Would you support a 50% tax rate – even if it didn’t raise extra cash?

Former_MSE_Debs

Poll started 28 Jan 2014

The Labour Party says if it returns to power, it’ll reintroduce the 50% income tax rate for higher earners (those over £150,000) as it says they should bear a bigger burden.

Yet it's not clear whether this will actually bring in extra revenue, as it could act as a disincentive, while some will take their wealth overseas. We want to know your attitude to taxation of this type.

Assume increasing the tax rate won’t increase the amount the government receives in tax. (We’re not saying it won’t, we're just testing the hypothetical question.)

Which of the options in this week's poll is closest to your view?

Vote in this week's poll

Did you vote? Why did you pick that option? Are you surprised at the results so far? Have your say below. To see the results from last time, click this

If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.


[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

zag2me

The 50% tax rate is just Labour Politics, they don't care how much it makes.

Just look at how France ended up with their 75% rate. They are the sick man of Europe!

MercilessKiller

I think the 2 Ed's are trying to secretly destroy the Labour party - It seems to me that most people (including Labour supporters) are against the idea of the 50p tax rate? Why? Well, there's a whole host of evidence including results from the previous period of the 50p tax rate, showing it was a complete and utter failure.

Equally, it's anti-business, anti-investment, and anti-rich. Unfortunately for our economy to recover as it has been doing, we need all 3 of those things. While it may (rightly) frustrate us when the rich get richer, as long as our living conditions do eventually improve, it's the best for us too. While this has been hard to see for some people, it is definitely "getting there"... Lenders are lending more, employment is at an all time high, and every stat is showing the country recovering well.

I don't think raising the 50p tax rate would change much in terms of tax income. The types of people earning that much money are most likely already doing things to avoid paying huge amounts of tax (and thus I would put more focus into closing these methods), but those who are on the UK income system will be pushed further into going away from this. It's not good or attractive, and will damage the country more than it will help it!

I saw Labour mention that the conversatives have raised tax for everyone apart from the rich. Well, I'm in the lower/middle category, and my taxes have lowered, while the Tories have been in power, so not sure what they're talking about really!

spikyone

It's pleasing to see that the majority of voters here have said that this doesn't need to happen. This is no more than the usual Labour politics of envy - "look at those evil people earning lots of money". The point is, no-one is born earning a high salary. Yes, there are some problems with high earners - RBS arguing for 200% bonuses whilst haemorrhaging money is a prime example - but generally those earning high salaries have worked for it.

High earners would pay significantly more in taxation even if there was a flat rate of tax for everyone. IFS figures suggest that those earning over £150k contribute 30% of all income tax already, despite making up around 1% of taxpayers. Unless you're a die-hard communist, it's difficult to see why someone who is successful should be forced to hand over a higher proportion of their earnings, particularly when they rely far less on the services that their taxes subsidise.

The most alarming aspect of this idea is that HMRC, the IFS, and many economic experts have said it will have little effect. How did Ed Balls-up respond? By claiming they're all wrong.
Frankly if Labour's policy priority is to implement this, it just shows that they're still not competent to be trusted with our economy.

cazziebo

The question is worded in a very loaded and disingenuous way

"Would you vote for this, if it made no difference?" is a bizarre question to ask and you then follow it up with "it could act as a disincentive". That's a bit like agreeing that bankers need humungous bonuses or they would all leave. Would they? To go where? Not proven!

The jury is out on whether it would make a negligible difference, no difference, or £10bn of difference... I fear you are stepping into Daily Wail territory, MSE!

For the record, I'd happily pay a lot more tax if it meant money was invested in public services such as health and social care, education and keeping our country safe.

MSE_Martin

cazziebo wrote: »

The question is worded in a very loaded and disingenuous way

"Would you vote for this, if it made no difference?" is a bizarre question to ask and you then follow it up with "it could act as a disincentive". That's a bit like agreeing that bankers need humungous bonuses or they would all leave. Would they? To go where? Not proven!

