[Closed] Tories looking after the rich, what a shocker.

I dunno, maybe if the top of the curve is at £65%, the high earners will work harder and then make more econmoic growth and more jobs for the proles.
I have a teeny tiny hunch that it is a bit more complicated than that though...

But it's got a fancy name, looks scientific [i]and[/i] supports what I already think! How can it be more complicated than that?

I couldn't be bothered to google them to find out which ones matched which elections were from

OK then:
11,872,180 - Conservative, Feb '74
12,208,758 - Labour, 1970
13,948,385 - Labour, 1951

I thought it was interesting in comparison with the other figures, and your assertion about the last one not being a victory. Labour had a higher (and higher share of the) popular vote in 1951 than 1997.

You have outed yourself as a Tory enough times on here for most that take an interest in the politix threads on here to remember.

Oh yes - part of the loony right aren't I? I've also more than once commented that I've voted for different parties in different elections.

Steaming in with that first post didn't help TBH.

Commenting on the electoral system marks me down as a Tory-boy? 🙄

MSP thats true and it illustrates my point well. In this country there exists a 50% limit on taxation(both psychological and physical). What I mean is people can not stomach the thought that mortgaging everthing, putting it all on the line to set up a business and eventually being successful means that you have to give away HALF of what you earn to the tax man. These thoughts stiffle enterprise and therefore tax income is reduced. The percentage may be different in other countries where populations feel that want to pay higher taxes knowing that they are getting something really good in return eg health system, well maintained roads etc.

In Britian we definately dont want to give more than 50% of our hard earned money away.

Simon_Semtex you miss the point completely, the laffer curve is drawn to support whichever dogma you want to pedal, and then "evidence" is shown to match the curve.

The idea that the richest people actually had to risk everything and work harder than the rest is also deeply flawed.

being successful means that you have to give away HALF of what you earn to the tax man

No you don't, you pay 50% on earnings over £100k, or whatever the number is

Complete supposition Simon_Semtex.

The idea that the richest people actually had to risk everything and work harder than the rest is also deeply flawed.

Its not flawed, its a preposterous assumption. Wealth generators? Job creators? Do me a ****ing favour!

We have a government stuffed with multi-millioaires. Have a look at them. And the friends they went to Eton with. Do you think they grafted for their money? Seriously? Get a grip! They were handed it by mummy and daddy.

Entrepreneurs will just get on and start businesses, whatever happens. And whatever the tax situation. As they're people who are driven to do so. The idea that the 50% rate is being dropped to encourage Entrepreneurs is absolutely laughable!!

OMG MSP you have NOOOOO idea. and you have missed the point completely. This isn't about rich and poor. This is about stimulating enterprise. Rich people can be rich for any number of reasons (winning the lottery, playing premiership football, or inheritance to name but a few.)

Dropping the taxation level from 50 to 40% is about encouraging more people to be more entrepeneurial. It has the added advantage of increasing YES increasing tax revenue but the main idea is to encourage budding business owners to take the plunge and go for it.

Ohh and Binners.... are you mental or something?

being successful means that you have to give away HALF of what you earn to the tax man

If you earn £200K and pay - say - a modest 5% pension

The taxman would take around £70K so nearer a THIRD than a half

aracer, the whole post you objected to made reference not just to the 'number of votes at general election to form a government' but also to [b]no one[/b] winning the 2010 election, and yet the Conservative party (I [i]almost[/i] said 'government') behaving very much as though they had.

Forgive me for making the mistake that you had read and were objecting to the whole post (and the notion of the conservatives thinking they had 'won' anything apart from not enough seats to form a government in 2010), not just the first sentence.

