The Great Art Debate
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 2125
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:49 pm
- Location: Home. Home, again. I like to be here when I can.
Nothing.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:So what you're saying is that a maximum 'cap' would be unacceptable because it would put people off earning beyond that amount?Puskas wrote:The fact that you've set a maximum cap on her income - 40000GBP.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:It's not a ridiculous point. I'm told that taxing her at a proportionally higher rate because she earns more is fair because paying that much tax is within her means.Puskas wrote: Clearly she wouldn't be - she'd still have 40000GBP to live on - more than most people.
But no one's asking her to do that, anyway, so the point is a ridiculous one.
But if that is the justification, and you have just said it holds good in the hypothetical situation I have described (which you have, helpfully, suggested is ridiculous), then what stops us taxing her and others in that way?
This differentiates it from paying more, but with no maximum cap. She earns more, but pays more, and isn't limited to earning any amount.
It's not that difficult to understand.
Ok, you're right, it is an important distinction.
What stops us taxing progressively all the way up to, say, 90% then?
Why should there be?
"People are crazy and times are strange
I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range
I used to care, but things have changed"
I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range
I used to care, but things have changed"
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
Gee, thanks for explaining the numbers to me!Worthy4England wrote: It's a marginal tax rate on earnings in excess of £150k per annum.
She gets taxed the same 20% as everyone else, for the first £37,400, the same 40% as everyone else, for the income between £37,400 and £150,000 and the same 50% as everyone else, for income over £150,000.
The marginal increase is 10% on everything over £150k. So you'd pay an additional £35k on half a million per annum earnings which works out at 7% or so. Hardly poverty line stuff is it?
Unless I'm reading something wrong in the original article.
But if it's 'hardly poverty line stuff', then neither would an additional £70K, or £140k... would the justification still hold for taxation at that rate?
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:21 pm
It would be a bit unfair as once you add on NI it would be over 100%.Puskas wrote:Nothing.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:So what you're saying is that a maximum 'cap' would be unacceptable because it would put people off earning beyond that amount?Puskas wrote:The fact that you've set a maximum cap on her income - 40000GBP.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:It's not a ridiculous point. I'm told that taxing her at a proportionally higher rate because she earns more is fair because paying that much tax is within her means.Puskas wrote: Clearly she wouldn't be - she'd still have 40000GBP to live on - more than most people.
But no one's asking her to do that, anyway, so the point is a ridiculous one.
But if that is the justification, and you have just said it holds good in the hypothetical situation I have described (which you have, helpfully, suggested is ridiculous), then what stops us taxing her and others in that way?
This differentiates it from paying more, but with no maximum cap. She earns more, but pays more, and isn't limited to earning any amount.
It's not that difficult to understand.
Ok, you're right, it is an important distinction.
What stops us taxing progressively all the way up to, say, 90% then?
Why should there be?
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 2125
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:49 pm
- Location: Home. Home, again. I like to be here when I can.
National insurance is inherently unfair, as it's non-progressive.superjohnmcginlay wrote: It would be a bit unfair as once you add on NI it would be over 100%.
Scrap it, and increase income tax - that's my solution.
"People are crazy and times are strange
I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range
I used to care, but things have changed"
I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range
I used to care, but things have changed"
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32485
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
What do you mean, "If it's 'hardly poverty line stuff'"? It isn't poverty line stuff is it?mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Gee, thanks for explaining the numbers to me!Worthy4England wrote: It's a marginal tax rate on earnings in excess of £150k per annum.
She gets taxed the same 20% as everyone else, for the first £37,400, the same 40% as everyone else, for the income between £37,400 and £150,000 and the same 50% as everyone else, for income over £150,000.
The marginal increase is 10% on everything over £150k. So you'd pay an additional £35k on half a million per annum earnings which works out at 7% or so. Hardly poverty line stuff is it?
Unless I'm reading something wrong in the original article.
But if it's 'hardly poverty line stuff', then neither would an additional £70K, or £140k... would the justification still hold for taxation at that rate?
Conceptually we could tax what we wanted on income over £150k - or under £150k for that matter. It was certainly running at 83% in the 1970's for "higher rate" income tax.
I don't agree with taxing to that extent, because I think it's counter-productive, but when it comes down to it, we could - if we wanted to. To turn your question back upon you, what's the justification on taxing everything above £37.5k @ 40%? Surely it's all about balancing budgets?
My view is that the marginal increase at £150k doesn't really have a huge impact. You're talking having to cut back on luxuries rather than neccessities?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32485
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
What I mean is that it's not good enough simply to say "it's hardly poverty line stuff" - I'm suggesting that won't do as a justification. If staying away from the poverty line is a relevant consideration when taxing rich people, it doesn't exactly rule much out, does it?!Worthy4England wrote: What do you mean, "If it's 'hardly poverty line stuff'"? It isn't poverty line stuff is it?
