Don…. You missed an spelling mistake, very poor.

Again????

When is TJ going to acknowledge that wealth and income are nothing like the same….
(at least he owned up to trolling after the child benefit thread got locked)

I’m left leaning, so sympathise with the views. But the only “wealthy” people I know on 40%+ tax rate were already wealthy anyway.

FACT

Not for nothing is it known as the 21st arrondissement… I suppose they’re all here for the weather, eh TJ?

Although France (apparently) has at least half a million English expats, who are also most likely concentrated in the big cities like Paris. Who presumably don’t go there to escape the high taxes of the UK?

Don’t assume/presume… Unless you’re in possession of the facts, you don’t know, so it would be unwise to comment otherwise. Besides, I only know a few Brit ex-pats in France, and none of them live in big cities, it’s small back country life for them all the way.

Quite literally the only modern day example of where something is worth several times more than the sum of its parts… The House! It’s a bit ridiculous when you come to think about it, but then that’s what can happen when everyone is sold the dream.

How’d you work that one out? If the accountants wouldn’t save enough money to make tax evasion worthwhile, then they’d have no choice but to pay the tax quite simply. No? 😕

There’s a part of flat tax that’s very often overlooked – you also bin every single exemption, loophole and rebate. You pay the tax and that’s that, which makes a lot of tax dodges impossible. If you take into account that the very rich often pay well below the headline rates, having a lower but much harder to dodge rate makes some sense.

I’m not saying that 30% is where the rate should be set, or even that a flat rate is particularly desirable. But overall, if you simplify tax, you make it harder to dodge, you can put taxmen, lawyers and accountants to an economically productive use…

Saying “stop the rich buggers dodging tax in the system we have” is all well and good, but if it were that easy (and there was a payback to it) then someone would.have already done it by now.

there are always loopholes, you can say everyone pays x%, now prove what they earned? If you really think that you can implement a system where there are no loopholes….forget it, it isn’t going to happen. Money can always be shipped off shore, through third parties, via companies, payment doesn’t have to be in money etc.

Its a giant tax cut, with proportionately more for the higher rate tax-payers, dressed up as a system change.
Read the report. We’d be down by 50 billion as a country. That’s really going to sort the deficit.
For all the side arguments about what constitutes flat rate, progressive tax, or France, there’s still no explanation as to how a further 50 billion pound deficit would help the country.

Well economic journals are normally so dry and challenging for a non-mathematician, so refreshing to read something contraversial that agrees with me that economics is best studied in the context of philosophy and politics. So instead of multiple regression there are chapters on utilitarianism, deontological ethics, virtue ethics, libertarianism and religious perspectives. Whatever one thinks of the conclusions, that makes for a more interesting read than normal. How refreshing.

.

Poor sidestep? Poor very poor. I really did expect more from you

It is an error [ the calcuations on how much we pay under this flat rate] because they only way they could do this was to have a shortfall of income tax raised under their system or else we would not all get a tax cut [ reduction in the % of the burden we pay]
If you use a flat rate tax and generate the same amount as now the poorer/less well off subsidise the wealthier . If the wealthier pay less [ the only reason to have this tax obviously] someone has to pay more so we get the same income from tax- this is obvious without doing any maths. I am sure the Tax Payers alliance know this as well hence the “shortfall”

Woah there woah there no they don’t remember it is progressive and the rich pay more ..stay on message FFS 😉

Possibly true but this does not necessitate a flat rate. i.e we can simplify the system without having just one rate.

I actually went to the report to see the maths behind the claim re debt and read the intro

So there you have it the whole thing is **** up and crippled because of the public sector [ not the private sector ] 😯 . It is like they are politically motivated or something. I mean seriously WTF would need to happen to get these people to think the current problems were caused by the private sector and the failings of capitalism if the current problems are not enough. Many on here have a political stance but FFS that is like me claiming Russia was the land of riches and milk and honey poured as every citizen lived in bliss and joy. I don’t think I can take anything they say seriously tbh Can I call them swivel eyed loons yet?

There was little in the summary to back their claims but it appeared to rely on modelling, growth predictions [ greater under their system] and reducing the “shadow economy” so forgive me if I remain unconvinced.
I read the summary I could not face the full report so I am sure there will be some maths there somewhere

JY – be serious for a moment. You know that was a genuine question because I was sure that you understand the basic maths. The quote that you asked for explanation ie the squeezed bit and the issue of being progressive. A flat rate tax system with a minimum threshold is progressive – FACT. Dont be silly about the everyone pays the same thing – they pay the same tax rate on taxable income but the effective tax rate increases as income increases. Hence it is a progressive tax regime.

The totally separate issue is whether this is makes certain people less or better off. Hence there is the valid debate as to whether it is less progressive than the current system….which others were dragged reluctantly to admit.

