Would an 80% income tax be reasonable?

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

What's usually missed in these hypotheticals is this.

If you have 50 people earning £100 and paying £50 tax, you can't simply assume that making them pay £51 will have no effect. If just one of those people leaves the country, you lose not the extra £1 but the whole £50. So even if the other 49 stay put you are collecting £2499 from those 49 people where previously you collected £2500 from 50.

Anyone who suggests that most people will do nothing different if you increase their tax rate is saying something that is accurate but completely misses the point. In the above example if the percentage by which you increase taxes is less than the percentage who leave then the exchequer loses. It's that simple.

It's so simple that even the envy brigade can't really claim not to understand it. Anyone who argues for such rises is simply saying that they envy those who earn well and they want such people's lives made worse as an end in itself. It's not about paying for stuff for the state, it's about loathing.

We should be widening the tax take, not concentrating it as we now are. When 27% of all income tax is paid by 1% of earners and 59% by the top 10% the problem you've got is that the state relies for its income on a tiny pool of people of which only a tiny proportion need to feel alienated. If that happens they go and they take their money with them, and it doesn't need to be that many who go to bring on the crisis.

It is deeply immoral for there to be so many people who pay no income tax.

Also is it that big a loss?
Let's say a UK only company like one of the house builders.
Let's say they earn £100m a year and decide 80% tax is not worthwhile
Let's say they go to America and start a new life there

Well the demand for new houses hasn't disappeared
Persimmons their old employer hasn't disappeared
A new CEO will be appointed.
You could argue that the new guy won't be as good as the old guy but I'm not 100% convinced that will be true. Plenty of poor performing companies and CEOs.

Also this isn't necessarily about more tax for the state.
In this example instead of the CEO earning £100m they may only be paid say £1m so the state has lost out on £99m @45% tax. Instead the company has made a bigger profit (taxed at 19%) and it can distribute to its shareholders the real people who's capital and savings should be rewarded. Most of those share holders will likely pay zero tax If they hold shares in their pensions or ISAs.

So in this example the winners are Share holders +£80 million and the losers are the State -£26m and the ex CEO of persimmons -£54m

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

This is nonsense. You are basically arguing that a persons athletic or singing or acting ability is down to luck/genetics etc. The people at the top of their game in their fields have worked hard at it over a long period of time, and you think the money is not deserved?

Also the same could be said for your job or my job or anyone else's job. We are also easily replaceable. In fact generally the lower the wage the more easily replaceable we are to achieve the same output.

I didn't say its down to luck I'm sure they work hard

But the reason people value watching them is largely because a crowd is watching them. A type of collective worship.

Would you go watch a man do a 9 second 100 meter dash?
You probably wouldn't even if he paid you a tenner for you to watch him
Likewise even people who do pay to go to the Olympics to watch the men's 100 meter final none of them would pay a man to watch him do a 9 second 100 Meter dash if it was just them and the sprinter

So without doubt they are not paying for the ability for a man to run a 9 second 100 meter.

This is future clear by the fact that had said man not been born there would still be a worlds fastest 100 meter man. Its position reward more than anything else and the position would exist irrespective of the person.


Put it another way. Let's say the worlds fastest man breaks His leg this years it's all over for him. Does world GDP or productivity fall at all?

prowla

The simplistic view that all income is taxed PAYE...

The simplistic view that people who are paying much more tax than you aren't paying their fair share...

The simplistic view that punitive taxes will benefit anybody...

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

Doesn't work.

If the Wright Brothers hadn't invented flight we wouldn't be making do with planes that don't quite fly.

Your argument maybe works for the public sector and charities but nor for wealth creation.

I wouldn't tax them a penny

I don't envy the super rich that often have billions. Bill gates Jeff bezos Elon Musk Larry Page etc all deserve their cash and praise on top

But there are jobs and positions which have value not because of the individual but due to the crowd. Let's say the worlds best 100,000 football players die. That's anyone who even desires to be a football player. Does the game end do we abandon it and close the stadiums? Or do we quickly find the next lot who become the new famous footballers who are more or less paid the same as the old lot who all died last year?

Its the position that is paid not the person.

