Alternatively, you can read what the rabid RWers (sic) in the HRMC have to say on the topic, if facts are in any way relevant.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/excheq-income-tax-2042.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/9261905/High-earners-say-au-revoir-to-France.html

Estate agents report a spike in interest over the past few weeks as Hollande’s victory seemed certain, with people specifically citing the election as a reason to start looking.
Winkworth in South Kensington said it has seen a 50pc increase in inquiries from French buyers since the election last weekend and has even hired a fluent French speaker to help deal with the interest.

and from the FT:

Alexandre Terrasse, a partner in corporate and property law at Jeffrey Green Russell, says he had seen a 25 per cent rise in activity from French clients over the past six months, “The 75 per cent tax is clearly a sign that the politicians will hit the wealthy and they don’t want to have to deal with that.”
Bernard Grinspan, managing partner of the Paris office of Gibson Dunn, an international law firm, says: “Some of our clients are very seriously discussing relocation – not only to London but also Singapore and New York. There’s a lot of uncertainty.”

My back of a fag packet calculations suggest that if you earn between about 15 to 50k (ish) then you’ll pay more tax under a fixed 30% with 10k allowance.
Everyone else pays less the highest earners paying significantly less.
Therefore shifting the tax burden onto the squeezed middle.

so you agree with me then. fine. Its the truth.

What a sad post! [not your’s Solo]

🙄 The “I know you are, but what am I?” response. Cheerio.

Graham – TAXABLE INCOME PUTTING THEM INTO THE TAX BAND! not total income.

Probably for me. I am on thin ice. Its pointless debating this with teh head in the sand right wingers here who think it acceptable that we should have such a rich country and still have impoverished people as we allow those with the power to accumulate vast wealth

No reply to the johnny two houses comment then?

neal – earning enough money to put you into higher rate taxation puts you in the top 10% of the countries earners. (just about) That means you are rich. Ie better off than 90% of the country

Not being able to afford a 3 bed semi in Kensington or to buy a new jag this year does not make you poor.

I stand corrected the tax payers alliance and z-11 do believe in redistributing wealth via a progressive taxation regime and have done this due to a deep commitment to progressive taxation rather than an attempt to dilute what we currently have and switch the burden form the richer to the poorer tax payers.
Could you show me your calculations with a 1 p tax threshold and then a flat rate please to show me how strong the argument is about progressive ?
I realise I am in danger of TJ’ing the argument. I am sure we both get each others point.
Of course your argument is strictly correct as maths does not lie. However the point remains anyone who pays tax pays the same rate on the same amount of money so after the point you pay tax it is not progressive I would argue it is better being called a flat rate tax system with a threshold for that is what it is.
I think this post also helps explain my view and you know this is why the right wing are proposing it

so its progressive but has switched the burden from the rich to the poor. I await an explanation from THM on this FACT and how it is a progressive change 😉

are you asking me if people avoid tax? Can you guarantee it would not occur under what has been proposed?

TJ I tend to have similar views to you but really you dont help your argument or the left very much.

Graham you raise some interesting points but you are altering form an individual to a family. You both have a point the individual is in the top whatever the % and rich but the household is not. It is not surprising that comparing an individual to a household has differences- that is not to say you dont have a point but it is a bit of a false comparison- individuals to groups to make your point.

FWIW your point does have some merit and there may be a good case for treating household income as the tax point rather than individual earnings.

I was going to write that I often wonder where TJ gets his “facts” from. But after this thread, I no longer wonder, I know they’re all made up!

The problem with arguing about economics/politics on here is that, by and large, people are selfish. And it’s the most selfish that are the most readily heard (when things aren’t going their way), or a total contrst and they’re quiet as a mouse (when things are going their way). The whole notion of “tory’s trying to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer” is bloody ridiculous. Anyone in charge of this country is going to try their damnedest (you would hope) to do their best by the interests of the whole country, of which the majority certainly ain’t rich.