I too have voted for various parties but am frequently accused of being a bedwetting bleeding heart socialist. Like you, it must be the way I argue these things. I voted for NuLab long after they leapfrogged the Liberal Democrates into the centre-right. Although under FPTP that is as much to do with keeping the conservative candiate out of my constituency. I wonder if you have ever found yourself voting tactically rather than with your heart? I remember 'fondly' (ahem) the AV threads on this forum to which you and I both contributed ending up going very left vs right.

the daily mash sums it up nicely

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/life-to-be-slightly-easier-for-people-who-are-absolutely-fine-201203165017/ ]life-to-be-slightly-easier-for-people-who-are-absolutely-fine[/url]

"Focus groups up and down the country are telling us to cut child benefit for people on middle incomes so that those on more than £150,000 a year can continue to donate money to the Conservative Party. It is almost breath taking in its simplicity.

So, let me get this straight. We've got:

50% tax rate
Entrepreneurs
Tories
Labour
Lib Dems (briefly, and having no meaningful impact)
The rich
The poor
Scroungers
Grafters
Risk takers
Takers
FPTP
And...arguments about a general election result from two years ago

As you were.

Dropping the taxation level from 50 to 40% is about encouraging more people to be more entrepeneurial. It has the added advantage of increasing YES increasing tax revenue but the main idea is to encourage budding business owners to take the plunge and go for it.

Again complete supposition, any evidence for this?

OMITN, it's the hangover from TJ's birthday 'ceasefire' yesterday. 😀

Where is he BTW?

If you earn £200K and pay - say - a modest 5% pension

The taxman would take around £70K so nearer a THIRD than a half

You're forgetting NI, which takes it up to 80K. If you allow for the employers NI then it comes to pretty near 50% of your wage bill in tax.

It has the added advantage of increasing YES increasing tax revenue but the main idea is to encourage budding business owners to take the plunge and go for it.

Seer that's just what comes from, creating a laffer curve to support your ideology, and then claiming the laffer curve is proof. Its absolutely nonsense.
As is the claim that the top rate of tax effects entrepreneurial ventures, only a very small number of start ups would expect to be hitting the top rate of tax any time in the near future.
Greed doesn't drive enterprise half as much as smart ideas do.

Not according to Gordon (Gecko that is.)

"Greed is good."

MSP.. sorry mate just realised that your degree is in something like yoghurt weaving or data warehousing. Try and read some economics books before spouting such drivel.

no one winning the 2010 election, and yet the Conservative party (I almost said 'government') behaving very much as though they had.

Well to be fair, they did get significantly more seats than any other party, so if asked the question "which party won the 2010 election" and given the options, Conservative, Labour, LibDem, which one would you pick? They did also succeed in forming a coalition, of which they hold over 84% of the voting mandate, so it's hardly surprising that the policies of the government don't look all that different from one with 100% of the mandate - that's the way politics works. The strange thing is, you appear to dislike what happens when you get a coalition, yet in favour of a political system which will result in continual coalitions.

I remember 'fondly' (ahem) the AV threads on this forum to which you and I both contributed ending up going very left vs right.

That's (one way) where we differ then - I don't really remember them at all, not even what comments I made on them, let alone what your opinion was. I have to admit that I'd have had no idea of your political persuasion before this thread - I only tend to remember that of the obvious big hitters (not being one of those is a compliment, not an insult 😉 ) - and didn't think I was all that memorable. I've tended to avoid expressing political opinions on here recently, having realised how pointless it is.

Simon_Semtex - how naive and gulible are you? Have you the remotest idea of how your mythical 'entrepreneur' functions?

Could you point me in the direction of this heroic entrepreneur who, upon setting up a company and earning £150,000, then uses the PAYE tax system? Seriously? As opposed to dodgy 'directors loans', Front companies, dividends, and exploiting every tax loophole in the book? If so, I'll show you....

[img] [/img]

This tax rate drop has absolutely nothing to do with job creation, entrepreneurial spirit, or any of that guff.

There are numerous factors a co-orporarion will consider before deciding wheteher to invest in a country (available skills, government assistance etc). The tax rate for a few of its best paid executives is pretty near the bottom.

It's laughable to beleive that an entrepreneur / corporation won't invest because of the tax rate. Any true genuine entrepreneur that is paying the top rate of tax needs to have a few words with his accountant.