The jury is out on whether it would make a negligible difference, no difference, or £10bn of difference... I fear you are stepping into Daily Wail territory, MSE!

For the record, I'd happily pay a lot more tax if it meant money was invested in public services such as health and social care, education and keeping our country safe.

Of course its not loaded. Its clearly and explicitly a hypothetical not real question. The aim is to judge whether people see tax as primarily to raise revenue or to readdress the balance. Both perspectives (the case for increasing and the case for not) are explained in the intro

The fact nearly 30% of people still believe in raising taxes even though 'it makes no difference' as you say it - is for me fascinating.

We're not creeping into daily mail territory as you call it. There's no "people are against the 50% tax" being said, its an interesting poll that's all

dastep

I think the question people should be asking about the government is 'what exactly is its' purpose?'.

Do we really want the government regulating every aspect of our lives and creating needless and expensive government jobs to do that? Do we really need triple safety nets of welfare benefits paid to everyone at all times to ensure 'fairness' and 'happiness' but at a massive expense to the free market and economic growth and requires high taxation to accomplish?

Talking about needing to raise taxes on the rich is like a mugger asking you whether you would like to be mugged with either a knife or gun.

What we need is smaller government, less public spending, fewer government regulations and fewer government Quangos that think for us, and less welfare giveaway programs.

Reduce the size of government and see how much taxes can also be reduced across the board.

lean&mean

The present government cancelled the 50% rate claiming it didn't raise much and acted as a disincentive. Certainly at that earnings level I think people go out of their way to avoid (and some may evade) paying tax.

A better solution must be surely to tax spending. Remember the VAT rate hasn't returned to 17.5% which it was before the crisis. Surely, there's a case for increasing the spending tax on high priced properties, and maybe cars, jewellery, furs and so on.

A tax on spending can't be avoided, except by smuggling. And you can't do that with a house!

However, I'm not a fan of the LibDems proposal of annual taxes on so called mega houses >£2m, as it may unfairly penalise the older generation who've lived in their house for years and are cash poor.

Put a tax on buying property, ie stamp duty, but make it foolproof - not that "oh overseas companies aren't included" bol***ks. Maybe stamp duty at the right rate will cool down the London market to keep property affordable for average earners.

happyinflorida

I cannot believe so many have voted against this rise.


The media is so cleverly brain washing us into accepting absolute rubbish.


Of course the high earners should be taxed - in fact they should be taxed a lot more.


The low earners shouldn't be taxed at all - that is the ones who don't earn enough to live on, the same people who are having to choose between eating and heating.


Are people aware of the number of food banks that have been set up because they are needed in the UK? The number of food banks has risen by 60% because people are starving in the UK. This situation has never arisen before - only under this disgusting government of Conservatives with the Lib Dems helping them to do this to us.


Don't ever vote for these two parties again, they are the most disgusting bunch of corrupt swines we have ever had in power.


People should not be starved in this country or worldwide.


Don't believe the lies you hear on the BBC, Sky news, The Daily Mail - we are being brain washed.


The media in this country is owned by only 6 companies. That is why we are being fed rubbish, lies, etc and that is why everyone believes it to be true. This is what Hitler did - don't let this happen again.


The banks were bailed out - they should not have been.


Iceland didn't do that - they've now got a more successful economy than ours. They jailed their bankers.


Our bankers haven't even been arrested. They are now getting bonuses which Osborne is fighting for them to get?! The banks aren't even being asked to repay their £billions loaned to them? This government is getting more into debt because it's paying interest on the bail out amounts they have borrowed? Does that make any sense to you? No it doesn't but it shows you how badly wrong this government really is. It is corrupt.


The rich are getting much richer under this government.


Don't allow this to happen.


Do not ever vote for these parties again.


We need a new system of government - one where sponsers are not allowed, so the corruption cannot be allowed to happen.