I had a few thoughts about this 30% flat rate tax idea. Initially, I thought that it sounded a bit extreme. It sounded a little ill thought through, but clearly there are a number of people out there that believe it would have some merit. So let’s examine why…

poly makes a few very good points. In answer to his point 2, the problem is I think we don’t know the answer to that question. Some people (TJ) will argue that it’s all academic and that they’d all stay anyway, just grumble about having to actually pay their taxes, but I’m not so sure. That said, someone on £150k a year whilst certainly very well off, is probably not so rich he can afford to spend more than 6 months of the year in tax exile, besides he’s probably only allowed 25 days holiday a year! But for the super rich, then yes, they’d probably all bugger off…

Points 3 and 4… Very true. This country is highly inefficient in how and where it spends taxpayers money. If there was something wrong with you car, causing it to run poorly, and drink fuel at an alarming rate, would you just put up with it until you had to beg/steal/borrow money just to put fuel in it, or would you sort the problem out so it was more economical again? A flat rate of tax, would in theory, drastically cut down the complexity and cost of running the HMRC, which is probably no bad thing. Though it could add 100,000 people to the dole queues overnight adversely. But is it better that they are paid good salaries to essentially run around, adding no value to anyone or anything because of an overly complex taxation system, or that they temporarily become a state burden as a result of drastically reduced state spending? Hard to say… I’ve done a bit of consultancy work inside the HMRC a few years ago though, knowing what goes on as standard practice in many cases there, and how inefficient the system is, I felt very aggravated that I contributed any tax money at all to the system!

I think there’s one thing that essentially we all on here will agree on. However it is achieved, it is in the best interests of GB on the whole that money earnt here, is kept here as best as possible. There is no perfect solution… Hence why it’s worthwhile considering the alternatives. And on paper, the 30% flat rate solution (above £10k) seems as though it would benefit everyone, or at least most people. Whether or not it would keep more mega rich tax £’s in the country or not is another matter, but I think that if you’re paying the best of the best accountants loads of money to keep hold of as much of your money as possible, it makes far more sense if you’re paying 50% on most of your income than it does if you’re paying 30%, as at 30% you’ll have far less money to actually save by going to those extreme efforts.

I’ll ask again then 🙄 (using the rolleyes as there is no “head banging against a wall”)

Did you read the stuff about household income being the accepted measure, rather than individual income ?

Or is that just an inconvenient truth that you are happy to ignore ?

You would hope so but I would advise you to see what their policies have done and then persuade me with the facts.

you di dread the article and the 50 billion shortfall and the subsequent cuts in public service to 2020. you di see the fag packet calculations that of who was worse of whilst reaching this decision didnt you? The very poor would be better off and the very rich. The majority in the middle would be paying for this and get worse services. I am not sure how this can be called better

did you read the bit about comparing individuals to groups? Individually paying top rate tax does make you relatively rich – top 10 % ish individually. His point is a fair one. see my post above I am not repeating it.

How would this happen then? Define impoverished, you do use the langauge in a most selective way.

Hahaha

I’m purposefully trying to stay out of the antiquated Left Vs Right wing, antiquated arguments that so many people on here still get hung up on. They’re not relevant any more… Besides, for every Tory Govt. that has brought tax hikes and/or public spending cuts along with deregulation of various industries to try to stimulate growth, there has been a Labour Govt. that preceded it, that spent years telling everyone they were all going to be rich, own their own houses that would consistently go up in value year on year, but all that happened was the familiar boom then bust scenario.

But like I say, politics of decades gone by are hardly relevant any more… There’s no point looking to the past (which is what most people in this **** country are so good at), we need to look to the future, sometimes thinking outside of the box and embracing (or at least exploring) new ideas and ways of doing things.

So glad I’m back at work.
Nice to see the right wingers still cant grasp the point that the left wingers are not just trying to protect their own intrests.

Back to VAT for a moment (only just read this essay on economics) – ok understand the argument, however, VAT exemption on food & children’s clothes are not the only essentials people need – adult clothes, heat, light, mobility, communications – these are essential to have any real chance of surviving and trying to make some progress in life. I don’t have an answer just wanted to reply to the over simplistic evaluation of the effects of VAT on the low paid.