[Closed] 30% flat tax rate?

Again? Okay.

Hadn't read the whole thread, sorry. 😳

Still not entirely convinced by the premise though, as it is a bit like saying some people aren't as well off as they seem despite high earnings because they have an enormous fine wine bill to pay every year (can you tell I'm not a parent?). 🙂

I look more like Jesus than he looks like God

I'm more like Buddha. JY is sort of like the vegan Scots/Bolton version of Jesus.

[i]I'm more like Buddha. JY is sort of like the vegan Scots/Bolton version of Jesus.[/i]

Aye.

Its all just a bit of fun.
😯

[img] http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQLCR9lXroD5iTLMn1LjNoVle3F1lfDL6W5uwN7Um0HnHx0t-mGD4oML0aHw [/img]

grum wins but nice work all 😀

it is a bit like saying some people aren't as well off as they seem despite high earnings because they have an enormous fine wine bill to pay every year (can you tell I'm not a parent?).

Well you can ignore the kids aspect if you like:

Take a couple with no kids, where only one works but earns 42kpa.
That gives [url= http://www.incometaxcalculator.org.uk/index.php?yr=2011&age=0&time=1&ingr=42000&calculate=Calculate ]a net income of £30,922[/url] which is doing [i]fairly well[/i] and sits at 71% on the IFS scale.

But a couple with no kids, where both work but only earn the [url= http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/ashe-results-2011/ashe-statistical-bulletin-2011.html ]national average (median) of £26,200[/url] will have [url= http://www.incometaxcalculator.org.uk/index.php?yr=2011&age=0&time=1&ingr=26200&calculate=Calculate ]a net income of £40,356[/url] and are doing much better for themselves at 85% on the IFS scale.

I am pretty sure you have just proved that £52,400 in indeed more than £42,000.

I am genuinely not sure what I think of this approach of comparing an individual with a group, we could do it for ever.
What about pets they cost, do we count them?
We still have the same money so i am not sure we can actually say one is richer than the other because one has more outgoings that they willing took on though of course I can see that view point.

* we could imagine a millionaire with expensive golf membership, expensive car depreciating hugely and a huge house arguable being worse of [ after fixed costs] tham someone on average wage living at home with their parents. I am not sure it would be true just because they have the most disposable income they are the richest...interesting debate about viewpoints as both can be creditable and I am still not sure which is the "best".

A final thought from the arch right-winger (sic) John Maynard Keynes:

[b]Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget. [/b]For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more—and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.

Put simply, JMK understood the Laffer Curve before Laffer was born. Funny that?

Teamhurtmore still waffling on about the laffer curve?
this is a classic THM arguement. take a theory espoused by right wing accept this unproven theory as fact than argue from this "fact"

There are a large number of reputable economists who do not believe in the laffer curve, there is a lot of data disproving it, there is no decent data proving it.

Its an unproven theory at best.

Like all economics there will be two different views at least on every aspect. However the laffer curve believers are not on the mainstream thinking unless like THM you believe that the rightwing neoliberal view is the mainsteam

You seem to be simpliofying to score som einternet win points here.
i assume we can all accept that 0 % tax raises 0 % tax
We may largely accept that at 100% we all refuse to pay [ i am not si sure on this but what the hell I will accept it.

Now this does not mean that any single reduction in tax leads to more money [ i would like to see you draw that curve.
We are then left with debating what the rate is at which a reduction increases the tax gained the theoretical maximum rate could be anywhere above 0 and below 100 - your powerful science seems unable to work it out giving a range of about 30%- 70% which is roughly the equivalent of shrugging their shoulders and going who knows where this point is.
Your claim that a reduction would lead to an increase in tax is an assertion and nothing more unless of course you knw exactly where the "tipping " point is.
I assume other market "interference" measures can move the curve as well for example people may accept more tax if they get better services or to pay for a war.

The laffer curve does not state that all and any tax cut will always result in more money being generated.

even the research by HMRC said 50 p was raising approximately 1 billion extra which you can download from here
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/excheq-income-tax-2042.htm

of course it was economics so the prediction was hugely precise and I give it in full

The conclusion that can be drawn from the Self Assessment data is therefore that the underlying yield from the additional rate is much lower than originally forecast (yielding around £1 billion or less), and that it is quite possible that it could be negative.

So what was JMK saying then? And why does JMK/HRMC/any economist understand the concept of elasticity, but you refute it? And read carefully, the whole point of reading what Keynes said (probably the most incorrectly quoted economists of all time) is to show that you don't even have to mention Laffer. All you need to understand is elasticity. But every time, you are backed up by a straight forward fact - the same response. Funny that?

