General Election 2015

[aolstudios]

Some interesting comments about taxing the wealthy. No doubt I will get shot down but as someone who is comfortably within the top 1% of earners (& yes I have worked my socks off to get there) & an IFA to a number of very wealthy clients re their finances, it is largely an irrelevance as to what the highest rate of income tax is. Most high earners earning above £150,000 pa are not employees but run their own businesses, self employed, or Directors of companies. There are many legal ways of extracting revenue from businesses, without getting political but brought about by the former Labour Party. Paying large amounts of income tax is largely voluntary as is inheritance tax.

Sadly true

 

[beorhthelm]

And isn't improving the whole economy working out great for all of us?

http://www.theguardian.com/business...ains-wealthiest-double-net-worth-since-crisis

still focusing on wealth, and of of foreigners at that.

 

[RexCathedra]

Luckily for the parties in power the elections happen before the economy tips into recession.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Funny you read it like that, because that not what the post said.

How I read it was, over tax the rich, and they will go elsewhere to pay their taxes. Like or lump it, if you want to take take take from the rich, they won't stick around so there will be no rich to tax from?

I am not in the top 1%, I have no chance of ever getting there, I have a six figure mortgage and probably will for many years to come and consider myself far from deluded. However I have common sense, and know if you take take take from the super rich, they will just get up and move elsewhere.

I would rather take 40% tax from a ****ing big pot of money, than 99% from a near empty pot.

This is nonsense though. There is no real evidence to back this theory up. Over the past 10-15 years the top rate of tax has switched a few times between the UK and Germany. Have you seen swathes of people moving between London and Frankfurt chasing the lower rate? No, you haven't.

 

[Hampster Gull]

That is one of the best posts I have ever read on here.

No bashing of the parties, just telling it as it is. Those who looked at it, and thought, can't be arsed to read all that, I would say spend a few minutes on it.

Your post proves you're smarter than the average Bear

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

This is nonsense though. There is no real evidence to back this theory up. Over the past 10-15 years the top rate of tax has switched a few times between the UK and Germany. Have you seen swathes of people moving between London and Frankfurt chasing the lower rate? No, you haven't.

But as its switched a few times, I would imagine they remain close to each other. I don't think that was the point that was being made. Under the looney left, they want to see the rich taxed on everything, and some no doubt would love to see a 60% plus rate. Then you will probably get people leaving or moving their status to another country.

I fail to understand how you can justifiability tax any individual more than half of what they earn. It just seems like jealousy to me. And no, I do not pay the higher rate of income tax.

 

[Greyrun]

I agree with your sentiment though the family up the road from you is an extreme example and sound like theyre bent.

Nearly all of Labour's policy has been written by millionaire champagne socialist career politicians.

Helping the poorest and neediest in society should be the goal of every government, redistributing wealth also fairly. But making enemies of anyone with money is not in countries or the poorest best interest. Whatever you think of the rich - those in that top 1% of earners over £150k (most of the Albion first team!) pay 30% of all income tax to the treasury. They are vital to paying for public services we need and a 0.5% cut in richer tax payers buggering off can result in a 15% reduction in taxes raised.

50p tax rate - I wouldn't personally care if it's 30p or 90p for those over £150k as I'll likely never earn it, but it's common sense to get the maximum revenue there will be a best rate, in economics its called "the Laffer curve". If you try and sell a football for £100 nobody will buy, for £1 you'll lose money, you want to get the price that gets the maximum return. If top rate tax is to high many internationally mobile will leave as has happened in France as happened when 70's labour tried to "tax the rich until the pips squeek". and they pay a massive % of the overall tax take. You can end up with much less in the treasury for schools and the NHS from such miscalculated gambits.

But all analysis I've read says 45p tax vs 50p does nothing to raise more money or to save money, there is a band of "true elasticity' (margin of error) in revenue gained/lost + spending v's people leaving/coming and its impossible to prove if it will make or save anything, with some predicting 50p would raise up to 100 mill from Labour and some Torys and economists saying 45p actually raises up to 400 million.

So why do it? Because it appeals to the core class warfare labour "bash the rich..them and us" voter and can be framed in a "tax cut for millionaires" soundbite even though there is no proof any more would end up in treasury for the things that matter and much of the extra money in pockets from 45p will be spent in uk businesses and VAT will be charged making yet another 20%.

the 50p rate assumes everyone will stay, but naturally they wont, so why piss off the group that pays 30% of all taxes?

tackle evasion for sure but if you wage class warfare without sound reasoning, there is a high chance those you claim to represent will be worse off not better with less tax take.

Non Doms - I bet nobody knows one or cares about them. It makes sense to remove the hereditary handing down of non dom status to those born here, but going after those that put over 8 billion a year into the treasury?

If you fly on hols this summer and 90% of pax paid £200 but 10% of seats were unsold, the airline would be dumb not to discount the last 10% of seats rather than have them empty earning nothing. Maybe the other 90% of pax may feel hard done by as, but the airline is making more by having them filled than empty.

