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

Rotor

stevemcol wrote: »

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?

Why do you want to punish people for being successful and why would you NOT see it as punishment?
People and politicians are keen to 'reward' people with low taxes (just see any speech about the nil rate band expanding).




Also, if you can accept the principle of rewarding some behaviours with tax breaks ( eg renewable energy) and discouraging others with high taxes ( eg smoking or drinking), it is logical to assume that high tax will discourage endeavour and low encourage it.




Maybe they can 'afford' to pay more but it's not really relevant. I have savings so, in theory, I 'can afford' to pay more as my income must exceed outgoings :I wouldn't be happy though.

drslide

The poll is all about the question. Talk about a loaded one in this poll

why not ask: do you think the tax rate should be raised to 50% for the highest earners so we can "all be in this together".

spikyone

drslide wrote: »

The poll is all about the question. Talk about a loaded one in this poll

why not ask: do you think the tax rate should be raised to 50% for the highest earners so we can "all be in this together".

I'm struggling to see how quoting a phrase associated with a political party in a seemingly sarcastic way is any less loaded?

The point is that pretty much everyone except Ed Balls has said this will have little or no effect on the country's finances. The question, in light of that, is "should we increase tax for the highest earners anyway?"

For me, it would be more interesting to split this like last week's "taking your kids on holiday in term-time" poll, so that we could see differences in the opinion people hold dependent on their own circumstances - are you more likely to support the idea if your own income is low, for instance?

Robin_Davies

:T Collecting an extra 10% from a few people is a simple vote-catcher which has been used many times before. It merely shows how little regard its proposers have for the intelligence of the electorate.

Every new tax needs extra effort to collect it, and that costs taxpayers' money. Thanks mainly to Mr Brown, our taxation system is now massively over-complicated.

A tax on what you earn and a tax on what you spend is enough for most of us. Indeed, you only really need a tax on spending.

But we are slow to react. OK, we got rid of dog licences, but we still have to pay the BBC to watch independent television. Does that tax make any more sense that the proposed 50% tax band?

DKLS

stevemcol wrote: »

MK. I'm the first to admit that my view is idealistc and probably a bit niaive. It just really irritates me that people capable of earning these sums begrudge paying a bit extra tax both in real terms and as a proportion. Personally I'm on higher rate (40%) and I don't begrudge paying the extra 20% above basic. So why do they squeel at an extra 10% on earnings over 150K?

Whilst I am not in the 150k league I am in the higher rate, I resent every sodding single penny I pay in tax.


I really don't see why success should be penalised whilst we have such big govt which rewards failure.


What I really want is some perceived value for money, at the moment I don't get that.

stevemcol

DKLS wrote: »

Whilst I am not in the 150k league I am in the higher rate, I resent every sodding single penny I pay in tax.


I really don't see why success should be penalised whilst we have such big govt which rewards failure.


What I really want is some perceived value for money, at the moment I don't get that.

If government expenditure was completely efficient and free from corruption would you be OK with the 50% tax rate?

gadgetmind

stevemcol wrote: »

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.

Really?

Such raises rarely come without strings attached, strings of the more work, more responsibility, more reports, more hassle, more conference calls late into every evening, more working on presentations and projections at weekends, and generally less fun type.

I've had many a person turn down promotion because the extra pay would be taxed in 45/50/60% bracket. A few have even turned up their noses in the 40% band, but not so many. As soon as people see close to (or more than) half of their extra work being for HMG rather than their themselves and their loved ones, it really does disincentivise.

gadgetmind

ifan.goch wrote: »

I think that rather than raising the tax rate the government should close the glaring loophole of taxing dividends at a mere 10% irrespective of any other income..

There is no such loophole.

Once out of the basic rate band (other income plus dividends) dividend income is taxed at 32.5%.

Yes, it seems tax efficient, but dividends are paid out of company profits on which a company has already paid corporation tax.

littlerat

The rich are already taxed more as they have more to be taxed. Taking half of someone's income (with NI on top!) is absolutely ridiculous. If I didn't think we needed the money, which is always the balance, I'd say a 30% top tax - but I know realistically benefit claimants (sorry, scroungers...), public services, everything costs money that has to come from somewhere. But in an ideal world 30% if we needed it max.

I think my views would be the same if I was earning, even a very high amount, as I do know tax is a good thing in some ways, some going can be lived with.

DrSheldonCooper

All,

I agree with many others that this is a loaded question, however, it is an important subject and one that is worth of considered debate.

Suggesting that the top rate of tax to 50% just shows how financially irresponsible the Labour leadership are prepared to be. Anyone who believes that the Labour would leave the threshold at 150k is mistaken, this will quickly be reduced - 125k, 100k??? Whilst most who support such a rate will still claim that this is fair enough and those earning this amount can 'afford to pay', they aren't seeing the full picture.

Only a few others have mentioned the punishing change that was introduced the alongside the 50% rates in the death throws of the previous government. The means that earnings above 100k (to about 118-120k) are effectively taxed at 62%. A new Labour government will not be able to resist changing this (as there is more certainty it will raise receipts). What will be the new threshold here - 80k,60K again who know until it is too late.

When such rates are introduced they will raise some additional revenue but then people will quickly makes changes which will reduce the tax collected and their overall economic actively

Those which can will change their employment status (change to their own limited company rather than as a direct employ, reduce the amount they work (4days a week rather than 5days), push more into pensions in the expectation tax rates on withdrawal will be lower, and many other options.

Tax should be progressive and it is not a tool to used to punish sections of the workforce who are unlikey to belong to the unions that form the basis of your support.