The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

Thing I don't understand with the 50% tax band is, we are always being told it doesn't actually raise that much money, and so is purely symbolic, and so should be got rid of. But, if it doesn't actually raise that much money, it still doesn't seem to be affecting people too much, and so any move to get rid of it is surely only symbolic. Somebody earning £160k per year pays an extra 1k. One. Somebody earning £200k pays an extra 5k*. I can't for the life of me see anybody 'going abroad' doing a 'brain drain' for five grand a year.

So, if having it is symbolic, and getting rid of it is symbolic, then, its symbolism isn't an argument either way. Which signal do we want to send? That while Cornish folk are paying 20% extra for pasties (one bloke reckoned that was going to cost him £200 per year, which by my maths -see *- means he is currently[/], pre-rise, spending twenty pounds PER WEEK on pasties) and tramps can't have special brew any more that the rich are suffering some of the burden too (even if it is largely symbolic) or, that f*ck y'all, all o' y'all, if you don't like it, trytoblowmebutyou'llnevergetthroughthegatesandtheguardsmanwillhaveyoushot?




*All figures subject to the condition my maths isn't utterly shite

[Worthy4England]

50%/Mansion taxes/avoidance measures blah blah blah - Dissembling and smoke and mirrors.The fact of the matter is thatcapitalism inevitably results in boom and bust. Capitalists,economists and bankers know this so they try, as individuals to
amass as much wealth as possible during the boom to insulate against the inevitable bust.
This either means or results in high prices, low wages and inflation and unemployment. Another fact is
the poor did not cause this deficit. They do not have the means to create or insulate against the bust. Yet this government expects
the poor to bear a disproportionate and unjust share of the debt.
Tax the £7 billion the bankers awarded themselves at 90%.
Remove the 50% tax band. Replace it with 70%.
And if the bankers don’t like it and go abroad, then tell them leave your passport and don’t slam the door on the way out.

This.

The poor didn't cause the defecit...but then neither did many of the people that are supposed to be fat cats. The banking element of the proportion of people earning over £100k is just that. A proportion.

There's about 600,000 people earn over £100k in the UK - 40,000 of them are Public Servants. I'm struggling to find anything detailed on the breakdown, but I'd be quite surprised if "bankers" made up more than 20% of that figure (no basis for this other than gut feeling). So is your intent, to whack the people who caused the mess, or just generally whack anyone who happens to earn "a big salary"?

Talking about the disproportionality of the tax system and it being unjust - at 20k you take home 80% of your earnings. 40k (which I think puts you in the top 5%) you take home 74%, 100,000 - 65% and at 150,000 you take home 60%. So effectively, someone on 20k works a day a week, to pay for other people less fortunate. Someone on 150k works 2 days a week to pay for other people less fortunate - that in my book is twice as much effort as someone on 20k (if you assume that people shell out large salaries in return for a 37 hour week). In return for 1 day a week, the treasury gets 4k from the 20k earner, but gets 30k from the higher earner (half the two days a week a higher earner has to contribute to "society").

Taking more out of the same pot has been proven time and again not to work.

The door wouldn't hit my ass on the way out, I'd happily slam it.

[BWFC_Insane]

50%/Mansion taxes/avoidance measures blah blah blah - Dissembling and smoke and mirrors.The fact of the matter is thatcapitalism inevitably results in boom and bust. Capitalists,economists and bankers know this so they try, as individuals to
amass as much wealth as possible during the boom to insulate against the inevitable bust.
This either means or results in high prices, low wages and inflation and unemployment. Another fact is
the poor did not cause this deficit. They do not have the means to create or insulate against the bust. Yet this government expects
the poor to bear a disproportionate and unjust share of the debt.
Tax the £7 billion the bankers awarded themselves at 90%.
Remove the 50% tax band. Replace it with 70%.
And if the bankers don’t like it and go abroad, then tell them leave your passport and don’t slam the door on the way out.

This.

The poor didn't cause the defecit...but then neither did many of the people that are supposed to be fat cats. The banking element of the proportion of people earning over £100k is just that. A proportion.

There's about 600,000 people earn over £100k in the UK - 40,000 of them are Public Servants. I'm struggling to find anything detailed on the breakdown, but I'd be quite surprised if "bankers" made up more than 20% of that figure (no basis for this other than gut feeling). So is your intent, to whack the people who caused the mess, or just generally whack anyone who happens to earn "a big salary"?

