Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

M0ney

StevenMarks wrote: »

Some countries in Eastern Europe have switched to a flat rate tax and seen tax take go up quite a bit.

Everyone pays the same rate and is actually a fair way to tax rather than the "fair" way the self-proclaimed "Progressives" want to punish the successful in the UK.

UKIP want to bring in such a system. Something like 33% (tax + NI) but the first 13,000 is not taxed. I would certainly take more home if it were implemented.

Fella

Triffid wrote: »

It's still not enough that top 1% pay at present nearly a third more......blah blah

They don't pay nearly a third more. They pay nearly a third.

Buddy4me wrote: »

Does Wayne Rooney deserve 300k a week?

If he has a skill someone is happy to pay £300k a week for, then yes, obviously he does.

Buddy4me wrote: »

It would be better for you if you didn't start such puerile threads in the first place. Anyway surely the point of a forum is to debate with your opponents. What's the point of only reading the posts of people who agree with you. That way you learn nothing.

I don't put the people I disagree with on Ignore. I put the people who spew moron class-warrior bile on ignore.

BTW you may notice I don't respond to any more of your posts.

J_i_m

lostinrates wrote: »

So yes I suppose an implied value to the job, though not to the people in the roles.

Exactly, I didn't assign value to the person. I assigned it to the job. I'm sure many people who do cleaning jobs provide excellent value for money. I'm equally sure many Doctors don't provide good value for money.

But looking at it in the cold light of day.. which demands the higher level of skill?

Fella wrote:

If he has a skill someone is happy to pay £300k a week for, then yes, obviously he does.

Forget the semantics of "deserving" Is that skill really worth £300k per week? Is there not an argument to say that it's over valued?

I suspect there are many surgeons who couldn't take home £300k per week... is their work less valuable than Rooney kicking a bag of wind about?

Fella

J_i_m wrote: »

Forget the semantics of "deserving" Is that skill really worth £300k per week? Is there not an argument to say that it's over valued?

I suspect there are many surgeons who couldn't take home £300k per week... is their work less valuable than Rooney kicking a bag of wind about?

You're asking the wrong person as I wouldn't pay £5 to go & watch a football game

However I still say the answer is very obviously yes, reason being that Manu or whoever are not giving Rooney £300k a week out of kindness. They're giving him it because they expect him to generate more than £300K a week of profit for themselves in return. Absolutely no different than any other company that chooses to pay it's highly-skilled staff tons of money as they think it will increase their bottom line.

J_i_m

Fella wrote: »

You're asking the wrong person as I wouldn't pay £5 to go & watch a football game

However I still say the answer is very obviously yes, reason being that Manu or whoever are not giving Rooney £300k a week out of kindness. They're giving him it because they expect him to generate more than £300K a week of profit for themselves in return. Absolutely no different than any other company that chooses to pay it's highly-skilled staff tons of money as they think it will increase their bottom line.

Nor would I, as I detest football but I digress.

So, it's right to prize kicking a football around a field a few times a week more than;

A surgeon who reattaches a limb and all the associated nerves
A intensive care nurse who diligently observes their patient and ensures their survival
A scientist who breaks new ground and develops the next revolutionary energy source
A teacher who successfully raises the standard of learning in their class

There could be many more examples... the market may prize football over these... but is football really a better skill than any of these?

penrhyn

As long as people bet on matches, and are prepared to pay ridiculous amounts of money to Sky etc. for the privilege of watching the games the circus will continue.
Personally I can't understand why anyone would want to watch a load of foreign players with no connection to the town I live in playing for the local club.
I read somewhere that TV money meant that most Premier league clubs could easily let the punters in for free.

Fella

We seem to have strayed off-topic (or at least off the topic I started). My point is not to do with the "value" of what people do (although FWIW I think that A: Anyone who wants to pay fortunes to watch a football game is daft but it's their money and B: all remuneration should be determined by the free market because nothing else works).

My point is merely that high-earners, however they earnt it, already pay a disproportionately huge amount of tax, and that amount already goes up the more they earn. Therefore Labour claiming that taking even more from those people is "fair" is clearly nonsense. Not only that but if you follow the logic that 50% is "fairer" than 45%, then the next step is that 60% is "fairer" than 50% & so on.

It's the path that led us to an 83% top-rate in the 70s. (and 98% on unearned income).

penrhyn

Its about time that the 40% threshold was raised, its now down at around £32,000, which is hardly a high wage.

J_i_m

Well, the "value" of what people do is relevant to the argument of "should higher earners pay higher tax?"

I've pointed out that some higher earners are "disproportionately" paid to begin with.

If disproportionate pay is fair... then why isn't disproportionate tax?

You can't really hold a sensible debate on tax proportion if you aren't willing to address pay proportion and value.

prowla

Buddy4me wrote: »

Does Wayne Rooney deserve 300k a week?

ManU earn something like $450m/ year, and he is one of the most important contributors to that income.

Who should get it otherwise - the men behind the scenes?