Several people seem to sugget that having wealth is some kind of wrongdoing

Where?

What I earn I want to keep happy to contribute but not at the 60% outlined above

No-one has suggested taxing 60% of total earnings.

I read the IMF article, very interesting but seemed more focussed on global inequality than our debate especially as even the worst off in the UK are in a far better position than the poorest around the world.

More equal societies are happier, healthier, have less crime etc – works for those at the top as well as at the bottom. Lots of evidence showing this.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/10/does-taxing-the-wealthy-hurt-growth.html

Junkyard that is completely unfair …..

Unless he’s printing his own money, in which case it would worthless, the only worth “his” 250k has is the value society that gives it. Without society his 250k is completely worthless beyond perhaps providing fuel for a fire. He in fact owes everything to society.

What would be unfair would be if he took more than his fair share from society.

Yes he does and repays his good fortune by paying more actual money in tax, employing people and most likely being a good little saver and consumer to the benefit of us all.

More equal societies are happier, healthier, have less crime etc – works for those at the top as well as at the bottom.

You missed out the rather important fact that they also tend to be more economically stable.

How much would you say is fair, how much can he afford to contribute 50% 60% 70%? 90% like in the 70’s?
I’d be surprised to see an answer.

If it helps at all, I’m usually painted as a right winger on here (well to be fair I’m Genghis Khan compared to some on here), and I’d suggest it isn’t all that unfair to tax him at 60% or 70% of what he earns above £100k, given by that stage we’re well past what he needs to live on. I’d simply point out that taxing at that level isn’t useful as it will likely result in a decreased total tax take as it disincentivises him from working harder and encourages him to take tax avoidance (note, not tax evasion) measures.

What I earn I want to keep happy to contribute but not at the 60% outlined above

Tough. I want to keep every penny I earn, but somebody has to pay for society and those who earn more can afford it far more easily.

People keep talking % but I work in real numbers 100k tax paid is a bigger contribution than 10k if I earned a million I’d be paying 38%ish 380k. Isn’t that enough apparently not, I should pay more like 500k or 600k because I’ve got enough and that’s simply bollocks.

Looking at it the other way, you seem to think that only taking home £400k or £500k isn’t enough (when you presumably expect some cleaner earning minimum wage to take home less than every penny of the £12k they earn), which is quite frankly bollocks.

But what if he wants a ferrari and a big pile of coke and hookers? Who are we to decide what he needs to live on? What you’re suggesting sounds like a massive erosion of individual liberties. The idea of someone deciding what’s enough for someone else just seems wrong to me.

Who are we to decide what he needs to live on?

Well we seem to consider it ok to decide what people on benefits need to live on.

But what if he wants a ferrari and a big pile of coke and hookers?

I’d quite like that. Can you tell me where I apply?

What you’re suggesting sounds like a massive erosion of individual liberties.

Welcome to living as part of a society.

Everyone is trying to avoid paying tax, its laughable that some people talk about increasing taxes for the rich.
everyone buying on the C2W is avoiding tax
buying from america etc and not paing duty
so scale that up to a high earner and they will gladly pay a few thousand to an accountant to set up a trust (legal) or use other tax avoidance schemes, the higher tax rates simply dont deliver, but taxing the people is not the answer, the UK has to transform its tax laws, and rules so that corporations have to pay tax on the profits made in the UK, that would net billions, total joke that the tax burden is on the people and multi nationals play games with politicians and the HMRC dont go after these ass clowns.

joolsburger – Member

The idea of someone deciding what’s enough for someone else just seems wrong to me.

Ah, so he’s going to pay his 14 staff the same as he takes home? Since it’s wrong for him to decide what’s enough for them.

I’d simply point out that taxing at that level isn’t useful as it will likely result in a decreased total tax take as it disincentivises him from working harder and encourages him to take tax avoidance (note, not tax evasion) measures.

Have you got some evidence to back up that claim ?

Conservative Myth Busting: Lowering Taxes Raises Government Revenue

Seeing as clearly, no one could be **** to read my link.

A rise in the top marginal tax rate from 0 to 100 percent is correlated with a rise in per capita growth of 5.85 percentage points per year. One reason that this simple correlation might overstate the impact of the marginal tax rate on growth is that the top growth years were in the early 40s when the government was spending heavily and when the country was finally recovering from the Great Depression. If we look only at the post war period (after 1946), a rise from 0 to 100 percent in the top marginal tax rate is associated with an increase of only 2.69 percentage points of growth. Moreover, the statistical significance of the relationship becomes marginal, as the p-value rises from 0.017 to 0.122. On the other hand, if we look at the time period encompassing 1960 to the present, a rise in the top rate from 0 to 100 percent is correlated with a rise in per capita growth of 3.03 percentage points of growth per year, and the relationship becomes more statistically significant (with a p-value of 0.064 percent). Finally, if we look only at the years since 1980, a rise from 0 to 100 percent in the top marginal tax rate is associated with an increase in growth of 3.87 percentage points. In this case, the relationship is statistically insignificant (with a p-value of 0.392 percent), in part because the sample size is small.

While we cannot say that there is a robust significant positive relationship between tax rates and growth, it is still interesting that regardless of when we start the sample, higher top marginal tax rates are associated with higher not lower growth.

I’m not suggesting cutting the highest tax rate to 28%, ernie (45% or even 50% seems reasonable)

Ah, so he’s going to pay his 14 staff the same as he takes home? Since it’s wrong for him to decide what’s enough for them.

He didn’t they did, they chose to work for him at an agreed rate. He offered they accepted, fair exchange no robbery.

Tom, correlation doesn’t imply causation, you know that.

Junkyard that is completely unfair and how you cannot see that is beyond me. Several people seem to suggest that having wealth is some kind of wrongdoing and I just don’t agree.