Talking about the disproportionality of the tax system and it being unjust - at 20k you take home 80% of your earnings. 40k (which I think puts you in the top 5%) you take home 74%, 100,000 - 65% and at 150,000 you take home 60%. So effectively, someone on 20k works a day a week, to pay for other people less fortunate. Someone on 150k works 2 days a week to pay for other people less fortunate - that in my book is twice as much effort as someone on 20k (if you assume that people shell out large salaries in return for a 37 hour week). In return for 1 day a week, the treasury gets 4k from the 20k earner, but gets 30k from the higher earner (half the two days a week a higher earner has to contribute to "society").

Taking more out of the same pot has been proven time and again not to work.

The door wouldn't hit my ass on the way out, I'd happily slam it.

So you're saying those on lower salaries should suffer the extra pain of losing jobs, rising inflation, more expensive petrol, public transport and reduction in benefits for the 'we are all in it together' mob, but those who are earning vast sums, able to easily cushion themselves against rising inflation and fuel costs, shouldn't take any further hit?

[Worthy4England]

50%/Mansion taxes/avoidance measures blah blah blah - Dissembling and smoke and mirrors.The fact of the matter is thatcapitalism inevitably results in boom and bust. Capitalists,economists and bankers know this so they try, as individuals to
amass as much wealth as possible during the boom to insulate against the inevitable bust.
This either means or results in high prices, low wages and inflation and unemployment. Another fact is
the poor did not cause this deficit. They do not have the means to create or insulate against the bust. Yet this government expects
the poor to bear a disproportionate and unjust share of the debt.
Tax the £7 billion the bankers awarded themselves at 90%.
Remove the 50% tax band. Replace it with 70%.
And if the bankers don’t like it and go abroad, then tell them leave your passport and don’t slam the door on the way out.

This.

The poor didn't cause the defecit...but then neither did many of the people that are supposed to be fat cats. The banking element of the proportion of people earning over £100k is just that. A proportion.

There's about 600,000 people earn over £100k in the UK - 40,000 of them are Public Servants. I'm struggling to find anything detailed on the breakdown, but I'd be quite surprised if "bankers" made up more than 20% of that figure (no basis for this other than gut feeling). So is your intent, to whack the people who caused the mess, or just generally whack anyone who happens to earn "a big salary"?

Talking about the disproportionality of the tax system and it being unjust - at 20k you take home 80% of your earnings. 40k (which I think puts you in the top 5%) you take home 74%, 100,000 - 65% and at 150,000 you take home 60%. So effectively, someone on 20k works a day a week, to pay for other people less fortunate. Someone on 150k works 2 days a week to pay for other people less fortunate - that in my book is twice as much effort as someone on 20k (if you assume that people shell out large salaries in return for a 37 hour week). In return for 1 day a week, the treasury gets 4k from the 20k earner, but gets 30k from the higher earner (half the two days a week a higher earner has to contribute to "society").

Taking more out of the same pot has been proven time and again not to work.

The door wouldn't hit my ass on the way out, I'd happily slam it.

So you're saying those on lower salaries should suffer the extra pain of losing jobs, rising inflation, more expensive petrol, public transport and reduction in benefits for the 'we are all in it together' mob, but those who are earning vast sums, able to easily cushion themselves against rising inflation and fuel costs, shouldn't take any further hit?

Let's just run through your list and see which ones of them don't affect everyone.

Losing jobs - fairly universal. If the guys at the bottom go, because the firm's gone bust, the guys at the top have gone too.

Rising inflation - higher earner likely to pay more of it as they have more disposable income.

Ditto - petrol, public transport.

Benefits? What are they again. They disappear (quite rightly so) the more you earn.

The problem I have with all this, is that no-one has identified "what is vast wealth" - if you're on £30k, vast might well be £40k. So what I think people mean is that vast is in context to what they earn. So what is "vast wealth".

Let's assume for a minute that 150k is "vast" (as that's the point the 50% kicked in). How many hours a week, do you think it's reasonable to ask someone to work to "give back to society"? And if the answer is 2 or 3, why shouldn't that apply to everyone, as we're all in it together?

[BWFC_Insane]

The number of hours worked a week is an erroneous statistic. The point is that those on 150K a year can comfortably afford to be taxed a bit more, especially in times of hardship.

It's much easier for someone who is earning 150K a year to protect themselves in a recession than for a minimum wage earner.

