Labour Plans to Cut Taxes Paid by Rich

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, (and while you roll around laughing at a tiny oversight on my part) that "rich person" in Italy takes home even less.

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....

Well I think you'll also find that they have a publicly funded health service in France and Germany as well. And Canada, And Japan. In fact probably most of the countries listed with the notable exception of the good old USA.

So, no, it wasn't a "tiny oversight" on your part. More like a whackin' great big oversight of epic proportions.:rotfl:

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

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

It proves that I'm confusing Graham_Devon with facts again.:rotfl:

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

Well I think you'll also find that they have a publicly funded health service in France and Germany as well.

Context. Please apply some.

None of those systems in those countries are anywhere near as vast as the NHS.

Not sure why I need to be explaining this to you to be frank.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Context. Please apply some.

None of those systems in those countries are anywhere near as vast as the NHS.

Not sure why I need to be explaining this to you to be frank.

The context would be facts.:)

Such as 83.9% of total UK health spend is spent by the government. The comparable figure for Japan is 82.5%. Government health spending per capita in both France and Germany is higher than the UK. I could go on...

Your argument that the numbers quoted in post #65 are not comparable because only the UK has a NHS is simply wrong, because many other G20 countries also have publicly funded health care systems that are comparable to the good old NHS. The fact that other countries choose a different delivery system other than one or more monolithic organisations does not change the fact that these delivery systems are funded out of public revenue.

I'm not sure why I need to be explaining this to you to be frank, but hey ho, I guess somebody has to.:)

Andy_L

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.

but was that because of the "Laffer effect" or because the Tory's had promised to reverse the rate rise if they gained power & thus those who could delayed taking income for a year

Andy_L

Generali wrote: »

Dr Laffer doesn't agree with you.

AIUI I don't think that he has come up with a matching Laffer Equation to say where the turning point (or indeed turning points) is

Generali

If you look at The Spectator link I provided, he did make a stab at producing a curve and he saw the maximum being at 40% in the 1980s. That's why Lord Lawson set the top rate of tax at 40%.

Andy_L wrote: »

AIUI I don't think that he has come up with a matching Laffer Equation to say where the turning point (or indeed turning points) is

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Well I think you'll also find that they have a publicly funded health service in France and Germany as well. And Canada, And Japan. In fact probably most of the countries listed with the notable exception of the good old USA.

So, no, it wasn't a "tiny oversight" on your part. More like a whackin' great big oversight of epic proportions.:rotfl:

The US has two huge national health systems: Medicare and Medicaid.

Gangaweed

Generali wrote: »

And someone on £20,000 gets 20% of their income in 'free' schooling whereas the person on £100,000 probably pays for their kids to go to school. The person on £20,000 gets family tax credits and child benefit adding up to a substantial proportion of their income whereas the person on £100,000 gets nothing.

Someone on £20,000 is unlikely to be a net payer of any tax at all on average.

A salary of £100K is probably not enough to send more than 1 kid to fee paying school.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

If you look at The Spectator link I provided, he did make a stab at producing a curve and he saw the maximum being at 40% in the 1980s. That's why Lord Lawson set the top rate of tax at 40%.

There was neither a empirical or theoretical basis for the 40% as well illustrated by the lack of papers explaining it.

As I've already explained to you, the tax take in an economy is a function of several variables : Laffer built a model based on keeping all bar one constant.
Do you think that's good real world macro economics?