Conceptually we could tax what we wanted on income over £150k - or under £150k for that matter. It was certainly running at 83% in the 1970's for "higher rate" income tax.
I don't agree with taxing to that extent, because I think it's counter-productive, but when it comes down to it, we could - if we wanted to. To turn your question back upon you, what's the justification on taxing everything above £37.5k @ 40%? Surely it's all about balancing budgets?
My view is that the marginal increase at £150k doesn't really have a huge impact. You're talking having to cut back on luxuries rather than neccessities?
What does it mean to say that 'conceptually', we can tax what we want on any amount - of course governments can help themselves to any amount of what their citizens produce when backed up by the might of state machinery. It's precisely that corrupting temptation that I'm arguing against.
At least we have seen 'productivity' finally come up as a reason why high tax might be a bad idea! Puskas, apparently, doesn't even recognise that that should be a consideration.
What do you mean by your distinction between luxuries and necessities? What is in your 'necessitiy' category? Again, if that is your criterion, people would probbaly be cutting back on 'luxuries' rather than 'necessities' if the marginal increase were down at the £30k mark?
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32485
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:What I mean is that it's not good enough simply to say "it's hardly poverty line stuff" - I'm suggesting that won't do as a justification. If staying away from the poverty line is a relevant consideration when taxing rich people, it doesn't exactly rule much out, does it?!Worthy4England wrote: What do you mean, "If it's 'hardly poverty line stuff'"? It isn't poverty line stuff is it?
Conceptually we could tax what we wanted on income over £150k - or under £150k for that matter. It was certainly running at 83% in the 1970's for "higher rate" income tax.
I don't agree with taxing to that extent, because I think it's counter-productive, but when it comes down to it, we could - if we wanted to. To turn your question back upon you, what's the justification on taxing everything above £37.5k @ 40%? Surely it's all about balancing budgets?
My view is that the marginal increase at £150k doesn't really have a huge impact. You're talking having to cut back on luxuries rather than neccessities?
Good - I'll take it that we're agreed that anyone who falls into the circa 400,000 people who will come into scope of this tax aren't on the poverty line. Nothing rules out any level of taxation in any particular earning bracket, other than the ability to a) get re-elected (assuming that you couldn't change it without being in power) b) balance taxation and spending plans and c) retain enough of them in Country to actually pay the tax anyhow - although there are usually plenty of ways around it. So the justification is 1) That it's marginal 2) It probably won't pi$$ most of the electorate off any more than they already are whilst at the same time adding additional tax Revenue in (although even here, because it's so marginal, not sure it'll make much difference) and 3) Should it pi$$ someone off enough to make them up-sticks, it will only be a proportion of a fairly small group of people anyhow.
What does it mean to say that 'conceptually', we can tax what we want on any amount - of course governments can help themselves to any amount of what their citizens produce when backed up by the might of state machinery. It's precisely that corrupting temptation that I'm arguing against.
I've already had to do some maths for you, do you need me to help with English too?
I think the "corrupting temptation" you're arguing against is a product of you spending too much time in front of the Tory Party Conference on the telly. That said, I wouldn't want to see the 50% tax rate extended and I'm not overly keen on it in the first place as a means of raising Revenue as it's so marginal at a "total" level
At least we have seen 'productivity' finally come up as a reason why high tax might be a bad idea! Puskas, apparently, doesn't even recognise that that should be a consideration.
You think Ms Emin will produce less because of a 10% marginal tax hike? I think there's two separate bits to this. One is the level of personal taxation the other is how we encourage business to grow and be more productive - I thought they were separate taxation schemes?
What do you mean by your distinction between luxuries and necessities? What is in your 'necessitiy' category? Again, if that is your criterion, people would probaly be cutting back on 'luxuries' rather than 'necessities' if the marginal increase were down at the £30k mark?
We could do a big debate on this one I guess, all to little avail. Necessities by my way of thinking are things without which you couldn't subsist and that are common across the population. So food, water, shelter, lighting, heating - I'll put work (although you could argue that this isn't correct in a welfare state) Effectively "fixed" costs that in the UK we can't get away from. Everything else is "nice to have". The trick has to be striking the balance with taxation policy that balances taxation of the majority that typically have less total discretionary income with taxation of the minority that typically have large amounts of discretionary income.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36201
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:21 pm
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:21 pm
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
I meant productivity of the tax system as well as that of individuals and the economy as a whole.Worthy4England wrote:
You think Ms Emin will produce less because of a 10% marginal tax hike?
Whatever Ms Emin produces, she's saying she'll producing it somewhere else and we'll collect no tax at all from her!
