Would an 80% income tax be reasonable?

GreatApe

For those earning say £500,000 plus could the country charge 80% income tax and what would the result be?

Many (most?) the highest earners do so due to a type of 'position monopoly'

We grossly award the highest positions and pay penuts to those slightly below them.
This is due to human nature. People like to watch read or follow stars who have lots of fans a type of monopoly due to a failure of human nature.

Take for example the fastest man in the world vs the 100th fastest man in the world.
One runs a blink of an eye faater than the other but is rewarded 1000s of times more

Take for example the top 100 uk football players combined paid £1 billion
If they all died tomorrow the game wouldn't be abandonedl instead the next best 100 would be given those positions and the same earnings as the previous top 100

Or take singers. If the worlds top 1000 English speaking singers died out that wouldn't be the end of english music. It would just mean new singers come onto stage and are paid handsomely whereas before they might have been washing glasses in a pub.

Same for actors altheleates sports starts singers comedians TV hosts and to a certain extent business leaders like FTSE 100 directors and CEOs etc

Is it reasonable to say monopoly positions exist and is it fair to tax them very heavily?

economic

A footballer earning £10m now would have his net income cut from 5m to 2m. That!!!8217;s a huge drop. I think there will be some top players earning 10m who would just retire and not bother anymore.

Tom99

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]They would make an even greater effort to avoid tax by any means possible and the net result would be the government would raise less in tax than before, isn't that what has happened in the past?[/FONT]

caronoel

Punitive income taxes on the successful will just drive increasingly mobile talent will just move overseas and thier taxes along with them.

kinger101

Footballers isn't the best example to use. There are relatively few of them. Neither are musicians, who are self-employed.

Some wages are excessive, including within the public and third sector. That's the fault of stakeholders for not taking control of remuneration.

I think income tax rates are about right. If they need increasing, it needs to be for the middle-earners. Putting 2 p on basic rate would raise much more than 10 p on say those earning £500K or more.

John-K_3

I am fortunate enough to be the sort of person that you would like to soak with such a tax, and no, it would not be reasonable.

I already pay more than enough to subsidise you and your family. If you want the state to have more money, get off your backside and earn it and pay the increased taxes.

And no, my position is not a monopoly. Your post suggests that you do not even unspdestand what that word means. There is huge competition for my role, but my company believes that I do it better than them, and that it is worth paying me the money that they do to keep me there.

This is leaving aside of course that I would,have them move me,,and my team, abroad if anyone with views like yours ever got near power, so the whole Tax take would disappear.

You have not even advanced any argument as to why if something was a monopoly (whatever that means) that it should be taxed higher.

Poor post by you, 1/10.

GreatApe

Economic. Im not convinced That is true. Most of them will keep on working as £2m income is still great income plus the jobs offer status and fame which is the primary reason they continue to do it

But the argument I an making is that these are monopoly positions. The position pays well its not pay for the person but the position.

Imagine the top 100 football players did retire well the game doesn't end. The clubs don't end the stadiums don't dissolve the fans don't disappear. What happens is the next best 100 are promoted/hired and paid those sums.

economic

John-K wrote: »

I am fortunate enough to be the sort of person that you would like to soak with such a tax, and no, it would not be reasonable.

I already pay more than enough to subsidise you and your family. If you want the state to have more money, get off your backside and earn it and pay the increased taxes.

And no, my position is not a monopoly. Your post suggests that you do not even unspdestand what that word means. There is huge competition for my role, but my company believes that I do it better than them, and that it is worth paying me the money that they do to keep me there.

This is leaving aside of course that I would,have them move me,,and my team, abroad if anyone with views like yours ever got near power, so the whole Tax take would disappear.

You have not even advanced any argument as to why if something was a monopoly (whatever that means) that it should be taxed higher.

Poor post by you, 1/10.

You earn at least 500k and you are on a money saving site?

GreatApe

John-K wrote: »

I am fortunate enough to be the sort of person that you would like to soak with such a tax, and no, it would not be enterpenours
I already pay more than enough to subsidise you and your family. If you want the state to have more money, get off your backside and earn it and pay the increased taxes.

And no, my position is not a monopoly. Your post suggests that you do not even unspdestand what that word means. There is huge competition for my role, but my company believes that I do it better than them, and that it is worth paying me the money that they do to keep me there.

This is leaving aside of course that I would,have them move me,,and my team, abroad if anyone with views like yours ever got near power, so the whole Tax take would disappear.

You have not even advanced any argument as to why if something was a monopoly (whatever that means) that it should be taxed higher.

Poor post by you, 1/10.

While I admit I do not fall into the £500,000 annual income bracket I am an additional rate tax payer and do vote for right wing parties. Just to note the figure isn't the point so it could be £250k or £1 million don't get hung up on the figure more about the tax percentage and if its reasonable

I would have something for inventors and businessmen this already exists. The £10 million enterpenours relief. 10% tax on upto £10 million. If you are so skilled go out and invent something or create a business and pay only 10% tax. If you are just holding a job that would have exited if you were born or not then expect to pay high taxes


And yes my description of it as monopoly positions is perhaps not good. How about positions that would exist if the person had been born or not? Would your position fall onto that category? If so do you not see that you are not the one being paid high wages but your position?

Its clearly obvious for sport starts actors TV hosts musicians and even writers its not so much the individual that is paid but the position. People get themselves into these positions bit the positions would have existed had the been born or not. This is different to an inventor who should be only taxed 10%

With regards to you moving abroad. I don't believe you are likely to do that you already pay 45% so why don't you move to a 0% country today? Also countries can and do limit or impose tariffs on service imports.

Thrugelmir

GreatApe wrote: »

For those earning say £500,000 plus could the country charge 80% income tax and what would the result be?

If I and two friends start a business from scratch. Work 7 days a week to build the business up. After 10 years we've created a business that obtains a stock market listing. You would wish to tax me at 80% to reward me for my efforts?

Your thinking is misaligned.

Ensuring everyone has the potential opportunity to earn at least a living wage. Is the way to achieve your objectives.

GreatApe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If I and two friends start a business from scratch. Work 7 days a week to build the business up. After 10 years we've created a business that obtains a stock market listing. You would wish to tax me at 80% to reward me for my efforts?

Your thinking is misaligned.

Ensuring everyone has the potential opportunity to earn at least a living wage. Is the way to achieve your objectives.

No you in that situation would pay 10% on your first £10 million and then 28% on your next x million

This is about people who have jobs/positions that would exist if that person was born or not

The fastest sprinter in the world runs one eye blink quicker than the 200th fastest. One earns £50m the other has to wait tables to live. People gp to watch the fastest sprinter because other people go. Would you go to watch bolt run 100 meters in 9 seconds if you were the only person there and couldn't tell anyone about it? No its valueless you'd not going to see a man run fast. People go for the experience of being in a stadium with others and cheering their nations candidate. High paid positions that would exist had the person been born or not