Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

J_i_m

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.

I think this is probably the most sensible post in this thread.

Whilst I personally would reach a different conclusion on fairness to you, I accept your reasoning and appreciate the logic behind it.

I can accept that there are many valid arguments to show that rising the higher tax rate could be considered as unfair. I would not be surprised if people earning enough to be affected by it resented it.

Equally I can sympathise with the point of view that actually this "1%" are paid very well indeed, and if not "super rich" are still very comfortably well off and that the view that they are overpaid is not entirely unjustified.

I personally would welcome a slight "redistribution of wealth", however I would also concede that the concept is extremely unrealistic and ultimately unworkable. We'd effectively have to reset society in it's entirety.

I can understand why people would be upset at having to pay even more tax. But equally a little humility wouldn't go amiss.. because ultimately if you're being charged this higher tax rate then it's because you have a lot lot than the average person.. and you'll still have a lot lot more after you've paid your tax.

Ultimately.. I leave the higher tax rate alone. To raise it could be counter productive and actually end up reducing the tax revenue if it motivates enough high earners to emigrate.

MrRee_2

Tancred wrote: »

???? Bad degree? Low paid??

Are you taking the pi** or what?

You said that you were only on £68k ..... so, yes, pretty low paid.

I now see where your venom is coming from, you are being hit with 40% Tax and cannot afford an Accountant to secure you a lower tax bill.

Lots of people in your sad situation I'm afraid - but they don't come here demanding that those who are more successful have a duty to pay even more tax.

ukcarper

MrRee wrote: »

You said that you were only on £68k ..... so, yes, pretty low paid.

I now see where your venom is coming from, you are being hit with 40% Tax and cannot afford an Accountant to secure you a lower tax bill.

Lots of people in your sad situation I'm afraid - but they don't come here demanding that those who are more successful have a duty to pay even more tax.

But then the 90% percentile is £47k so not many people not on low pay.


Not sure an accountant can save you much if you are on PAY

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

I have no idea, but my guess is trying to work out how to close the loop for SE at all income levels to pay fair tax is a greater untapped pool, and thus greater numbers of 'unfairness' if that's the issue for some.

Whether that's worth trying to tap financially I don't know, I'm guessing were it worth it someone would have made the proposal and come up with a way?

They do seem to pay a lot less tax than people on PAYE, the argument normally put forward in their favour is that they take the risk so they deserve it, I'm not convinced.

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

They do seem to pay a lot less tax than people on PAYE, the argument normally put forward in their favour is that they take the risk so they deserve it, I'm not convinced.

I think there are differences in natures of employment.


Probably like some work harder than two people for a hundred grand and some are just lucky:D

Thrugelmir

The current coalition policy of freezing the 40% tax band. Is adequately redistributing wealth by stealth. The fairness needs to be that a menial job pays a living wage. This would reduce dependence on welfare as well.

If an individual aspires to be a city lawyer and works for 10 to 15 years to achieve their goal. Then yes they deserve the fruits of their labour.

Take away peoples dreams and the Uk would lose it's entrepreneurial culture.

prowla

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The current coalition policy of freezing the 40% tax band. Is adequately redistributing wealth by stealth. The fairness needs to be that a menial job pays a living wage. This would reduce dependence on welfare as well.

If an individual aspires to be a city lawyer and works for 10 to 15 years to achieve their goal. Then yes they deserve the fruits of their labour.

Take away peoples dreams and the Uk would lose it's entrepreneurial culture.

Aye.

If you raise taxes on the people who can afford to pay clever accountants, then you are encouraging them to get creative; you can happily pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that you've done a great job, but the reality is that it's probably had the opposite effect.

All this talk of "fair" and so-on is also ignoring the fact that since tax is a percentage of income, then if you earn more, you pay more.

CLAPTON

prowla wrote: »

All this talk of "fair" and so-on is also ignoring the fact that since tax is a percentage of income, then if you earn more, you pay more.

No, I think most (maybe even all) posters here have worked that out long ago.

BobQ

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.

Do you mean cuts?

Does it not also make you laugh that the most vocal and least supportive of top rate tax increases are from people are on salaries over £150K?

BobQ

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.

Correct me if I am wrong but surely:

Nobody earning £150K will pay any extra income tax.

Nobody earning £150K + their personal allowance (c£160K) will pay any extra tax.

Those earning a little over £160K will not pay much extra tax.

In fact this will only impact those earning significantly more than £160K net of all the tax avoidance measures we are allowed to engage in.

When Cameron said we are all in it together he clearly did not mean it . Those of us lucky enough to earn over £150K need to stop being so selfish.

The idea that those on salaries of £200K will suddenly see this measure as a reason to stop employing nannies and cleaners on minimum wage and so destabilise the whole economy is fanciful. All that will happen in most cases is that we will stop wasting money on gratuitous luxuries (because we can) or more likely save a bit less.