The only mention I have made of the Laffer Curve is the fact that HRMC use it and Keynes understood the principle before the label was applied. But does this make Keynes a rightwing neoliberal as well? We should form a club. Any part of that incorrect, or stay with the bully boy tactics?

Edit - thank you JY, glad the link was useful. Not really very precise though any of this is it? Did you note all the quoted analysis in that report. So much for no evidence?

I can accept that increase tax rates by 10% may only give a less than 10% increase in tax gained. I cannot accept without reasonable evidence that increasing the tax rate by any amount means less total tax. Its obvious nonsense.

I do note non of the laffer curve adherents answered the point about benefits.

There is benefit fraud. If benefit rates were increased there would be less fraud so that the total cost would be lower.

So I am shopkeeper X selling product Y. I put the price of Y up - do I make more or less money?

I do note non of the laffer curve adherents answered the point about benefits.

I cannot accept without reasonable evidence that increasing the tax rate by any amount means less total tax. Its obvious nonsense.

Did you note all the quoted analysis in that report. So much for no evidence?

how is my A level economics from 25 years ago holding up

FWIW there is apoint at the extremes but it should not be [mis]used to suggest all tax cuts leads to more money because it does not say that.

If the TIE is large enough then it is even possible that the increase in taxes could result in a sufficient fall in taxable income to cause a net decrease in tax revenues."

The HRMC

TandemJeremy - Member
I cannot accept without reasonable evidence that increasing the tax rate by any amount means less total tax. Its obvious nonsense.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/jobs/

Go tiger - go and sort them out. Then we can all enjoy the results.

JY - its holding up better now. Come and take the paper this week. A* guaranteed!! 😉

THM

Crossed posts but quite honestly I am going to ignore you from now on as yo spout such nonsense in such an unpleasant way. You ruin every debate you enter.

Elasticity does not prove laffer. I can accept and it is probably true that increase taxation by 10% only gives less than 10% increase in revenue in some circumstances, however I cannot accept that increasing tax by 10% gives less total revenue.

I was going to post up a load of links to critiques of laffer but its just pointless.

TJ, you're talking total tosh here. Pretty much the entirety of economics is theoretical. If you say the laffer curve is only a theory then you might as well not comment on any of it.

And the point on benefits fraud is a straw man argument.

well I got an B last time so who knows which is greatest the decline in my knowledge or the decline in standards 😀

Tron -the point is THM treats theory as fact when it suits his arguement and the benefits arguement shows the illogic of the laffer curve nonsense.

Forget Laffer, that is irrelevant (and remember how I referred to it). Explain elasticity and why the HRMC is wrong in its conclusion. Stop hiding behind insults (which on this thread you started remember) - its very simple. Openly and clearly explain where this is wrong? You have stated several times now that the conclusion of the HRMC is incorrect. Please explain why to all of us, then we can agree with you (perhaps).

And forget theory if you want, explain Russia in practice. How on earth did that happen?

THM
1) where did I start the insults?
2) Where have I "stated several times now that the conclusion of the HRMC is incorrect"

Bye.

You are back to inventing stuff yo claim I have said

Here is some of many links I found debunking laffer as nonsense for anyone who wants to see

The notion that governments could raise more money by cutting rates is, indeed, a glorious idea,” Goolsbee wrote in his final paragraph, adding: “Unfortunately for all of us, the data from the historical record suggest that it is unlikely to be true at anything like today’s marginal tax rates. It seems that, for now at least, we will have to keep paying for our tax cuts the old fashioned way.”

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/yet-again-tax-c.html

glitch bump
EDIT: Wished I had not bothered

The benefits argument doesn't make any sense. One that does is if petrol were 2 quid a litre, would we see more people on buses? Would people seek to follow their own interests and minimise their costs?

Another example I suspect a lot of people have experience of first hand is of getting paid overtime at a time and a half. Once you pay the extra tax, you're not seeing much above your regular hourly rate after tax. So you tend to less overtime.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/online-comment-writers-to-get-own-internet-2012051727394

Is this still going on?

Arguing over something that wont be implemented in this country.

TJ

1. Top of page 2
2. Several times indirectly - stated clearly on the pervious page. The conclusion of the HRMC is "nonsense", pretty categorical that.

And how does Goolsbee explain what happened in Russia?

Or run away when the hard, simple facts get in the way? Alternatively you may well understand this better than Keynes, the HRMC and most economists!

Anyway last post on the issue. Not going to let you get others dragged into a ban.

I am pretty sure you have just proved that £52,400 in indeed more than £42,000.

Yep 🙂

But if you only consider individual income then the couple on £52,400 are "average" whereas the couple on £42,000 are "rich" (or at least one of them is!) and are paying more tax.

Hence why it is a flawed approach.