I couldn't give a hoot if non dom status is banned if it can be proven there's a benefit to the state coffers to be spent on essential services, but there is none. ed balls said it would lose money as many of these Saudi princes/oligarchs or whoever they are will bugger off, taking their tax revenue and spending power with them and there's no thorough report on how much we'd lose or gain with such a move and as 8 billion is exactly the amount of the Sir Simon Stephens report, NHS shortfall. Why not instead pledge to spend it there whilst doing thorough research on merits/pitfalls of removing non dom status. It's 8 billion of real money. not a juvenile 6th form put the world to rights game.

Of course it also It doesn't suit the labour narrative of rich bashers, who cares if the money is lost and less goes to essential services, we're class warriors, we want to attack the wealthy at any cost, it's them v us comrade.

The current labour party acts in the best interests of the party, not the country. Their dumb interventionist policies may resonate with politically clueless soundbite generation, but they will wreck the economy and ALL will end up with being worse off.

Socialism is a great ideology. I was a fierce Marxist in later teens.
Affordable socialism in a capatilist globalised world, with competent debt reducing, low borrowing, growth based economic management is a utopian pipe dream.
Massive borrowing, debt riddled economic calamity, stifling the economy and business for ideological and not business reasons, leaving behind a devastated mess where all suffer is the reality of party first socialism put forward by Red Eds old labour and the SNP

Good post, refreshing change from the the crap spouted by dinosaur lefties.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But as its switched a few times, I would imagine they remain close to each other. I don't think that was the point that was being made. Under the looney left, they want to see the rich taxed on everything, and some no doubt would love to see a 60% plus rate. Then you will probably get people leaving or moving their status to another country.

I fail to understand how you can justifiability tax any individual more than half of what they earn. It just seems like jealousy to me. And no, I do not pay the higher rate of income tax.

Has anyone said "60% plus rate" or "more than half" ? Where are you getting these figure from? Not me, and as far as I can recall not from anyone I can remember on this board, not from the Labour Party nor the SNP.

Higher taxation does not necessarily mean 60%.

And no, I'm not jealous.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Has anyone said "60% plus rate" or "more than half" ? Where are you getting these figure from? Not me, and as far as I can recall not from anyone I can remember on this board, not from the Labour Party nor the SNP.

Higher taxation does not necessarily mean 60%.

And no, I'm not jealous.

The Greens have FYI: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/04/12/greens-get-tough-on-top-earners/

(Saw you said Lab and SNP - but its the info that counts) And the SNP want a 'progressive alliance' with the Greens and PC.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The Greens have FYI: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/04/12/greens-get-tough-on-top-earners/

I wasn't aware of this. But I believe Tubby-MacFat is aiming his post at Labour lefties and socialists like me as opposed to Greens.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

I wasn't aware of this. But I believe Tubby-MacFat is aiming his post at Labour lefties and socialists like me as opposed to Greens.

No, just socialists in general.

 

[melias shoes]

I agree with your sentiment though the family up the road from you is an extreme example and sound like theyre bent.

Nearly all of Labour's policy has been written by millionaire champagne socialist career politicians.

Helping the poorest and neediest in society should be the goal of every government, redistributing wealth also fairly. But making enemies of anyone with money is not in countries or the poorest best interest. Whatever you think of the rich - those in that top 1% of earners over £150k (most of the Albion first team!) pay 30% of all income tax to the treasury. They are vital to paying for public services we need and a 0.5% cut in richer tax payers buggering off can result in a 15% reduction in taxes raised.

50p tax rate - I wouldn't personally care if it's 30p or 90p for those over £150k as I'll likely never earn it, but it's common sense to get the maximum revenue there will be a best rate, in economics its called "the Laffer curve". If you try and sell a football for £100 nobody will buy, for £1 you'll lose money, you want to get the price that gets the maximum return. If top rate tax is to high many internationally mobile will leave as has happened in France as happened when 70's labour tried to "tax the rich until the pips squeek". and they pay a massive % of the overall tax take. You can end up with much less in the treasury for schools and the NHS from such miscalculated gambits.

But all analysis I've read says 45p tax vs 50p does nothing to raise more money or to save money, there is a band of "true elasticity' (margin of error) in revenue gained/lost + spending v's people leaving/coming and its impossible to prove if it will make or save anything, with some predicting 50p would raise up to 100 mill from Labour and some Torys and economists saying 45p actually raises up to 400 million.

So why do it? Because it appeals to the core class warfare labour "bash the rich..them and us" voter and can be framed in a "tax cut for millionaires" soundbite even though there is no proof any more would end up in treasury for the things that matter and much of the extra money in pockets from 45p will be spent in uk businesses and VAT will be charged making yet another 20%.

the 50p rate assumes everyone will stay, but naturally they wont, so why piss off the group that pays 30% of all taxes?

tackle evasion for sure but if you wage class warfare without sound reasoning, there is a high chance those you claim to represent will be worse off not better with less tax take.

