Reply to: UKIP Tax Policies

[SizeZero]

In 1654, Oliver Cromwell was paid £70,000 a year, an astronomical sum.

Tyranny and Dictatorship, that's where the real money is.

[d000hg]

So does that mean that if you earn £45k that you are in the country's top 10% of earners? Sadly it's not as simple as that. The ASHE is a sample of 1% of people who pay tax via PAYE. It doesn't include the self-employed - businessmen, contractors etc - who make up the ranks of the really wealthy

Hmm.

[gingerjedi]

So if we say increase tax on income over £50k to 80%, what's the point of any company offering a salary >£50k when it makes so little difference? And where's the motivation for someone to find a job paying >£50k?

On here it's often said that 50% of a low rate is more than 100% of nothing. Shouldn't the same be true for taxes... even IF you want to generate the maximum tax, do you really think that would happen at tax of 80%? I;d imagine you could plot a graph of tax% Vs tax paid and it would peak at some % and then go down again.

So if you really want to get the most tax to help those in need, rather than punish the rich, proper analysis should be done to find that 'sweet spot'.

You might find this interesting: BBC NEWS | Magazine | Just what is a big salary?

The last decades have provided a contrast to most of the 20th Century when it was harder to become rich and attitudes were different, suggests Prof Rubinstein.

"In the 20th Century there was a great deal of hostility for ideological reasons. Fifty years ago there was not only hostility from the left but a great many bars to becoming really wealthy."

Apart from anything the tax regime was "confiscatory", Prof Rubinstein says.

In a recent essay, he cites the extraordinary example of an Inland Revenue officer who in 1953 claimed there were only 36 people in the UK with an after-tax income of £6,000 or more. This might equate £200,000 today. Their pre-tax income would have been £56,000 or more.

It's quite astonishing... if it's true of course.

[d000hg]

No point in trying to rationalise it with Tarkers. He has been brainwashed, and just sees this as a bit more Toff-Bashing and wealth redistribution "until the pips squeak"!
He is more to be pitied than scolded!

No doubt. But I think it's more interesting to discuss the theory of optimum taxation to gather maximum revenue for HMRC.

[DodgyAgent]

Yes, that's what I mean. The rich should pay tax at a higher rate than the poor, since they are more able to pay a higher rate than the poor are. In fact the rich should pay a lot more. No way should the top tax rate be at or below 50%.

So which stupid fool is going to want to earn a salary that is going to be taxed at over 60%? which of course then begs the question of who is going to bother to start a business and take risks when most of the rewards will be taken away in tax?

I rather fancy that your bigotry and envy are shining through here tarquin. What you find offensive is people earning more money than you. The whole way you talk is of taxation being used as a form of punishment. Again there is no effort to argue how high rates of tax will actually benefit anyone.

[shaunbhoy]

So if we say increase tax on income over £50k to 80%, what's the point of any company offering a salary >£50k when it makes so little difference? And where's the motivation for someone to find a job paying >£50k?

On here it's often said that 50% of a low rate is more than 100% of nothing. Shouldn't the same be true for taxes... even IF you want to generate the maximum tax, do you really think that would happen at tax of 80%? I;d imagine you could plot a graph of tax% Vs tax paid and it would peak at some % and then go down again.

So if you really want to get the most tax to help those in need, rather than punish the rich, proper analysis should be done to find that 'sweet spot'.

No point in trying to rationalise it with Tarkers. He has been brainwashed, and just sees this as a bit more Toff-Bashing and wealth redistribution "until the pips squeak"!
He is more to be pitied than scolded!

[d000hg]

So if we say increase tax on income over £50k to 80%, what's the point of any company offering a salary >£50k when it makes so little difference? And where's the motivation for someone to find a job paying >£50k?

On here it's often said that 50% of a low rate is more than 100% of nothing. Shouldn't the same be true for taxes... even IF you want to generate the maximum tax, do you really think that would happen at tax of 80%? I;d imagine you could plot a graph of tax% Vs tax paid and it would peak at some % and then go down again.

So if you really want to get the most tax to help those in need, rather than punish the rich, proper analysis should be done to find that 'sweet spot'.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

Eh? They are not paying the same, but the same rate!

Yes, that's what I mean. The rich should pay tax at a higher rate than the poor, since they are more able to pay a higher rate than the poor are. In fact the rich should pay a lot more. No way should the top tax rate be at or below 50%.

[shaunbhoy]

Absolutely not. The rich are more able to pay, so it would be terribly unfair to make them pay the same as the poor.

I can see you studied Arithmetic and Maths at an Education, Education, Educational establishment created and sponsored by NL.


Poor old Tarkers...............thicker than a Whale Omelette!!

[lilelvis2000]

If you call being female, sitting in the corner wearing next to nothing and looking pretty a worthwhile job for an attractive female then yes.

Sounds like a job advert for a Glamour model.

[DodgyAgent]

You're going to the wrong venue, if they are just sitting in the corner

[Jeebo72]

If you call being female, sitting in the corner wearing next to nothing and looking pretty a worthwhile job for an attractive female then yes.

You're going to the wrong venue, if they are just sitting in the corner

[Jeebo72]

Absolutely not. The rich are more able to pay, so it would be terribly unfair to make them pay the same as the poor.

"Fair" is when people pay according to their ability. And receive according to their needs.

Eh? They are not paying the same, but the same rate!

[DodgyAgent]

Does the money spent on your services create proper jobs for people?

If you call being female, sitting in the corner wearing next to nothing and looking pretty a worthwhile job for an attractive female then yes.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

The better question however is this:

Would the tax be spent on buying nice cars and holidays thus creating proper jobs for people.

Yes. As long as they are British.