Labour Plans to Cut Taxes Paid by Rich

Linton

Strange how making poor people poorer makes them work harder whilst making rich people poorer makes them work less.

Thrugelmir

Linton wrote: »

Strange how making poor people poorer makes them work harder whilst making rich people poorer makes them work less.

Many rich people start poor. These are the people that create new businesses that employ others. So great idea to tax people more for working 70 hour weeks to better themselves. While handing out benefits for doing absolutely nothing to others.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

When Labour increased taxes to 50% the take fell and it increased when the rate rose to 40% IIRC.

When the Thatcher Government reduced the top rate from 60% (to 40%?) the tax take rose.

That suggests that the top of the Laffer curve is above 40% but probably below 50% to me.

the_flying_pig

Generali wrote: »

When Labour increased taxes to 50% the take fell and it increased when the rate rose to 40% IIRC...

I don't think this is right.

The 50p rate wasn't really in for long enough to properly judge its effects imo.

But even the Tories tacitly admitted that it raised some money, just not enough (though more than, e.g., the bedroom tax) , they argued, to justify something so horrid.

Have a butchers at this

http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/budget2012/budget2012jamesbrowne.pdf

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17465733

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

When Labour increased taxes to 50% the take fell and it increased when the rate rose to 40% IIRC.

Aye, but there were other things at play too. Employment increased as things got better in general in the economy than they were when it was raised to 50%. Profits rose too as we just about starting turning the corner from the fall of 2008/9

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Aye, but there were other things at play too. Employment increased as things got better in general in the economy than they were when it was raised to 50%.

Hmm - You might want to read what you have written there Graham, whilst we all know correlation does not imply causation....

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

It appeared to be last time so there is a good chance it will be this time.

The whole point of the Laffer Curve is that there is a point where your tax take will fall off. It wouldn't be surprising if losing half your incremental income was a significant figure to many.

I don't think so, the reason that it may have appeared that way was a 'one off' income shift between tax years to avoid the higher rate.

jamesd

michaels wrote: »

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.

The government required me to enter self-assessment because of about £100 in foreign interest. So I accurately claimed around £200 worth of refund based on unreimbursed employment expenses that I wouldn't have claimed otherwise, preferring not to be in SA. Net tax loss by requiring me to do this: about £180.

jamesd

michaels wrote: »

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

Right, but the UK deficit has fallen from 7.4% of GDP in 2012-13 to 6.6% in 2013-14. A bit more economic growth combined with restraint from politicians and it'd become zero, helped along by reduced cots of benefits as employment continues to increase.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

I don't think so, the reason that it may have appeared that way was a 'one off' income shift between tax years to avoid the higher rate.

....and in the 1980s?