Non Doms - I bet nobody knows one or cares about them. It makes sense to remove the hereditary handing down of non dom status to those born here, but going after those that put over 8 billion a year into the treasury?

If you fly on hols this summer and 90% of pax paid £200 but 10% of seats were unsold, the airline would be dumb not to discount the last 10% of seats rather than have them empty earning nothing. Maybe the other 90% of pax may feel hard done by as, but the airline is making more by having them filled than empty.

I couldn't give a hoot if non dom status is banned if it can be proven there's a benefit to the state coffers to be spent on essential services, but there is none. ed balls said it would lose money as many of these Saudi princes/oligarchs or whoever they are will bugger off, taking their tax revenue and spending power with them and there's no thorough report on how much we'd lose or gain with such a move and as 8 billion is exactly the amount of the Sir Simon Stephens report, NHS shortfall. Why not instead pledge to spend it there whilst doing thorough research on merits/pitfalls of removing non dom status. It's 8 billion of real money. not a juvenile 6th form put the world to rights game.

Of course it also It doesn't suit the labour narrative of rich bashers, who cares if the money is lost and less goes to essential services, we're class warriors, we want to attack the wealthy at any cost, it's them v us comrade.

The current labour party acts in the best interests of the party, not the country. Their dumb interventionist policies may resonate with politically clueless soundbite generation, but they will wreck the economy and ALL will end up with being worse off.

Socialism is a great ideology. I was a fierce Marxist in later teens.
Affordable socialism in a capatilist globalised world, with competent debt reducing, low borrowing, growth based economic management is a utopian pipe dream.
Massive borrowing, debt riddled economic calamity, stifling the economy and business for ideological and not business reasons, leaving behind a devastated mess where all suffer is the reality of party first socialism put forward by Red Eds old labour and the SNP

Bravo Sir.

 

[melias shoes]

Funny you read it like that, because that not what the post said.

How I read it was, over tax the rich, and they will go elsewhere to pay their taxes. Like or lump it, if you want to take take take from the rich, they won't stick around so there will be no rich to tax from?

I am not in the top 1%, I have no chance of ever getting there, I have a six figure mortgage and probably will for many years to come and consider myself far from deluded. However I have common sense, and know if you take take take from the super rich, they will just get up and move elsewhere.

I would rather take 40% tax from a ****ing big pot of money, than 99% from a near empty pot.

Exactly how I read it.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Your post proves you're smarter than the average Bear

Thanks Boo Boo

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No, just socialists in general.

So you're suggesting the Green manifesto represents socialists in general?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Has anyone said "60% plus rate" or "more than half" ? Where are you getting these figure from? Not me, and as far as I can recall not from anyone I can remember on this board, not from the Labour Party nor the SNP.

Higher taxation does not necessarily mean 60%.

And no, I'm not jealous.

There is one party who would implement a top rate of 60% on anyone earning over £150k per annum. Not saying that any of the electorate in Brighton Pavilion should be reading the whole manifesto

 

[melias shoes]

This is nonsense though. There is no real evidence to back this theory up. Over the past 10-15 years the top rate of tax has switched a few times between the UK and Germany. Have you seen swathes of people moving between London and Frankfurt chasing the lower rate? No, you haven't.

Yes I have. Not from London to Frankfurt maybe but what about the 2.5m people that have left France. This being because of Hollandes' socialist Government extortionate 75% tax rate. A High percentage of those people are now in London and not paying their taxes in France,where I'm sure they would rather be. If Hollande had kept the rate at the original rate those people would have remained and continued to pay their much needed taxes to the French revenue. So summing up tax the rich until the pips squeak and they will leave taking their money with them.

 

[glasfryn]

So you're suggesting the Green manifesto represents socialists in general?

to be fair its about as socialist manifesto as you can get other that being totally communist, more so than Labour

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yes I have. Not from London to Frankfurt maybe but what about the 2.5m people that have left France. This being because of Hollandes' socialist Government extortionate 75% tax rate. A High percentage of those people are now in London and not paying their taxes in France,where I'm sure they would rather be. If Hollande had kept the rate at the original rate those people would have remained and continued to pay their much needed taxes to the French revenue. So summing up tax the rich until the pips squeak and they will leave taking their money with them.

2.5 million people left France due to high taxes? I'm sorry but I simply do not believe there were 2.5 million French people earning over 12 million a year/1 million a month and legible for the 75% super-tax let alone they all left.

 

[glasfryn]

2.5 million people left France due to high taxes? I'm sorry but I simply do not believe there were 2.5 million French people earning over 12 million a year/1 million a month and legible for the 75% super-tax let alone they all left.

this would of coarse solve our problem 2.5m super rich paying 50% tax and we could send 2.5m of our poor to France
NHS paid for
no food banks
no holes in the roads
no scum ripping the social off
I am sure if the tories put that in the English manifesto they would get a great majority