Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

lostinrates

BobQ wrote: »

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..

There is no personal allowance. You lose your personal allowance when you earn over 100k.(?) (In fact the penalty at 100 of personal allowance loss is greater really than a small tax rise at above that level)

Effectively, in losing your personal allowance you are waxed on that whack as an extra lump sum. (Or cease to be subsidised). Isn't that right?

( I''m tired now and not quite sure anymore!)

BobQ

lostinrates wrote: »

There is no personal allowance. You lose your personal allowance when you earn over 100k.(?) (In fact the penalty at 100 of personal allowance loss is greater really than a small tax rise at above that level)

Effectively, in losing your personal allowance you are waxed on that whack as an extra lump sum. (Or cease to be subsidised). Isn't that right?

( I''m tired now and not quite sure anymore!)

No you are quite correct, I had forgotten that!

danothy

Tancred wrote: »

God you are boring!

I can confirm that despite appearing to be god like, I am not in fact 'God'.

Tancred wrote: »

If being fair to 99% is chosen than that is overwhelmingly the middle ground, even well above it infact as I would argue that it's only necessary to be fair to 51% of the population to reach the middle ground!!

You're still misunderstanding the concept of what middle ground you have fallaciously excluded. It's a conceptual middle ground, and there is no reason to exclude it, thus your argument doesn't warrant the premise that you can't be fair to everyone.

Tancred wrote: »

You keep twisting and turning everything I say, but the bottom line is that to achive fairness you will inevitably end up in a situation where some people will complain. You cannot do otherwise. I consider 99% of the population to be as close to 'everyone' as you can reasonably achieve, and if you think otherwise, dream on.

I do dream, of a better world. Specifically, a world without people like you. I think the accusations of amorality you levelled at me earlier would more aptly be turned to you now. Your apparent propensity to sacrifice the equal treatment of a minority for a 'greater good' is troubling.

Tancred wrote: »

I have considered the other point of view and rejected it. In my view being fair to 99% of the population is good enough for me. And, moreover, why is taxing the richest 1% more unfair even to them? Why is it unfair that they should pay back more to society when they have benefitted more? I don't think it's unfair at all. Indeed, many of the richer people in society would be happy to pay a little more tax.

I think you have rejected it unjustly, evidenced by your fallacious reasoning and the vitriol of your presentation of that reasoning. For example, you are now suggesting that the rich that benefit more from society should pay more. This would be logical if the benefit was directly derived from society, even in intangibles, and the directive included the less well paid who took benefit from society too. But you didn't say that, you just looked for an excuse to justify charging the rich more. You're so one dimensional it's laughable.

Fella

BobQ wrote: »

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.

It's certainly not fanciful to say that global companies (who are generally the people who pay £200k+ salaries) can & do choose where to locate staff partly based on how attractive they can make the remuneration.

This TEN percent increase to 50% (let's not be silly & call it a 5% increase, the highest rate was 40% throughout Labours term, the fact they increased it as they turned the lights off on the way out fools no-one) is a substantial disincentive for employers with a choice (increasingly this is all of them) to choose to locate staff in the UK.

Just one (of many) reasons why Labours figures claiming this will raise more money are nonsense.

No-one knows exactly how much any tax rate will raise. But it's a simple fact that the higher tax rates are the less incentive there is for employers to choose the UK (or indeed employees, since in £200K+ roles you can often choose where you're located).

worried_jim

Somebody has to make/supply those gratuitous luxuries, so you will be happy for them to lose their businesses and jobs.

Thrugelmir

Fella wrote: »

It's certainly not fanciful to say that global companies (who are generally the people who pay £200k+ salaries) can & do choose where to locate staff partly based on how attractive they can make the remuneration.

Move to Dublin.

Income Tax Rate : 20% on the first €32,800 ; 41% on the balance

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

You take your husbands jobs as the norm but how many would be able to do that I don't think the problem is as big as the government are making out and the numbers leaving would be small. Not that I'm saying that the rate should increase to 50% just that it would not be the disaster people are trying to make out.


The jobs might not be filled by Brits but that doesn't mean that people from overseas would not apply if the tax rate was introduced.

Was doing something totally unrelated and it occurred they HAVE already offshore lots of jobs not at higher rate offshore.

We know that telephone support can be done off shore, for banks, and some times IT. We know that accounting can sometimes be done overseas.


So we already have it in practice 'lower down the pay scales'. We have precident for the superich and big business off shoring.

We've seen France make losses with their tax recently to our benefit.

What is it that makes this bracket in this country more immune in people's eyes?

MrRee_2

BobQ wrote: »

No you are quite correct, I had forgotten that!

Surely your accountant wouldn't have? :rotfl:

chewmylegoff

lostinrates wrote: »

There is no personal allowance. You lose your personal allowance when you earn over 100k.(?) (In fact the penalty at 100 of personal allowance loss is greater really than a small tax rise at above that level)

Effectively, in losing your personal allowance you are waxed on that whack as an extra lump sum. (Or cease to be subsidised). Isn't that right?

( I''m tired now and not quite sure anymore!)

For each £1 you earn over £100k, you lose 50p of your personal allowance. So effectively you are paying 40% tax on £1.50 for every £1 you earn over £100k until your personal allowance is all gone, which makes the marginal rate of tax 60% on pay between £100k and £120k (for tax yr 14/15). A brilliant system for incentivising anyone with earnings in this band to make a lot of extra pension contributions and pay less tax than they otherwise would if their personal allowance was left alone.

lostinrates

chewmylegoff wrote: »

For each £1 you earn over £100k, you lose 50p of your personal allowance. So effectively you are paying 40% tax on £1.50 for every £1 you earn over £100k until your personal allowance is all gone, which makes the marginal rate of tax 60% on pay between £100k and £120k (for tax yr 14/15). A brilliant system for incentivising anyone with earnings in this band to make a lot of extra pension contributions and pay less tax than they otherwise would if their personal allowance was left alone.

Thanks chewy.

Now its clear why We're paying an accountant these days:D