Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

the_flying_pig

lostinrates wrote: »

...
The top one percent already pay a third of all income tax income tax. [URL]Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10368203/Top-earners-to-pay-third-of-all-income-tax-despite-rate-cut.html[/URL]
...

:rotfl:

i always find those sob stories about the top 1% paying an increasibly high share, if [as between 1997 and 2007 in the article] that increase has happened whilst tax rates have remained the same to be up there with the very most absurd, risible, ludicrous, things that i ever read.

consider the following hypothetical example:

in 1997:
(a) 'the ninety nine percent' (TNNP) earn £400bn between them & pay an average tax rate of 20% on all of it, that's a total of £80bn; and
(b) 'the one percent' (TOP) earn £50bn between them & pay an average tax rate of 40% on all of it, that's a total of £20bn;
(c) so TOP are paying 20% of all tax.

fast forward to 2007, when the income of TNNP has gone up by a very respectable 25% but the income of the TOP has doubled:

(a) the TNNP now earn £500bn between them & pay an average tax rate of 20% on all of it, that's a total of £100bn; and
(b) TOP earn £100bn between them & pay an average tax rate of 40% on all of it, that's a total of £40bn;
(c) so TOP are now paying about 30% of all tax.

TOP's tax rates haven't gone up but their share of tax has gone up because their share of income has. does this somehow mean that their tax rate should be reduced :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:????

Tancred

lostinrates wrote: »

And I suggest that the way to make as few people suffer as possible is to keep and frankly To get MORE people resident and paying tax Here. Get non doms back, get businesses trading here registered head offices HERE not in other countries, get people choosing UK as the place to bring their ( whether you like it or not) middle tier professionals and hopefully get them staying here as senior level ones and enlarging European operations in UK and BASING them in uk. ?

There are already many companies based here in the UK. And they will remain, irrespective of their threats and moans about tax and pulling out of the EU. This country should not be held to ransom by big business. The job of government is to look after the interests of its citizens, not the whole world.

lostinrates wrote: »

It seems to me that, 30 or forty percent of something, plus the spending, employment vat etc is better than......the loss of substantial parts of that.

How much would you ideally like to see the top rate set at? And where?

The top one percent already pay a third of all income tax income tax. [URL]Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10368203/Top-earners-to-pay-third-of-all-income-tax-despite-rate-cut.html[/URL]

Why the top percent why not the top two percent, or the top three percent, or even the top five or ten percent?

Well, you have to set a tax threshold at a given level, and Balls has mentioned £150k. Personally, I think he is running scared - I would set the 50% rate at the £100k a year level instead, at least until the deficit is eliminated and the the budget is running a surplus.

wotsthat

Tancred wrote: »

Well, you have to set a tax threshold at a given level, and Balls has mentioned £150k. Personally, I think he is running scared - I would set the 50% rate at the £100k a year level instead, at least until the deficit is eliminated and the the budget is running a surplus.

So around 10% more than your household income - I see the logic

J_i_m

I think in many ways this thread is getting unnecessarily heated

I think we can all agree on the fact that we can't agree on what is "fair".

Personally.. If I were on the higher income tax rate then I'd be delighted because it'd mean that my income was very comfortable indeed. If I were in that position I probably wouldn't be thrilled for a government to increase my tax rate by a further 5% (or whatever it is) but it wouldn't exactly threaten my lifestyle either and so I wouldn't loose much time dwelling upon it.

As it is, my income is really quite low, it's above minimum wage and so could obviously be far worse but is lower than what is probably considered average, therefore my options are fairly limited on life-style.

I do not complain about this, it could be worse (a lot worse).

I do have a choice to perhaps invest in myself in an effort to improve my employment prospects and I do so to the extent that I can personally manage. But that doesn't automatically mean I'm suddenly going to (or could) become a "1%er". After all we're not all Richard Branson on Alan Sugur types

lostinrates

J_i_m wrote: »

. But that doesn't automatically mean I'm suddenly going to (or could) become a "1%er". After all we're not all Richard Branson on Alan Sugur types

. And neither is someone on 150k.

J_i_m

Fair point... they're perhaps on a even more extreme side of the scale.

lvader

My slightly controversial thinking is that people on the whole get paid what they deserve. If someone earns more than me it is because they have been able to justify why they should get the money they do.

lostinrates

lvader wrote: »

My slightly controversial thinking is that people on the whole get paid what they deserve. If someone earns more than me it is because they have been able to justify why they should get the money they do.

I dunno. I think they get paid the market rate and that's it.

'

grizzly1911

lvader wrote: »

My slightly controversial thinking is that people on the whole get paid what they deserve. If someone earns more than me it is because they have been able to justify why they should get the money they do.

Some people are good and can demonstrate exactly why. Some are full of carp and will eventually become a flounder supported (begrudgingly from below) until they are caught.

grizzly1911