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32485
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
In that case, we should make an immediate U-Turn in taxation policy.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:I meant productivity of the tax system as well as that of individuals and the economy as a whole.Worthy4England wrote:
You think Ms Emin will produce less because of a 10% marginal tax hike?
Whatever Ms Emin produces, she's saying she'll producing it somewhere else and we'll collect no tax at all from her!
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36201
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
There will be more people who work hard who earn 15K a year than there will those who earn 150K.superjohnmcginlay wrote:What if its not "luck" and down to hard work?
Of course its "hard work" and "pressure" involved in many of those highly paid jobs but they are still "lucky" to be working hard at that rather than working hard at "cleaning toilets" or whatever.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:21 pm
Thats cos there's more people earning 15k.BWFC_Insane wrote:There will be more people who work hard who earn 15K a year than there will those who earn 150K.superjohnmcginlay wrote:What if its not "luck" and down to hard work?
Of course its "hard work" and "pressure" involved in many of those highly paid jobs but they are still "lucky" to be working hard at that rather than working hard at "cleaning toilets" or whatever.
Not necessarily, they may have started with f*ck all and worked their way up to £150k.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36201
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Still they should be thankful to have had the opportunities they have had and be happy to give slightly more back.superjohnmcginlay wrote:Thats cos there's more people earning 15k.BWFC_Insane wrote:There will be more people who work hard who earn 15K a year than there will those who earn 150K.superjohnmcginlay wrote:What if its not "luck" and down to hard work?
Of course its "hard work" and "pressure" involved in many of those highly paid jobs but they are still "lucky" to be working hard at that rather than working hard at "cleaning toilets" or whatever.
Not necessarily, they may have started with f*ck all and worked their way up to £150k.
They are still priviliged and if it goes tits up for them are entitled to the welfare support like anyone else.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:21 pm
Should they?BWFC_Insane wrote:Still they should be thankful to have had the opportunities they have had and be happy to give slightly more back.superjohnmcginlay wrote:Thats cos there's more people earning 15k.BWFC_Insane wrote:There will be more people who work hard who earn 15K a year than there will those who earn 150K.superjohnmcginlay wrote:What if its not "luck" and down to hard work?
Of course its "hard work" and "pressure" involved in many of those highly paid jobs but they are still "lucky" to be working hard at that rather than working hard at "cleaning toilets" or whatever.
Not necessarily, they may have started with f*ck all and worked their way up to £150k.
They are still priviliged and if it goes tits up for them are entitled to the welfare support like anyone else.
What if theyve created these opportunities through hard graft. Doing extra, working longer etc. They get taxed more for working harder? Someone who's built up a business from scratch? Makes no sense.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36201
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
But there are more people who work equally as hard who don't earn that sort of money who don't get the chances or the breaks yet the still work as hard through their life.superjohnmcginlay wrote:Should they?BWFC_Insane wrote:Still they should be thankful to have had the opportunities they have had and be happy to give slightly more back.superjohnmcginlay wrote:Thats cos there's more people earning 15k.BWFC_Insane wrote:There will be more people who work hard who earn 15K a year than there will those who earn 150K.superjohnmcginlay wrote:What if its not "luck" and down to hard work?
Of course its "hard work" and "pressure" involved in many of those highly paid jobs but they are still "lucky" to be working hard at that rather than working hard at "cleaning toilets" or whatever.
Not necessarily, they may have started with f*ck all and worked their way up to £150k.
They are still priviliged and if it goes tits up for them are entitled to the welfare support like anyone else.
What if theyve created these opportunities through hard graft. Doing extra, working longer etc. They get taxed more for working harder? Someone who's built up a business from scratch? Makes no sense.
You are also forgetting the number of people who earn obscene money and don't work hard, or graft or do extra. The bankers seemingly and footballers as two examples.
The higher earners should put that bit extra back into a society that has served them well. Simples.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:21 pm
Thats the problem. It isnt simple.
Im not forgetting anyone, higher earners in some instance such as the ones youve pointed out shoud pay extra.
Punishing people for working their bollocks off, sacrificing everything and seizing the opportunity when it arrives is wrong IMO.
You come accross as thinking these "opportunities" just fall in to people's laps when its simply not the case.
Im not forgetting anyone, higher earners in some instance such as the ones youve pointed out shoud pay extra.
Punishing people for working their bollocks off, sacrificing everything and seizing the opportunity when it arrives is wrong IMO.
You come accross as thinking these "opportunities" just fall in to people's laps when its simply not the case.
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
But don't they put extra back if we have a flat rate of tax?BWFC_Insane wrote: The higher earners should put that bit extra back into a society that has served them well. Simples.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 51 guests