Edit. Beaten to it by binners. He had a pretty picture to :'(

Simon_Semtex - Member
Not according to Gordon (Gecko that is.)

"Greed is good."

MSP.. sorry mate just realised that your degree is in something like yoghurt weaving or data warehousing. Try and read some economics books before spouting such drivel.

And your evidence is from 'Wall Street'?

But well done on resorting to ad hominems without even trying to back up what you're saying.

Rich people can be rich for any number of reasons (winning the lottery, playing premiership football, or inheritance to name but a few.)

So whats the reason not to tax them at 50% then ?

Could you point me in the direction of this heroic entrepreneur who, upon setting up a company and earning £150,000, then uses the PAYE tax system? Seriously? As opposed to dodgy 'directors loans', Front companies, dividends, and exploiting every tax loophole in the book? If so, I'll show you....

Here I am.

Well, not quite; I haven't set up a company. But my pay all goes through PAYE, and I'm caught by the top tax rate. I'm not asking for sympathy, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone earning into that top tax band is somehow a millionaire/Bond villain/possessor of fiendish tax planning opportunities. It just ain't so....

Do we actually have any entrepreneurs on the forum ?

Brant maybe ? Have you managed to get into the 50% bracket ?

Did you decide to design bikes brant so because you knew back in the day you'd pay 40% tax ?

Would you have started on one if you'd known you'd have to pay 50% tax ?

Or did you do it because you like designing bikes ?

Hi nickf

If the 50% tax bracket had existed when you started on your career would you have decided not to bother and just work at tesco ?

The strange thing is, you appear to dislike what happens when you get a coalition, yet in favour of a political system which will result in continual coalitions.

I didn't explain myself very well then.

I don't like the way the Conservatives overwhelmingly opposed AV and then a year later set about boundary reforms, despite having got into government (let's not forget thet the FPTP system could have allowed a Lib/Lab coalition in 2010 and we the voters would have been powerless to stop that happening) without a parliamentary majority. A more cycnical person would wonder if they have their foot jammed in the door and are trying all they can to make sure they get all the way in next time. The amount of changes instigated out so soon after the election that was in neither party's electoral manifestoes grates a little bit too.

I see this coalition as a sign that the days of FPTP are numbered: if we still ended up with an [s]unelected Conservative government[/s] coalition acting out of mandate within months of an elcetion, in an electoral system whose main advantage is to provide us with single party governments at the expense of people feeling they can vote with their hearts, then why bother hanging on to it any more?

nickf - Member

Here I am.

Well, not quite; I haven't set up a company. But my pay all goes through PAYE, and I'm caught by the top tax rate. I'm not asking for sympathy, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone earning into that top tax band is somehow a millionaire/Bond villain/possessor of fiendish tax planning opportunities. It just ain't so....

Did you think twice about doing it because of the tax rate?

I thought that the actual figures had shown that the 50p rate had not brought in any more money - since people at that end of the earnings scale were more likely to begin funneling their money through (legal) tax avoidance measures...

[img] [/img]

I thought that the actual figures had shown that the 50p rate had not brought in any more money - since people at that end of the earnings scale were more likely to begin funneling their money through (legal) tax avoidance measures...

From what I've read no one is really sure still. It all seems to be conjecture rather than fact.

but please don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone earning into that top tax band is somehow a millionaire/Bond villain/possessor of fiendish tax planning opportunities. It just ain't so....

nickf - I'm not saying that at all

Simon_Semtex is on about entrepreneurs. And them being discouraged from starting businesses (and thus creating jobs) by a 50% top tax rate. And I'm saying that that is utter guff. You're kind of proving my point by the fact that you're not discouraged.

But I'd hazard a guess that you're in a minority if you're earning 150,000 and using PAYE

If the 50% tax bracket had existed when you started on your career would you have decided not to bother and just work at tesco ?

Not quite. But I have had opportunities to work abroad (still do have) and if I didn't have kids settled at school, could quite easily have jumped to, say, Singapore. Anyone in my position but a decade younger would need their head examined if they didn't consider moving somewhere more tax-friendly.