If you wish to disagree could you actually point out which bit you find unfair?
Have you notice its you v STW? A rarity for here so well done you.

We know you dont agree i was holding out for an explanation rather than just you constantly saying that it was fair he could earn 31.25 his apprentice for not working but unfair that we tax him more

have you got an answer yet ?

You could also try answering mollys point that aracer mentions as well- he does not need the money and other do

The idea of someone deciding what’s enough for someone else just seems wrong to me.

So we will all get it equally then? oh of course not that bit is fair its the tax bit f deciding that is wring or of course NW excellent point

I assume you will will be explaining any of these rather than telling me it is still not fair

Tom correlation doesn’t imply causation you know that.

Yup I know that, it kind of dispels the myth that higher rates of taxation can hurt growth though. Unless someone can plot some kind of time series analysis that takes into account what happened after higher rates were introduced. I think that would be impossible, my statistics isn’t that advanced yet – although I’m working on it.

Economics is voodoo bullshit to me mostly anyway.

fair exchange no robbery.

Just like the tax rates which were clearly stated when he chose to trade etc

No one said it was robbery please stop defeating straw men and using emotive language

I’m not suggesting cutting the highest tax rate to 28%, ernie

No, you suggested “a decreased total tax take” if the highest level was 60-70%. I asked if you had any evidence to back up that claim. Or is it just something that you’ve thought about ?

He didn’t they did, they chose to work for him at an agreed rate. He offered they accepted, fair exchange no robbery.

In the same way, he is free to let somebody else run his business and take on some minimum wage job if he wants to pay a lot less tax.

OK take the apprentice, he is the business owner offering an unskilled worker, a job, training and in the longer term the ability to acquire skills that will lead to increased earnings over a lifetime. He risks investing that time and effort in someone who could become a competitor later on, overall this creates an exchange that has a value to the employer reflected in the rate he offers an apprentice. The value the apprentice gets is more than the wage alone.

excellent lets change direction once you are struggling

you are ninfan and I claim my Dan hannan signed picture 😉

TBH when you put it like that I think he should get a tax break for just being so god damn nice and the worker should pay him a tithe for ever for all he has done to help him earn this money

Gawd bless you sir

joolsburger – Member

He didn’t they did, they chose to work for him at an agreed rate.

And he chose to run a business in the UK. There’s no point in this where suddenly different rules apply. If it’s OK for him to set wages and other people to accept them or walk away, it’s OK for us to set taxation and for him to accept it or walk away.

OK take the apprentice….

You’re really not making much sense now.

As has been said I’m on my own here, happily I might add. I believe in what I’ve said and am happy to stand alone. Sorry if in answering I had to go out on a tangent. I was asked why it was fair for him to earn so much more than his apprentice and outlined the apprentice gets more than just cash from the deal.

OK take the apprentice, he is the business owner offering an unskilled worker, a job, training so in the longer term the ability to acquire skills that will lead to increased earnings over a lifetime.

That doesn’t sound very typical, is the apprentice his son ?

Most employers don’t take on apprentices so that the individuals concerned can have “increased earnings over a lifetime”.

What the business owner is usually offering is more profit for himself.

But anyway, what’s this got to do with him paying less tax ?

Tax rates as a % is largely meaningless when comparing different bands. What matters is the ‘disposable’* income across the income range.

*whoever came up with that term wasn’t being taxed enough.

Happily in the real world the top rate is 45% I hope it’s stays that way for a long time although even that’s about 15 % north of what it should be but you know, society.

That doesn’t sound very typical

why what is “typical”?

Most employers don’t take on apprentices so that the individuals concerned can have “increased earnings over a lifetime”.

What the business owner is usually offering is more profit for himself

he also takes the risk that the apprentice is a muppet and is not worth the investment in time and money

But anyway what’s this got to do with him paying less tax ?

about the same as the tax affairs of most Union leaders who seem to have inordinately large pension contributions to avoid income tax liabilities

or we could look at the capital gains from property lived in by people which makes people (who create artificial but legal changes to he property ownership) millionaires, or does Ed taxing himself with his proposed mansion tax cover that one?

I hope it’s stays that way for a long time.

Because it benefits you or the mythical garage owner ?

That doesn’t sound very typical

why what is “typical”?[/quote]

I answered that question in the same post. You even copied and pasted my answer. Try to pay attention.

Try to pay attention.

I’m just amused by the proposition that employers just take on people to increase profit, makes you wonder why they don’t take on more if it such a direct correlation?

Because it benefits you or the mythical garage owner

probably benefits us all, far more than the tax regime for companies like Starbucks or Amazon or Apple

I’m just amused by the proposition that employers just take on people to increase profit

So why didn’t you say that you were amused instead of asking me “what is typical” ?

how many apprentices have you employed?

or are you trying to limit the pool of labour for your trade?

I’m just amused by the proposition that employers just take on people to increase profit, makes you wonder why they don’t take on more if it such a direct correlation?

do you know what a non sequitur is ?
Perhaps they just employ enough to do the work they have? No point in our fictional garage owner having 150 mechanic when he only has 12 car bays for example.

You are being silly now no employer employs anyone who they cannot make money from nor do they employ more than they need [ except the bloated public sector free from the rigours of the market obviously]

are you trying to limit the pool of labour for your trade?

Yes, I go around loosening scaffolding clips.

Personal allowance to 12.5k, Howzat! 8)

And 40p threshold risen to £50,000

Personal allowance to 12.5k, Howzat!

Has he titled that policy…. the “Ask Yourself…. What is the Point of the Labour Party? Seriously?” initiative? He should do.

Then again… they said the main thrust of his speech would be to lay claim to the NHS. Thats like me laying claim to salad