Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

lostinrates

BobQ wrote: »

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.

the five percent can make a big difference to a household where there is one big earner, as opposed to two big earners or even one secondary moderate earner.

The five percent of dh's income really does count in our budgeting.

lostinrates

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

And loss of personal allowance at 100 k too. Might not be a tax, but still is a difference In the way taxed.

CLAPTON

lostinrates wrote: »

And loss of personal allowance at 100 k too. Might not be a tax, but still is a difference In the way taxed.

of course

it's a little difficult to be deterministic about what is acceptable and what is not when talking about marginal tax rates

vivatifosi

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Yes income tax.

CLAPTON

vivatifosi wrote: »

Yes income tax.

no logic or moral principle there then

the_flying_pig

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?...

there was proof that it brought in less than had been hoped, but it's very unlikely to have actually lost money. but that assessment was for 40%->50%. what we're now talking about is 45%->50%

not that it's easy to really say for sure.

if a high a marginal rate is implemented over a very short period [like the one we just saw] it can be quite easy for people to dodge it by moving earnings to another year.

equally, over a much longer period, that's when you might start to get long term effects, e.g. international companies deciding not to base operations in blighty.

i don't really know what i think of it, on balance. there are reasonably compelling arguments on both sides, with both 'sides' having a habit of muddying the waters by spewing out plenty of daft non-arguments to go with the sensible ones.

ukcarper

How many people would it effect the 90% percentile for male full time is less £60k for UK and £98k for inner London.

dawyldthing

I think its ridiculous people earn that sort of money anyway. How many of them are some how attributed to something that we all pay into anyway (MPs, bankers (for the ones that have been taken over), work for the council, head teachers etc. 38k according to a BBC news feature in 2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11382591 and 545k 'privately employed people', but how many of them are linked to the bust banks and other such businesses. I believe that we need the best people for the jobs, but for 100k plus is ludicrous in my honest opinion.

Gangaweed

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?

Its Ed M and Ed B and the rest of a socialist fruitcakes.

What do you expect?

AndyGuil

Income tax up. Tax intake down. As always happens.