The same is true for music stars. If all English speaking singers died is that the end of music? Of course not. A whole lot of new people would become the top 100 chart best sellers. In this parallel universities its not even given that this new lot is worse than the lot that died.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

I wouldn't tax them a penny

I don't envy the super rich that often have billions. Bill gates Jeff bezos Elon Musk Larry Page etc all deserve their cash and praise on top

But there are jobs and positions which have value not because of the individual but due to the crowd. Let's say the worlds best 100,000 football players die. That's anyone who even desires to be a football player. Does the game end do we abandon it and close the stadiums? Or do we quickly find the next lot who become the new famous footballers who are more or less paid the same as the old lot who all died last year?

Its the position that is paid not the person.

The same is true for music stars. If all English speaking singers died is that the end of music? Of course not. A whole lot of new people would become the top 100 chart best sellers. In this parallel universities its not even given that this new lot is worse than the lot that died.

I disagree. If 100k footballers all died and you have the next bunch who want to be footballers and are good enough to be hired by the clubs, it doesn't mean they will earn the same as the ones that died. It will be a lot lower as the fans never heard of them, there's no branding and are a lot less inclined to go to the matches / buy merchandise, revenues would fall, clubs wont be able to afford the new footballers on the same wage as the dead footballers.

There is a lot of personal brand value you seem to value as zero.

GreatApe

If all existing singers get throat cancer, all athletes break their legs, all actors get jailed, all TV hosts break their necks this year. Would we detect any fall in GDP or productivity next year?

Why not if these people are so productive so useful massive wealth creators?

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

I didn't say its down to luck I'm sure they work hard

But the reason people value watching them is largely because a crowd is watching them. A type of collective worship.

Would you go watch a man do a 9 second 100 meter dash?
You probably wouldn't even if he paid you a tenner for you to watch him
Likewise even people who do pay to go to the Olympics to watch the men's 100 meter final none of them would pay a man to watch him do a 9 second 100 Meter dash if it was just them and the sprinter

So without doubt they are not paying for the ability for a man to run a 9 second 100 meter.

This is future clear by the fact that had said man not been born there would still be a worlds fastest 100 meter man. Its position reward more than anything else and the position would exist irrespective of the person.


Put it another way. Let's say the worlds fastest man breaks His leg this years it's all over for him. Does world GDP or productivity fall at all?

you can say the same thing for any job - anyone is replaceable however doesn't mean they will get the same wage as the predecessor.

the crowd effect can be applied to anything as well. most people shop at amazon cos everyone has heard of them as being cheap and easy to shop on. same thing for starbucks, mcdonalds etc.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

I disagree. If 100k footballers all died and you have the next bunch who want to be footballers and are good enough to be hired by the clubs, it doesn't mean they will earn the same as the ones that died. It will be a lot lower as the fans never heard of them, there's no branding and are a lot less inclined to go to the matches / buy merchandise, revenues would fall, clubs wont be able to afford the new footballers on the same wage as the dead footballers.

There is a lot of personal brand value you seem to value as zero.

Clearly there is brand value but even that is a product of crowd worship

Had the top 100 UK footballers never had been born you can bet there would still be a premiership and football fans and these people would not be paid much different from the current lot

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

If all existing singers get throat cancer, all athletes break their legs, all actors get jailed, all TV hosts break their necks this year. Would we detect any fall in GDP or productivity next year?

Why not if these people are so productive so useful massive wealth creators?

There maybe a fall from things like merchandise sales falling, advertising demand falling, demand for things like netflix/ cinemas falling and all resulting in jobs losses etc.

But even if the effect from that is small compared to the wages paid by all these people, its simply a wealth transfer from those who want to consume (eg movie fans) to those who are producing (eg actors). And dont forget in return the consumer are consuming and there is value in that too.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Clearly there is brand value but even that is a product of crowd worship

Had the top 100 UK footballers never had been born you can bet there would still be a premiership and football fans and these people would not be paid much different from the current lot

No i dont think they would be paid as much. The top footballers would be gone. You are left with new footballers with a lot lower level of skill but still the best. they would not be as entertaining to watch and so they wont get paid as much.

It depends on the distribution of skill level of footballers. You could have just a few (100) at the top and the rest are, whilst very good, just not nearly as skillful as the top 100 and so not as entertaining to watch. Plus the personal brand value would need to be developed from scratch.