumbag politics from someone who excels at them.

Labour can say what it likes. If the facts show that raising the taxes bring in less, that's all that the Cons need to show. Most people will get that. If they don't, then they are likely looking at a different political philosophy (e.g. the rich should be taxed more because they can afford it), and they would never vote for the Cons anyway.

CLAPTON

vivatifosi wrote: »

Wasn't there some proof a while back that the 50p tax rate brought in less and therefore it was scrapped based on such evidence? If that's the case, then why reintroduce something that brings in less money?

no there wasn't proof that raising the tax rate decreased the revenue.


there was evidence that if you announce in advance that rates were going up next year, then people 'brought' forward their income so they take it at the lower rate

there was further evidence that if then, you announce in advance that you intend to reduce the rate, then people delay taking as much as possible until the rate falls

now I have no real idea where the turning point of the Laffe curve is but the above is not evidence.

Fella

Since no-one can quantify the exact affects higher taxes have, you can never "Prove" anything. Which means most people will just choose to believe whatever suits their viewpoint.

Personally I think whether it raises more tax is entirely irrelevant. It shouldn't be done, because it's wrong, plain & simple. Who wants to live in a country governed by spite & envy? If someone is paying 40% on £150K then they're paying way more than most of us & shouldn't be shafted for even more just because they "can afford it". It's their money, they're entitled to keep it, give it to charity, or spend the lot on sweets & prostitutes if that's their thing.

vivatifosi

CLAPTON wrote: »

no there wasn't proof that raising the tax rate decreased the revenue.


there was evidence that if you announce in advance that rates were going up next year, then people 'brought' forward their income so they take it at the lower rate

there was further evidence that if then, you announce in advance that you intend to reduce the rate, then people delay taking as much as possible until the rate falls

now I have no real idea where the turning point of the Laffe curve is but the above is not evidence.

Ah, right. Thanks for clarification. I seem to recall this being sold as evidence and I bought it.. should have known better, it's politics after all.

My 2p worth is that nobody should pay 50p tax. 45p is high enough. Anything 50% or over is punitive. And no I'm not in any danger of being affected by this, so not vested interest.

princeofpounds

The truly richest people have no income, just a lot of assets that are carefully managed to get as little tax as possible. If they want to hit people 'with the broadest shoulders' they should be looking at taxing wealth rather than something productive like income.

150k is a lot of money, but in London it's actually just about necessary to get a mortgage on a three bed in a second-rate area of battersea.

But putting all the practical stuff aside, I think there is ultimately something distastefully immoral about taking more than half a person's productive capacity from them (including indirect taxation like NI, vat, council tax).

Seriously, at the point you work more for the government than yourself it ceases to be a contribution to society and more a kind of luxurious slavery.

ukcarper

Fella wrote: »

Since no-one can quantify the exact affects higher taxes have, you can never "Prove" anything. Which means most people will just choose to believe whatever suits their viewpoint.

Personally I think whether it raises more tax is entirely irrelevant. It shouldn't be done, because it's wrong, plain & simple. Who wants to live in a country governed by spite & envy? If someone is paying 40% on £150K then they're paying way more than most of us & shouldn't be shafted for even more just because they "can afford it". It's their money, they're entitled to keep it, give it to charity, or spend the lot on sweets & prostitutes if that's their thing.

I suppose it doesn't what you think its not your vote he's after.

CLAPTON

vivatifosi wrote: »

Ah, right. Thanks for clarification. I seem to recall this being sold as evidence and I bought it.. should have known better, it's politics after all.

My 2p worth is that nobody should pay 50p tax. 45p is high enough. Anything 50% or over is punitive. And no I'm not in any danger of being affected by this, so not vested interest.

I assume you are saying no-one should pay 50 in INCOME TAX with little concern for VAT (20%) fuel and utility taxes, community charge etc


a reasonabaly successful graduate earning 42k is paying marginal rate of 40% (tax) + 2% (NI) + 9% (SLC repayments) so 51% deductions

BobQ

Tancred wrote: »

Balls hasn't gone far enough - I would put the 50% rate on all earners who are above £100k a year.

The top eaners pay more tax for the simple reason that they earn more money!! How can you pay tax if you don't have money in the first place, brains of Britain!

I do not think it really makes much difference whether its 45 or 50%. The real issue is to tighten tax law so that tax avoidance is less easy to do and everyone pays a fair share not just those on PAYE.