And let's not pretend that all the folk earning in the top tax bracket are working flat out, that will include footballers for example. If you earn vast sums then you should have a moral duty and you should be happy to give back as much as asked to society, especially when it's having hard times.

Everyone should want to improve society top to bottom. And they should be prepared to do something about it.

[Worthy4England]

The number of hours worked a week is an erroneous statistic. The point is that those on 150K a year can comfortably afford to be taxed a bit more, especially in times of hardship.

It's much easier for someone who is earning 150K a year to protect themselves in a recession than for a minimum wage earner.

And let's not pretend that all the folk earning in the top tax bracket are working flat out, that will include footballers for example. If you earn vast sums then you should have a moral duty and you should be happy to give back as much as asked to society, especially when it's having hard times.

Everyone should want to improve society top to bottom. And they should be prepared to do something about it.

How are you calculating that the number of hours worked a week is erronous? I don't think I quoted anything statistical.

How are you calculating that 150k gives you more comfort? Someone on 150k is likely to have a much bigger mortgage, much larger general outgoings (general household bills etc.) How are you calculating this? As for taxed a bit more - they're already taxed a lot more.

Your "lets not pretend folk are working flat out" is quite frankly laughable. Most of the folk I know that earn that amount, work 70/80 hours on a regular basis. Yes, "and then there's footballers".

Your moral duty assertion is also laughable. If you take home 80% of your pay, you're donating 1 day of your life to "societies well being", if you take home 60%, you're donating 2 days of your life a week...Tell me where the equity is in expecting people to donate their working life to other people, when some folk have to donate twice as much of it as others?

Are you suggesting that the primary function of people is to work on behalf of other people?

[BWFC_Insane]

The number of hours worked a week is an erroneous statistic. The point is that those on 150K a year can comfortably afford to be taxed a bit more, especially in times of hardship.

It's much easier for someone who is earning 150K a year to protect themselves in a recession than for a minimum wage earner.

And let's not pretend that all the folk earning in the top tax bracket are working flat out, that will include footballers for example. If you earn vast sums then you should have a moral duty and you should be happy to give back as much as asked to society, especially when it's having hard times.

Everyone should want to improve society top to bottom. And they should be prepared to do something about it.

How are you calculating that the number of hours worked a week is erronous? I don't think I quoted anything statistical.

How are you calculating that 150k gives you more comfort? Someone on 150k is likely to have a much bigger mortgage, much larger general outgoings (general household bills etc.) How are you calculating this? As for taxed a bit more - they're already taxed a lot more.

Your "lets not pretend folk are working flat out" is quite frankly laughable. Most of the folk I know that earn that amount, work 70/80 hours on a regular basis. Yes, "and then there's footballers".

Your moral duty assertion is also laughable. If you take home 80% of your pay, you're donating 1 day of your life to "societies well being", if you take home 60%, you're donating 2 days of your life a week...Tell me where the equity is in expecting people to donate their working life to other people, when some folk have to donate twice as much of it as others?

Are you suggesting that the primary function of people is to work on behalf of other people?

We are going to have to fundamentally agree to disagree on this one. Obviously just at completely opposite poles of the political spectrum on this one.

[Worthy4England]

The number of hours worked a week is an erroneous statistic. The point is that those on 150K a year can comfortably afford to be taxed a bit more, especially in times of hardship.

It's much easier for someone who is earning 150K a year to protect themselves in a recession than for a minimum wage earner.

And let's not pretend that all the folk earning in the top tax bracket are working flat out, that will include footballers for example. If you earn vast sums then you should have a moral duty and you should be happy to give back as much as asked to society, especially when it's having hard times.

Everyone should want to improve society top to bottom. And they should be prepared to do something about it.

How are you calculating that the number of hours worked a week is erronous? I don't think I quoted anything statistical.

How are you calculating that 150k gives you more comfort? Someone on 150k is likely to have a much bigger mortgage, much larger general outgoings (general household bills etc.) How are you calculating this? As for taxed a bit more - they're already taxed a lot more.

Your "lets not pretend folk are working flat out" is quite frankly laughable. Most of the folk I know that earn that amount, work 70/80 hours on a regular basis. Yes, "and then there's footballers".

Your moral duty assertion is also laughable. If you take home 80% of your pay, you're donating 1 day of your life to "societies well being", if you take home 60%, you're donating 2 days of your life a week...Tell me where the equity is in expecting people to donate their working life to other people, when some folk have to donate twice as much of it as others?

