Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

Fella

J_i_m wrote: »

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.

No, the opposite is true. You can ONLY hold a sensible debate on tax proportion if you don't factor in "value" etc. The reason being that value is perceived & no two people have the same perception. You & I put no value whatsoever on football skills but clearly a large chunk of the population disagrees with us.

J_i_m

prowla wrote: »

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?

Perhaps some of those people behind the scenes are directly involved in organising the deals, contracts and logistics.

Maybe some of them play a very real role in the training and coaching of the supposed important Rooney.

Rooney is the public face, he has a high profile and achieves the visible result (scoring the odd goal). But he isn't the be and end all of what goes into achieving that objective.

Football is a team sport isn't it? And team work doesn't simply refer to the 11 (or so) players on the field, but everyone who is involved in putting that team together. Be they a celebrity or not.

M0ney

penrhyn wrote: »

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

You are right to say the 40% threshold is too low but you are wrong on the number it's around £41,500.

J_i_m

Fella wrote: »

No, the opposite is true. You can ONLY hold a sensible debate on tax proportion if you don't factor in "value" etc. The reason being that value is perceived & no two people have the same perception. You & I put no value whatsoever on football skills but clearly a large chunk of the population disagrees with us.

But now you're essentially dismissing an argument because you don't agree with it, or have a different perspective.

That's not the same as eliminating an argument on grounds of logic and reason.

Fella

J_i_m wrote: »

But now you're essentially dismissing an argument because you don't agree with it, or have a different perspective.

That's not the same as eliminating an argument on grounds of logic and reason.

I gave you a very reasoned & logical argument which you appear to have chosen to ignore.; You can't base tax on perceived value of what someone did to earn it because no two people have the same perception. The whole concept is unworkable.

To make my position crystal clear, I don't believe raising the top rate of income tax is "fair" regardless of whether the person earning it is the most "deserving" or least "deserving" person in the world.

lvader

The main point for me is that it doesn't work, all you do by taxing the wealthy too much is give them an added reason to avoid paying it or simply moving to a place that taxes less. Labour don't care if it increases tax revenue or not, it's purely idiological, envy politics.

J_i_m

Fella wrote: »

I gave you a very reasoned & logical argument which you appear to have chosen to ignore.; You can't base tax on perceived value of what someone did to earn it because no two people have the same perception. The whole concept is unworkable.

To make my position crystal clear, I don't believe raising the top rate of income tax is "fair" regardless of whether the person earning it is the most "deserving" or least "deserving" person in the world.

But I'm not basing tax on the value of work.

I'm asking if it's "fair" for some to be paid disproportionately highly, then why is not fair for them to be taxed disproportionately.

You can't simply dismiss that question because person A values something different to person B.

Fella

J_i_m wrote: »

But I'm not basing tax on the value of work.

I'm asking if it's "fair" for some to be paid disproportionately highly, then why is not fair for them to be taxed disproportionately.

And as I've already said, no two people can agree on what is "disproportionately highly" whereas everyone agrees that 50% is more than 45%.

chewmylegoff

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?

because the point isn't to raise more tax, it is to get people to vote labour because labour say they will make the rich pay...

J_i_m

Fella wrote: »

And as I've already said, no two people can agree on what is "disproportionately highly" whereas everyone agrees that 50% is more than 45%.

Factually everyone would agree that 50% is more than 45%..

But would everyone agree that one is too high or not high enough?

I think your point has defeated itself.