Just as a little observation on Aracer's numbers...

14 million voters in 1951 represented 28% of the population.
10.7 million voters in 2010 represented 17% of the population.

Superficially similiar numbers often don't give a full picture.

Not quite. But I have had opportunities to work abroad (still do have) and if I didn't have kids settled at school, could quite easily have jumped to, say, Singapore. Anyone in my position but a decade younger would need their head examined if they didn't consider moving somewhere more tax-friendly.

So all that seems to suggest is we need a world wide tax regime. Ie everywhere have 50% bands.

Or all the rich people will end up in one place paying no tax while the vast majority are stuck.

Also you dont say you would nt have gone down that path suggesting that even if your paying 50% its still worth your while to earn over £150,000 (obviously).

Tax will be too much when its not worth earning £150,000.

What more to the point is its not really worth earning £10,000 a year as your quality of life is no better than being on the dole.

Or all the rich people will end up in one place paying no tax while the vast majority are stuck.

Anyone in my position but a decade younger would need their head examined if they didn't consider moving somewhere more tax-friendly.

so how come anyone works in the city at all?

Or all the rich people will end up in one place paying no tax while the vast majority are stuck.

That place already exists. Its referred to as Chelsea and Knightsbridge

Shocker - thread on tax takes bi-partisan extremes.

Osborne "should" make his decision on the simple question - is the 50p rate the best way to maximise tax revenues. Of course, not as easy a question as it seems. Isn't there a report due in the next few days?

CEPS analysis is ambiguous - this year 50p rate had bought in more tax revenue but not as much as expected, but in long run it will reduce revenue.

Is today's announcement a bluff or is a trade off with the Lib Dems with an asset/wealth based tax (harder to dodge but expensive and difficult to administer)? Could well be a bluff as the Tories have screwed Cleggie on most things so far.

So if independent analysis shows that the 50p tax rate reduces the revenue tax for the government is that Osborne feeding his mates and the rich or is it prudent economics?

let's not forget thet the FPTP system could have allowed a Lib/Lab coalition in 2010

Ah that old saw. Not true I'm afraid - a Lib/Lab coalition would have been a minority government, and unlikely to be able to achieve much.

I see this coalition as a sign that the days of FPTP are numbered

Strangely enough, the electorate appear to disagree with you 😉

One of the main problems with proving the higher/lower tax rate = higher/lower tax revenues is comparing like for like over a sustained period of time.

The raising of the tax rate led to the capitalisation of assets and being declared as earning before the tax rate was introduced, and now the speculation that it will be reduced has lead to assets being held onto in the hope of a future reduction. Seeing that its only been in place for a short period of time, this will have a large impact on the figures.

MSP - indeed it is a tricky subject but better to think about it than descend into petty party politics.

I love the idea that this is all an Eton consipracy (please add St Pauls etc) and that none of these guys have ever had to work hard. All handed to them by "mummy and daddy". How absurdly partonising and ignorant. [b]Ok criticise people for lack of real-business experience etc, or for making bad decisions but stop being silly about education.[/b]

No one gets into those sorts of schools without working hard. When they are there they work considerably longer hours than most (9:00pm finishes) and top universities do not accept candidates that dont work hard for exams or while they were there. The idea of upper-class or rich patronage is as outdated and absurd as flat caps and whippets. Funny (perhaps) but absurd.

So all those against a 50% tax band.

Are there no entrepreneurs in Germany? Sweden?, Holland?

Have all their wealth creators left? Or is this just on huge bogus myth

Teamhurtmore - absolutly true tho

Cameron and his cronies inherited wealth. None of them have earned it. None of them have created anything

I thought people who were potentially caught by the 50% rate just renegotiated their contract to put the affected cash in their pension or some other tax avoidance

you can ask Dave Prentis for advice if you want http://order-order.com/2011/08/10/dave-prentis-is-a-tax-hypocrite/

Cameron and his cronies inherited wealth. None of them have earned it. None of them have created anything

a bit like the Miliband brothers then?