We should not have political parties. We should have independent MP's - one's that vote of their own free will, for what is right for all of us, not right for the rich.


Our MP's are meant to work for us, not for themselves, which is what the majority of our MP's currently do.


No one educated at private schools should be allowed to be elected.

MercilessKiller

happyinflorida wrote: »

I cannot believe so many have voted against this rise.


The media is so cleverly brain washing us into accepting absolute rubbish.


Of course the high earners should be taxed - in fact they should be taxed a lot more.


The low earners shouldn't be taxed at all - that is the ones who don't earn enough to live on, the same people who are having to choose between eating and heating.


Are people aware of the number of food banks that have been set up because they are needed in the UK? The number of food banks has risen by 60% because people are starving in the UK. This situation has never arisen before - only under this disgusting government of Conservatives with the Lib Dems helping them to do this to us.


Don't ever vote for these two parties again, they are the most disgusting bunch of corrupt swines we have ever had in power.


People should not be starved in this country or worldwide.


Don't believe the lies you hear on the BBC, Sky news, The Daily Mail - we are being brain washed.


The media in this country is owned by only 6 companies. That is why we are being fed rubbish, lies, etc and that is why everyone believes it to be true. This is what Hitler did - don't let this happen again.


The banks were bailed out - they should not have been.


Iceland didn't do that - they've now got a more successful economy than ours. They jailed their bankers.


Our bankers haven't even been arrested. They are now getting bonuses which Osborne is fighting for them to get?! The banks aren't even being asked to repay their £billions loaned to them? This government is getting more into debt because it's paying interest on the bail out amounts they have borrowed? Does that make any sense to you? No it doesn't but it shows you how badly wrong this government really is. It is corrupt.


The rich are getting much richer under this government.


Don't allow this to happen.


Do not ever vote for these parties again.


We need a new system of government - one where sponsers are not allowed, so the corruption cannot be allowed to happen.


We should not have political parties. We should have independent MP's - one's that vote of their own free will, for what is right for all of us, not right for the rich.


Our MP's are meant to work for us, not for themselves, which is what the majority of our MP's currently do.


No one educated at private schools should be allowed to be elected.

Most of this is your opinion (in terms of us being brainwashed). It's a conspiracy, and while it *may* be true, I think most of us are nervous about believing in something which has 0 evidence associated with it. You obviously feel strongly and passionately which is fine, but it would be disrespectful to then judge others who do believe in the current systems, seeing as there isn't proof for your opinions.

You seem to miss out a lot of stats to defend your arguments which also concerns me. The personal allowance (untaxed income) is the highest it's ever been, meaning low earners not only don't pay tax, but also have benefits to help income as well. Is it enough? No - But it's improving.

Also, the rich do get taxed a huge amount. The top 1% pay 30% of the countries income tax bill alone. And while the rich get richer, don't forget, that has a positive effect on the economy. Why?
1) Stamp duty (bigger the house, more tax is paid)
2) Inheritance Tax (speaks for itself)
3) VAT - More money to spend? Great.. Go buy a load of £200 toasters from John Lewis and the country gets the VAT
4) Capital Gains tax - Investing the money in stocks/shares and making more money? Great, that's even more tax

So what you're saying doesn't quite add up as if the rich gets richer, so does our Government and country, meaning taxes for lower income families can go down.

Now lets say we do tax the rich even more and do a France.. We will annoy business and rich investors who will look into other countries, meaning we lose all of the above methods of tax income that we currently have. The country would be worse off, and thus taxes would go up for lower income families.

See the problem? It's a delicate machine. I'm not saying I agree fully with how it is now, but you're comments don't seem to make sense to me

stevemcol

Ask yourself this: based on your performance, your boss offers you a £50k rise but only available if you pay 50% of it in tax. Would you accept? I know I would. Surely once someone has earned 150K, they can afford to pay half of the remaining surplus in tax. They should feel privileged to be able to make that contribution. How much money does an individual need?