Would an 80% income tax be reasonable?

economic

In fact a low skilled or even a decently skilled professional such as ourselves are easily replaceable and can still demand the same wage by the new guy. Much more likely this happening then a professional footballer, actor or whatever where the replacement's wages could be vastly different (lower or higher).

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

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.

There is a problem with network effects for companies. I don't know how to solve it but it is a type of monopoly and that is a problem

With regards to McDonalds they have tiny margins as competition is fierce

Yes it's true that you can say this for pretty much anybody. The only exception would be inventors engineers and businessmen that truely make their companies or sectors more productive.

Hence I can see a rationale to tax these productivity increasers at 10% or even 0% so I support the £10 million enterpenours relief. Make it £100m @ 0% it doesn't bother me.

But people who have roles that are paid very highly who's jobs or roles would exist had they been born or not. I can see a rationale for taxing them much higher.

Of this plUed out I don't see the state making much more. I would see companies paying these positions much less and thus the share holders would get more. The real people who need rewarding for forgoing consumption and saving to create capital.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

In fact a low skilled or even a decently skilled professional such as ourselves are easily replaceable and can still demand the same wage by the new guy. Much more likely this happening then a professional footballer, actor or whatever where the replacement's wages could be vastly different (lower or higher).

The limit would have to be quite high perhaps as much as 10 x median wages. So for arguments sake £350k and then 80% tax over that.

If a person is truely talented then why are they wasting their time in a role that would exist if they exited or not? I'm sure there are very high IQ very hard working workers in companies. Tax them 80% on their wages above £350k but tax 0% on £10 million for enterpenours relief and have these people leave their high tax jobs go out and create new industries technologies and companies to inprove the lot of everyone in the prpcess and I am happy to charge them 0% tax

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

The limit would have to be quite high perhaps as much as 10 x median wages. So for arguments sake £350k and then 80% tax over that.

If a person is truely talented then why are they wasting their time in a role that would exist if they exited or not? I'm sure there are very high IQ very hard working workers in companies. Tax them 80% on their wages above £350k but tax 0% on £10 million for enterpenours relief and have these people leave their high tax jobs go out and create new industries technologies and companies to inprove the lot of everyone in the prpcess and I am happy to charge them 0% tax

I agree that entrepreneurship and risk taking for the general benefit of our economy should be taxed more favorably, much more then employees.

But targeting just the very high paid workers like footballers is probably not the approach you want to take.

I would say leave the tax system the way it is and reduce the tax liabilities for risk takers who are creating things for the betterment of our economy.

the odds of success for startups is very very low. So i think making the tax system easier on them would help and perhaps increase those odds. Lot of startups whilst having good ideas, burn through capital easily so fail quite quickly.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

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.

Yes its an extreme example but five years down the line for sure nothing would be different
That is to say there will be new movie starts just as talented and just as highly paid
There will be new singers and TV hosts and footballers all just as highly paid.

I can see an argument for much higher taxes on these high paid positions
At the same time I would be happy with a 0% tax for the first £100m on enterpenours relief
Maybe we can get some high talent people switching from high paid positions where it really doesn't matter if they are there or not to starting new companies

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Yes its an extreme example but five years down the line for sure nothing would be different
That is to say there will be new movie starts just as talented and just as highly paid
There will be new singers and TV hosts and footballers all just as highly paid.

I can see an argument for much higher taxes on these high paid positions
At the same time I would be happy with a 0% tax for the first £100m on enterpenours relief
Maybe we can get some high talent people switching from high paid positions where it really doesn't matter if they are there or not to starting new companies

Yes i am in favor of incentivizing people to go into entrepreneurship.

But i am also in favor of having forms of entertainment that have the best footballers and actors. Taxing heavily these professions would mean less of an incentive for someone who is born to lead a path to becoming the next top footballer or top actor.

MobileSaver

GreatApe wrote: »

Would you go watch a man do a 9 second 100 meter dash?

Yes, of course! People pay to go and see their favourite sports person all the time, what planet are you on?

GreatApe wrote: »

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?

Yes, of course GDP is affected when a celebrity is no longer in the public eye.

GreatApe wrote: »

Its position reward more than anything else and the position would exist irrespective of the person.

You're talking garbage. On that basis every job is "position reward" and so what difference does it make to anything? E.g. are you paying GreatApe to clean toilets or paying the toilet attendant position to clean toilets; who cares as you're still paying the same amount of money and GreatApe is still paying the same tax. That's a pointless argument.

GreatApe wrote: »

If all English speaking singers died is that the end of music? A whole lot of new people would become the top 100 chart best sellers.

You seem to have a very poor regard for and understanding of celebrities. Yes you could replace the top 100 chart best sellers but there's no guarantee that those 100 combined would be as successful in financial terms as say Elton John was/is on his own so you are comparing apples and oranges as though they are interchangeable, which they're simply not.

PasturesNew

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?

Rarely true. While those things do require some talent and hard work, studies have proven that most people "at the top" were simply luckier than others.

If you dig around 99% of successful people's backgrounds you can spot the "luck".

Ability and hard work are one part - luck is the other, usually meaning they came from wealthy families, or families already "connected", or geographical luck.

Even Bill Gates was lucky ... if it weren't for his mum and her job/contacts he'd have just been "another geek that writes this code stuff". He didn't necessarily work harder than 1000 other people ... but only he had his mum.

MobileSaver

PasturesNew wrote: »

If you dig around 99% of successful people's backgrounds you can spot the "luck".

Even Bill Gates was lucky ...

You could say that about anyone, the real issue is what someone does with their chances in life; some people fritter them away and others through hard work, commitment and vision make something of themselves. I think it's churlish to accuse 99% of successful people of simply being 'lucky.'

Using your criteria, practically everyone born in the UK is the luckiest person on the planet compared to anyone born in North Korea... yet millions of Brits are not successful or even care about making something of themselves so clearly 'luck' is not that significant a part of success.

PasturesNew

MobileSaver wrote: »

You could say that about anyone, the real issue is what someone does with their chances in life; some people fritter them away and others through hard work, commitment and vision make something of themselves. I think it's churlish to accuse 99% of successful people of simply being 'lucky.'

Using your criteria, practically everyone born in the UK is the luckiest person on the planet compared to anyone born in North Korea... yet millions of Brits are not successful or even care about making something of themselves so clearly 'luck' is not that significant a part of success.

I never said 99% of successful people were "simply" lucky - but luck played a large part of their route.

Everything is relative, so you can only compare "like for like" and not cross-border.

The thing is, the chances in life are also on the "luck" route. But if you dig around in specific instances you can see where one person's "luck" is better than AN Other person's.

Luck is a life-long journey, often starting generations before the lucky were born, a history of luck.

Take that Scottish woman that won the X Factor/whatever .... with different "luck" she'd have been born into a family who encouraged her singing and in a geographic area where she'd have more opportunities. If her father had been middle class she'd have had singing lessons .... and might've been a "Top Singer" in her early 20s ... instead of having to wait until her parents had died and somebody persuaded her to enter a TV talent contest. If that person hadn't said anything, or she'd not been able to get the money together to travel to the auditions, she'd have never been there... again, various pieces of luck involved there.

Luck includes a supportive (and pushy) environment, or being brought up with an "arrogance" that you ARE good enough/the best. All luck of birth.