Labour Plans to Cut Taxes Paid by Rich

michaels

Generali wrote: »

I suppose that persuading rich businessmen and women to work less is one way to improve equality. I would have thought it would be better to make poor people richer, by getting more of them in gainful employment, would be better. I'm being naive perhaps.

Amusingly the popular (in BBC circles) relative poverty measure fell under the Tories as well paid banking jobs disappeared and lower paid positions increased. Funnily enough the usual suspects did not celebrate the fact that we were all more equal (and poorer)

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Yes. Go to Google Scholar and put in Laffer curve. There is a huge amount of evidence that the Laffer Curve exists.

Obviously the Laffer curve exists and it has one or more maxima.

however my question is there any evidence that 50% is a magic number

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

Obviously the Laffer curve exists and it has one or more maxima.

however my question is there any evidence that 50% is a magic number

There is no magic number.

The evidence suggests that currently for the UK tax rates of 45% yield more tax than those of 50%. That implies that tax take is maximised somewhere between those figures. I have no doubt that a newspaper headline is available to dispute that but I prefer empirical evidence.

As I say, have a look on Google Scholar: you'll find it's longer on fact and shorter opinion.

System

michaels wrote: »

It is about fairness not about how much revenue is raised.

Why is encouraging talented people to work less, fairness?

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

Anecdote and data but the govt tried to save 2.4k pa by stopping me getting child benefit. In fact it has lost about 8k pa because I have put my salary over 50k into my pension. So a tax change intended to net 2.4k has cost 8k.

You'll pay tax in retirement though on your income. Even if it is just 20%. So the Treasury gets your money one way or the other.

michaels

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You'll pay tax in retirement though on your income. Even if it is just 20%. So the Treasury gets your money one way or the other.

Doesn't help a lot with the immediate problem of a 100bn deficit though does it......

michaels

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Why is encouraging talented people to work less, fairness?

Don't you watch the bbc? They tell us everyday that it is fairer if we are more equal even if that means everyone has less.

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

Doesn't help a lot with the immediate problem of a 100bn deficit though does it......

Read my signature.

I doubt your personal circumstances impact the deficit in the slightest.

If it were that easy to resolve choices would have been made years ago. Reforming the public sector for example is beginning to show results. While the private sector continues to struggle to improve productivity the public sector has most certainly turned the corner with a higher output from lower headcount.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

There is no magic number.

The evidence suggests that currently for the UK tax rates of 45% yield more tax than those of 50%. That implies that tax take is maximised somewhere between those figures. I have no doubt that a newspaper headline is available to dispute that but I prefer empirical evidence.

As I say, have a look on Google Scholar: you'll find it's longer on fact and shorter opinion.

nothing I can find to support the 45-50% however reasonable that may be

Gangaweed

Personally I think there's something wrong with the state taking half or more of what you earn. That's a huge disincentive to work.

Also the point that all of this misses is that many folks are in a position to manage their income, for example, I contract through a limited company and I am very careful in managing which tax bracket I am in. I'll adjust my lifestyle to match and it doesn't bother me if I'm building up a war chest at a post tax rate of 80pc and then nil tax if I manage my finances carefully.