Are you suggesting that the primary function of people is to work on behalf of other people?

We are going to have to fundamentally agree to disagree on this one. Obviously just at completely opposite poles of the political spectrum on this one.

I suspect we're not. I've never voted for anyone other than Labour and don't intend to start now.

We are probably at opposite poles of the economic spectrum, and I don't agree with the over-simplification that "let's just tax high earners" a bit more, will a) in any way actually help matters (most studies from political think-tanks of all pursuasions have suggested that it doesn't) and b) most of the reseach on this has actually shown that it generally results in a lower tax take, not a higher one. Certainly once you get past 50%.

You also conveniently forget, that not so long ago, everyone got Family Credits and Child Benefit. This to my mind (is quite rightly) being taken off folk that don't need it, and represents more money in the overall cash pot, generally at the expense of higher earners. But I assume in your wild arsed and well thought through assertions that you'd taken things like that into account...

[Lord Kangana]

Referring back to mummy's post on our top end of tax, France has a much greater distribution of wealth than Britain, so the sums wouldn't add up if they suggested heavily taxing the super rich. On paper it makes sense here, because a far greater percentage of our economy is concentrated at the top end. Of course, this doesn't follow, because people with lots of money don't want to give it away in tax, and they can afford better accountants than HMRC.

Sarkozy would love to change this, he's said so, lord knows why, but it would seem a more even distribution of wealth leads to a less punitive tax regime. At least, that seems the obvious conclusion.

[Worthy4England]

Referring back to mummy's post on our top end of tax, France has a much greater distribution of wealth than Britain, so the sums wouldn't add up if they suggested heavily taxing the super rich. On paper it makes sense here, because a far greater percentage of our economy is concentrated at the top end. Of course, this doesn't follow, because people with lots of money don't want to give it away in tax, and they can afford better accountants than HMRC.

Sarkozy would love to change this, he's said so, lord knows why, but it would seem a more even distribution of wealth leads to a less punitive tax regime. At least, that seems the obvious conclusion.

What's your basis for that? I'd be interested.

France has broadly the same % of people with a wealth of over $100k as the UK. It has twice the % of "millionaires" according to a 2010 report by Credit Suisse.

http://thewisebuck.com/wp-content/uploa ... eport1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would contend, that getting a better distribution of people earning more cash is a much better way of going about raising tax, than "lets just tax the rich".

[Lord Kangana]

I can't remember that, it was in an article about 3 or 4 years ago (safe money would be on The Telegraph). It refers to wealth distribution, rather than number of millionaires anyway. In Britain x% of our wealth is concentrated in x% of the population, where in France the figures are <x and >x, if my maths haven't completely deserted me (I'm not entirely sure of the exact numbers). Colloquially (or is it anecdotaly?) speaking it appears on my frequent visits to France to be that way.

[Lord Kangana]

Its very difficult to pin anything down on the net, but heres a snippet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Worthy4England]

I can't remember that, it was in an article about 3 or 4 years ago (safe money would be on The Telegraph). It refers to wealth distribution, rather than number of millionaires anyway. In Britain x% of our wealth is concentrated in x% of the population, where in France the figures are <x and >x, if my maths haven't completely deserted me (I'm not entirely sure of the exact numbers). Colloquially (or is it anecdotaly?) speaking it appears on my frequent visits to France to be that way.

Aye, twigged you were talking about distribution rather than volume. But (and this is a bit old), 2006, top 10% in France held 61% of the total wealth, at the same time in the UK, the figure was that the top 10% (broadly for the UK people earning over £40k at today's standards) owned 56% of the wealth.

Think it came from this report.

http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/proje ... erspective" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I'm fairly sure that there is a huge disproportion, within the top 1% (i.e. that very few individuals own a huge proportion of the 56% that the top 10% own), but just raising the tax rate to x% above 50% doesn't actually get those people generally. Which is why it's a fallacious argument.

The report I linked earlier suggests there's over 1m "dollar millionaires" in the UK, but from our taxation figures, there's only about 400,000 people earn over 100k (from the tax office). That suggests to me that the missing millions are going to people who manage to keep their figures out of the Tax Man's way. Which is why I'm more in favour of trying to close the loopholes rather than hit the people we know about for more...