Hence to natural bias of the authors – this is hardly going to be a left/center left agenda is it? And they are very open about this. Hence page 29 – “these proposals are not revenue neutral. The dysfuntion of the tax system is to a large extent an inescapable function of the amount of revenue it is trying to raise.”

And their philosophical arguments, while interesting (?), present subtle differences (polite version) to exactly the same points raised by Michael Sandel at Harvard (whose lecture on the subject I was incidentally listening to yesterday morning while dog walking). Some would call it bias!! Sandel is not a fan of markets per se and far more influenced by Rawls (which somewhat interestingly they also quote in the middle of the report).

Buy it, you would love the read!

And funny that you mention Russia – there tax system is …..? And it raised or lowered the tax take?

[edit: lots of data and words !! but very little maths in fact. Very unusual given the topic. Makes it easy to read but frustrating if you want to see the basis for the calculations. Perhaps they should have put a simple table showing why the system is still progressive to kill that chestnut off at the start.]

TJ – would you go to work for nothing?

If we imposed 100% taxation, then do you think people would still go to work for no reward?

Do you think they would be able to go to work for no reward?

No, of course not – so, the theory of the Laffer curve is solid – 100% taxation would lead to a fall in taxable revenue, and the tipping point is somewhere between 0% and 100%

the argument you appear to be trying to make, is that the latter curve tipping point is higher than anyone currently taxes, however that does not undermine the fact that the curve still exists, you’re simply arhuing where the top of it is.

Of course there is real world data

What happened when Thatcher lowered the top rate of income tax in the 80’s?

did overall tax take increase, or decrease?

What about the magical 50p tax – did it increase or decrease the tax take?

Its quite simple – Higher income tax rates incentivise taxpayers to work less, retire earlier, emigrate, contribute more to pension or charity, convert income to capital gains, incorporate, and invest in tax avoidance.

You seem to be confusing anecdote with statistics TJ

Which was it, did total tax revenues go up, or down?

Yawn

Down of course reduce the rate of taxation reduce the tax take.

I am sure you will have some bogus distorted nonsense ready to show that the tax take went up as the rate fell – just make sure its actually vliid ie accounts for inflation,other taxation changes adn rising incomes and actually compares like with like

TJ – You are a modestly paid public servant right? Do you not think you might feel differently if you earned more than you do?

Nope – I know I would not. I am not a selfish begger my neighbour type. I am a public servant. I beleive in public service. I am not motivated by avarice

It must be great to live in the lala land of THM and zulu et al.

At least Zulu is honest about what he is tho. I do prefer that to the pretence of THM

Pointless debating this with these folk tho. they only believe what they want to believe and will believe any old nonsense that supports their hatred of taxation

Only on the numbers chosen in the discussion document. e.g. why is the magic round number of £10k the right threshold value, why is the round number of 30% the perfect solution? There will be a way of having the same simp lied flat tax system at say £9750 threshold and a 31.4% tax rate which actually means the deficit doesn’t get worse. I have no idea what those numbers are – but they are largely irrelevant to whether a flat tax is a better system or not. What happens at budget time at the moment is they bugger about with all the thresholds and rates so nobody is clear who is better or worse off. With flat tax you increase or lower one rate which helps or penalises everyone by the same %age. With this variation involving a threshold you have two parameters to play with if you want to pretend to be more or less progressive.

TJ – congratulations I think you might be the first person ever to suggest I am from the “far right”. Laffer is just a straightforward economic argument similar to price elasticity models used by companies all the time and well proven – but applied to taxation. The underlying assumption has to be that those who would pay the most are able to do something about it, e.g. by evading tax, by avoiding tax through legal means, or by moving location. The wealthiest are generally most able to achieve those things, and most motivated to do so because the cost is greater. The unknown part is at what point is the tipping point achieved. But “Laffer” is already happening all around you, and you can put the blinkers on if you want but both in Corporation and Income tax worlds the people using legal mechanisms to avoid tax are those with the highest rates and biggest bills. So since you didn’t answer my question – if Scotland had a significantly different tax rate to the rest of the UK do you think people would relocate to exploit the system to their advantage? Now is it possible that by reducing tax %age you can encourage enough inward investment to increase employment and actually get more £ overall?

aha – back to the good old ad-hominem attacks TJ, quelle surprise

come on – what happened when Thatcher dropped the top rate – did the overall share paid by the top ten percent increase, or decrease?

they contributed 32% of the tax take before the cuts, they were contributing 45% of it afterwards.

there’s your real world proof.

come on, shoot it down with actual data that supports your contention that the Laffer curve does not exist, rather than p- poor anecdote and ad-hom.

Tell you what – I’ll offer you the best possible proof that the Laffer curve exits, that if you tax pepople too high, they simply leave and go somewhere else

Where does Sean live TJ?

That beach and those trees don’t look much like Musselburgh to me!

Oh look, I go away for a few days and it’s all the same. Same people having the same circular arguments as ever, and all on a relatively obscure bike forum.

It’s nice and sunny outside. Go for a ride.