Reply to: Alistair Darling to raise income tax rate for top earners

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Of course the old rates system was more complex. .........
On the other hand, ..... That couldn't really be any simpler.

But houses (mostly) don't move about and who owns them is recorded already. The poll tax required a whole series of l new local databases of where everyone lived and needed to be kept updated with every move they made and whether they had paid up. No sane person could see that as areduction in red tape

[Doggy Styles]

I disagree that rates were more complex - I agree politics did for the Poll Tax but Thatcher wasn't persuaded by idealogy - the problem was that councils and courts couldn't keep pace with non payers - if that ain't red tape what is?

Of course the old rates system was more complex. In those days your bill was individualised, calculated from a complex number of factors such as the number of rooms, garages, toilets and even garage inspection pits (I had one once) you had in the dwelling.

On the other hand, the poll tax for everyone was the same amount, a straight fraction of the the amount the council wanted to collect. That couldn't really be any simpler.

[d000hg]

Did anyone else spot the 37.5% top rate on divis in the small print?

What was it before?

[moorfield]

Did anyone else spot the 37.5% top rate on divis in the small print?

[ThomasSoerensen]

That's awfully logical, making a reasoned point instead of just ranting about what you like or don't like. Are you sure that's allowed?

Burn him!!!!

[expat]

That was not the point. Someone was criticising the Thatcher government for introducing complex legislation, and used the poll tax as an example.

I merely pointed out that the opposite was true - the poll tax was far simpler than the rating system that it replaced.

I also pointed out that it was politically unacceptable. I never said I personally agreed or disagreed with it.

That's awfully logical, making a reasoned point instead of just ranting about what you like or don't like. Are you sure that's allowed?

[MrMark]

45% at 150K will, at the worst, only marginally affect some high-end contractors.

It won't raise much tax either, but it will win some votes.

With all this extra (borrowed) money swilling around, there's bound to be some inflation. Of course it could be argued that it's better than several years of deflation, but one consequence will be that 150k in 2017 will be the equivalent of 70k now ie a lot more people will earn that much. They won't be able to buy as much as 70k does now (in fact they'll probably buy less) but that's inflation for you. And the govt. of the day (assuming the policy is implemented by an election winning Labour party ha ha) will gladly accept the extra dosh.

You can see why Gordo and Darling have put this forward. It can be presented as a "don't worry we'll save your jobs, plus we'll tax those evil high-earning bankers who got us into this mess". I'm afraid that fear of being without work far outweighs the annoyance of extra taxes.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I merely pointed out that the opposite was true - the poll tax was far simpler than the rating system that it replac.

I disagree that rates were more complex - I agree politics did for the Poll Tax but Thatcher wasn't persuaded by idealogy - the problem was that councils and courts couldn't keep pace with non payers - if that ain't red tape what is?

[DodgyAgent]

That was not the point. Someone was criticising the Thatcher government for introducing complex legislation, and used the poll tax as an example.

I merely pointed out that the opposite was true - the poll tax was far simpler than the rating system that it replaced.

I also pointed out that it was politically unacceptable. I never said I personally agreed or disagreed with it.

Fair enough

[Doggy Styles]

Its a bit like saying everyone no matter how much they earn should pay the same amount of tax. The poll tax was wrong.

That was not the point. Someone was criticising the Thatcher government for introducing complex legislation, and used the poll tax as an example.

I merely pointed out that the opposite was true - the poll tax was far simpler than the rating system that it replaced.

I also pointed out that it was politically unacceptable. I never said I personally agreed or disagreed with it.

[deano]

In those days tax was 90%, nobody is that stupid to do that again.

There are plenty of people stupid enough to do that again. The unions, the eco-mentalists, the European Commission. The list is endless.

[minestrone]

They can probably get away with 45% and even 50% but there will come a point.

They can put it up as much as they want, the only folk that will move are the people who have truly international earnings. They probably produce 0.0001% of the treasury income just now.

[DodgyAgent]

The poll tax was to pay for local services, why should I pay more than the chavs when I get the same services as them.

Sure I have a bigger house but our refuse are probably the same, water usage the same, demand on the local servies pretty much the same.

Your argument also applies to income tax. I dont think we want to live in a society that is so focussed on money. There are certain things that we as a society should provide for each other at a minimal cost, subsidised by the better off such as health, education, security and dustbin emptying

[ratewhore]

whats this about deferring CT increase for small business?

[DodgyAgent]

In those days tax was 90%, nobody is that stupid to do that again.

They can probably get away with 45% and even 50% but there will come a point.