Labour Plans to Cut Taxes Paid by Rich

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

You seem to have moved across a series of positions from:

- We all know that the Laffer Curve exists
through
- Economics? Rubbish more like.
To
- Nobody knows what the Laffer curve looks like

Actually Dr Laffer believed he did know what the Laffer Curve looked like and that it had a single maximum point rather than a series of maxima.

I say that you are arguing for the sake of it. Actually you haven't got a clue about how Dr Laffer came to his position and are now blustering around from argument to argument in a desperate attempt to save a little face.

Admit you're wrong and move on would be my advice.

having actually read Laffer work I can say

- he didn't claim there was a single maxima : he simply ignored the possibility
-he didn't give a theoretical or evidence based reason why there couldn't be several maxima (in the mathematical meeting of the word.
-he did indeed ignore the obvious fact that the total tax take is a function of many variables
-the is no credible empirical or theoretical evidence of where the maxima are for the UK today.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

having actually read Laffer work I can say

- he didn't claim there was a single maxima : he simply ignored the possibility
-he didn't give a theoretical or evidence based reason why there couldn't be several maxima (in the mathematical meeting of the word.
-he did indeed ignore the obvious fact that the total tax take is a function of many variables
-the is no credible empirical or theoretical evidence of where the maxima are for the UK today.

So are you now saying that you don't believe in the Laffer curve having earlier said we all believe in the Laffer curve?

This is all getting a bit hard to follow. I'm going to go to sleep while you work out whether you believe in economics, the Laffer curve (as a sub section of economics) and whether I should take more water with it.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Y'all want;

The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/2012-13/index.html

Cheers antrobus. We await news as to whether CLAPTON thinks the Laffer curve exists or not having claimed both positions in a few hours.

I suspect we have a new contender for the Mr Muddle award.

Rinoa

This is what rich folks pay in other G20 countries
http://www.kingpininternational.com/news/article/highest-tax-rates-country/

PWC’s G20 findings

A recent report by PWC illustrates the ‘take home’ salaries of high earners after income tax and social security deductions in G20 countries. Their findings are based on an individual who earns $400,000, has a $1.2 million mortgage and is married with two children – one of whom is under six.

Country ‘Take home’ income %

1 Italy 50.49% (takes home $202,360)
2 India 54.90%
3 United Kingdom 57.90%
4 France 58.10%
5 Canada 58.13%
6 Japan 58.68%
7 Australia 59.30%
8 United States (NY state tax) 60.45%
9 Germany 60.61%
10 South Africa 61.78%
11 China 62.05%
12 Argentina 64.02%
13 Turkey 64.64%
14 South Korea 65.75%
15 Indonesia 69.78%
16 Mexico 70.60%
17 Brazil 73.32%
18 Russia 87%
19 Saudi Arabia 96.86% (takes home £387,400.)

Looks as though we're already paying more than most.

Graham_Devon

Rinoa wrote: »

This is what rich folks pay in other G20 countries
http://www.kingpininternational.com/news/article/highest-tax-rates-country/
Looks as though we're already paying more than most.

Worth bearing in mind though that those countries do not have an NHS to pay for. So their take home pay may be higher, but then out of that they have other costs such as health insurance, something those in the UK don't have to shell out for (unless they wish to).

Very difficult to meaningfully compare taxes across such a wide range of countries with hugely different policies, state resources etc.

If we wish to live in a civilised country such as the UK, it needs to be paid for. I wouldn't personally fancy living in many of those countries whereby you take home more pay but are at a much greater risk of poor sanitry conditions, lack of safety, risk of violence etc.

We can't really have what we have in the UK AND avoid paying for it.

the_flying_pig

Rinoa wrote: »

This is what rich folks pay in other G20 countries
http://www.kingpininternational.com/news/article/highest-tax-rates-country/
Looks as though we're already paying more than most.

fair enough, that's a published source, but the list is a bit misleading imo.


countries 10-19 on the list are all basically sh1theaps, with mostly abysmal average living standards, who I'm very comfortable with the UK being different to.


if you did a comparison within Europe, y'know, adding the rest of western europe, i.e. spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, you'd see that the UK is really pretty much middling in terms of comparable countries. we're not even that far ahead of the USA - 57.9% and 60.45% really aren't so different.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

So are you now saying that you don't believe in the Laffer curve having earlier said we all believe in the Laffer curve?

This is all getting a bit hard to follow. I'm going to go to sleep while you work out whether you believe in economics, the Laffer curve (as a sub section of economics) and whether I should take more water with it.

the relationship between the total tax take is a function of many variables: one may indeed be the highest tax rate.

As a theoretical exercise, to study the situation with only one variable changing (e.g. maximum taxes rates) whilst holding all the others constant can be a valuable aid to further understanding.

Laffers curve is essentially that : an academic model where one independent variable is allowed to change whilst all the others are constant.

Whilst useful, unfortunately this does mean that people who don't really understand the subject can easily become confused.

It is obvious that any empirical evidence will inevitably be collected in an environment where many of the variables change and so would not be a real test of Laffer's simplified model.

I find it perfectly possible to acknowledge Newton's laws of motion as well as Einstein's generalisation even though neither were Harvard Ph.Ds.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Worth bearing in mind though that those countries do not have an NHS to pay for. So their take home pay may be higher, but then out of that they have other costs such as health insurance, something those in the UK don't have to shell out for (unless they wish to).

Very difficult to meaningfully compare taxes across such a wide range of countries with hugely different policies, state resources etc.

The Italians have a Servizio Sanitario Nazionale. Would you care to guess the English translation?:rotfl:

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

The Italians have a Servizio Sanitario Nazionale. Would you care to guess the English translation?:rotfl:

I'm not sure what that proves as Italy is lower down than UK

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

The Italians have a Servizio Sanitario Nazionale. Would you care to guess the English translation?:rotfl:

Yes, that "rich person" in Italy takes home even less. My statement was clearly regarding those in countries who take home more a higher percentage of their pay, of which, Italy is not one of them. So roll around laughing if you feel the need...

My overarching point was that it has to be looked at in context. What do they get out (as a society) of what they put in in taxes....