[thebish]

That suggests to me that the missing millions are going to people who manage to keep their figures out of the Tax Man's way. Which is why I'm more in favour of trying to close the loopholes rather than hit the people we know about for more...

indeed - agreement here...

but how to do it? while HMRC is so pitifully funded compared to the army of fat-cat accountants - and (I think) staffing levels are still being cut at HMRC - any legislation (and Ozzy's budget bluster is still pretty vague) isn't really worth the green or white papers it is written on...

there's no point passing legislation but not having the means/tools to enforce it...

[Worthy4England]

That suggests to me that the missing millions are going to people who manage to keep their figures out of the Tax Man's way. Which is why I'm more in favour of trying to close the loopholes rather than hit the people we know about for more...

indeed - agreement here...

but how to do it? while HMRC is so pitifully funded compared to the army of fat-cat accountants - and (I think) staffing levels are still being cut at HMRC - any legislation (and Ozzy's budget bluster is still pretty vague) isn't really worth the green or white papers it is written on...

there's no point passing legislation but not having the means/tools to enforce it...

I agree too, that it's very difficult to find and tax this cash, and I'm sure better financial minds than mine have tried to come up with the answer before, but either way, the difficulty in trying to do this, shouldn't automatically end up with the conclusion that the answer is "just increase the top rate to 70%" for those people not avoiding tax (which by default are the ones we know about).

We do, of course, know the address of Harry Redknapp's dog.

[Prufrock]

Worthy- your point is all about framing. Most people might well think working two days a week for 'free' sounds a lot. The same people would probably also think the 'hourly rate' of the people working two days a week for 'free' sounds a lot.

[Worthy4England]

Worthy- your point is all about framing. Most people might well think working two days a week for 'free' sounds a lot. The same people would probably also think the 'hourly rate' of the people working two days a week for 'free' sounds a lot.

Indeed. And it is. That's why I framed it that way. Most people can only (shortsightedly in my opinion), see it the one way. What more can we take, rather than "how much do people give".

[Prufrock]

The most sensible solution ideally would be to figure out how much it would be reasonable to expect people to get by on net per year, make that the tax free allowance, then tax everybody else at the same percentage above that. I 'reckon' that would hit high earners more though, and presumably that is why it doesn't happen.

[Worthy4England]

The most sensible solution ideally would be to figure out how much it would be reasonable to expect people to get by on net per year, make that the tax free allowance, then tax everybody else at the same percentage above that. I 'reckon' that would hit high earners more though, and presumably that is why it doesn't happen.

It's an interesting idea, but with wide-ranging implications. What is a reasonable amount of mortgage if you earn 200k per annum? Given that a house is generally the most expensive thing people own, and mortgages vary wildly, dependent on shed-loads of factors, you'd almost certainly have to take it out of the calculation.

The other thing is, you'd probably end up with a fairly "low" number, which I think would have the effect of changing where the margins sat, and whilst it may well impact the high earners more, it would probably have a significant effect of the middle earners too. So at the minute you're paying 40% at 40k give or take, 50% at 150k...either the answer is 50% over the "get by on" cap, in which case you have a lot of pissed off people earning between 40 and 150k or the answer is 42% (for example on all), in which case you've got a lot of delighted folk on +150k and a media outcry...

And finally. Just changing the calculation, wouldn't affect those really high earners, that manage to avoid it altogether. It still tries to get more out of the same pot...

[The Axman]

The most sensible solution ideally would be to figure out how much it would be reasonable to expect people to get by on net per year, make that the tax free allowance, then tax everybody else at the same percentage above that. I 'reckon' that would hit high earners more though, and presumably that is why it doesn't happen.

It's an interesting idea, but with wide-ranging implications. What is a reasonable amount of mortgage if you earn 200k per annum? Given that a house is generally the most expensive thing people own, and mortgages vary wildly, dependent on shed-loads of factors, you'd almost certainly have to take it out of the calculation.

The other thing is, you'd probably end up with a fairly "low" number, which I think would have the effect of changing where the margins sat, and whilst it may well impact the high earners more, it would probably have a significant effect of the middle earners too. So at the minute you're paying 40% at 40k give or take, 50% at 150k...either the answer is 50% over the "get by on" cap, in which case you have a lot of pissed off people earning between 40 and 150k or the answer is 42% (for example on all), in which case you've got a lot of delighted folk on +150k and a media outcry...

And finally. Just changing the calculation, wouldn't affect those really high earners, that manage to avoid it altogether. It still tries to get more out of the same pot...

My house carries a shed-load factor of 2.5 plus a greenhouse. I've been meaning to demolish the 0.5 for a while now.