Does anyone here pay 50p tax?
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
Suspended
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,707
- Location
- Buckingamshire
Complete nonsense, people still strived for success when the top rate of income tax was 60% prior to 1988. The 50% tax rate was the first meaningful increase in a long, long time. If people have a problem with that tax rate, volunteer to take a pay cut so you're not affected by it. Of course no-one actually would because there's still a massive incentive to earn more.
You need to learn to read. I didn't suggest I wouldn't strive for success, I suggested there's not a lot of incentive to. People shouldn't have to take a pay cut, the tax rate should be set fairly so that those who do well keep almost all of the fruits of their efforts.
Striving does not guarantee results. Far too many successful people ascribe their success to to their own hard work, ignoring the how much is luck or other privileges such as their upbringing.
They do. By your reasoning there shouldn't be a band when it goes up from 20% to 40% then? Perhaps just a flat rate of 30% for everybody?
And once it was 98% tax. Now that really did stop anybody striving to be successful and earn more. Oh wait, my bosses grandfather just used the profits in the company to buy ferraris and rolls royces rather than pay himself a wage which left him 2p in the pound.
The funny thing is although it does take hard work, there are many top end earners who got lucky and inherited the business, met people who helped them out greatly or won the money to set them up. Like they say these days it's who you know not what you know, otherwise all these people who put the effort in at uni would be on 150k+ per annum but many of them are in jobs you can get straight out of school.
Suspended
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,707
- Location
- Buckingamshire
That's right. Banding is retarded. A flat rate would be fine with me.
You do need to work hard but good luck does play a part.
The old company I worked for was started by the father in the 50's as a one man band septic tank business. The son took it over later and had about 10 to 20 employees.
Luckily, his company were placed in the right place at the right time and he made millions out of the coal mines shutting down. I can remember 6 tankers and 12 men been billed for full 12 hour days at weekends at double rates at the mines when they were tucked up at home in bed.
Equally I know another company during foot and mouth who got the gig for all contractors to go through them as the government weren't organised. In one year their profits went from the normal £1m to £30m and each of the 4 brothers took a £6m dividend that year.
Suspended
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,707
- Location
- Buckingamshire
I disagree. 30% for low earners would be cripling and high earners would just have even more money.
It would never happen anyway. Imagine the government brave enough to increase the tax on 26 million of the popoulation for the benifit of 3 million of the high bracket earners?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 4,188
I dont pay the 50p rate, but I don't agree with it. I would have been happy to see it cut back to 40p. I don't think it ethical to penalise people for being successful (and/or wealthy). As you earn more you start to give back shocking amounts in tax. e.g If you earn 100k you will pay roughly 40k back to the tax man. That is a shockingly high amount and in no way relates to how much will be spent on them over their life time. As such the successful end up massively subsidising the rest of society.
It makes my blood boil reading the comments on articles in the guardian. The sense of entitlement is incredible. e.g the Tories are fascist scum for capping housing benefit. and the left's sense of entitlement over someone else earnings is similarly shocking.
It makes my blood boil reading the comments on articles in the guardian. The sense of entitlement is incredible. e.g the Tories are fascist scum for capping housing benefit. and the left's sense of entitlement over someone else earnings is similarly shocking.
If you think that's what I was saying you missed the point completely.No silver spoon for me. If only
Suspended
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,707
- Location
- Buckingamshire
Good point actually, and also the wealthy put a huge amount of money back into the economy on things they buy, e.g. cars, electronics, clothes etc etc.
LOL. For someone who has strived so hard to let us all know you pay the 50% tax rate you're coming across as incredibly dense. Yes you said there was "almost no incentive" and I told you why there was still a huge incentive. Progressive income tax bands are the fairest rates (though the word fair doesn't really mean much), that's why it's used in most systems around the world.
As a proportion of their income, higher earners generally put less back into the economy through spending - this is because they have a low marginal propensity to consume and a high marginal propensity to save. If you want to stimulate the economy, it's far more effective to cut taxes for lower and middle earners.
That doesn't make much sense to me as people earning hundreds of thousands of pounds who go out and buy cars 80k+ are spending more than some normal earners would spend on cars in their lifetime?
Why would the low earners pay more tax with a flat rate system? The low earners would actually be better off due to a much higher tax free allowance.
Basically there is some threshold amount of tax free allowance that allows you to live by and everything above that threshold is taxed at an equal rate for everyone. Really can't get fairer than that.
This is utter garbage, did you even think for 1 second before posting?
Even if high income earners can save more money they will still spend far more moneyby very definition that they have more money to spend. What do you think happens to all the money spent on cars, big TVs, Bly-ray players, new computers, big house, cleaning lady, gardener, family lawyers, private medical, new furniture, new clothes, new toys.
You have it the complete wrong way round. The more disposable income someone has the more they can purchase, and typically of higher value items, and these things are taxable through VAT. A low income earner won't have much disposable income for luxuries so most of their purchases are on VAT free or low rate items such as food.
As I have already stated in this thread, I really and truly would not care if I paid the 50% tax band. I have never worried about the tax I have paid so far in the 20 years of my working life, and that's when I have paid 40% too. So paying an extra 10% on amounts over £150,000 would not bother me one jot.
And since the guests on Question Time (Will Self and another) both said they were more than happy to pay the 50% rate that they do, then it does reinforce my belief that the people who do complain are just greedy. *shrug*
So I guess when you have children you will decline the 15 hours / week free nursery education and pay for it yourself?