Poll: The Budget
- Thread starter No1newts
- Start date
Just to take one example of the above — Lewis Hamilton left the UK to avoid paying tax in 2007. The 50p rate of tax was introduced in 2010, so I don't see dropping the top rate by 5p enticing him back any time soon.
I know this is just one example, but I really can't see it making the overwhelming difference Osborne is betting on.
Compared to other Western countries the UK really doesn't have a debilitating 'tax problem'. I would suggest if individuals are going to avoid living in the UK due to tax, they aren't going to go to many other places except perhaps Switzerland, USA or Canada.
However, they will still benefit the UK economy by doing business with us, and while they themselves might not pay UK tax, their employees and other segments of the supply chain will contribute to our economy.
What I'm trying to say is, if they were avoiding the old 40p top rate they will have avoided the 50p rate and will continue to avoid the new 45p rate.
It's not going to make a huge difference.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 May 2009
- Posts
- 566
I would agree with this if it were the case that the 'brains of our society' were so because of genuine talent. I would suspect though that a good deal (not all, obviously) is down to favourable conditions outside of genuine talent. In these scenarios the argument that 'they're the best, they deserve it' holds no ethical weight imo.
Wasn't 50% tax rate the biggest tax on income in Europe and no I don't think dropping it 5p will do much in that regard, but then his speech didn't say it would. It was. More the corporate incentives that would attract business as well as the reserch and talent grants and then tightening up on tax avoidance to claw back money.
But it was mainly a post about people do and are leaving the uk, why wouldn't you if you're rich. You can fly back when ever you want.
I still want to see a much higher personal allowance. ~16k and a flat tax there after. As well as simplifying other tax areas, which they are least doing in some small way and tight pending up on loop holes which again they are doing in some small way.
This is just nonsense. In the UK anyone can go to university if they have the ability, anyone can get good grades at university if they have the ability, and anyone can apply for well paying jobs if they have the ability.
Higher education is incredibly cheap in the UK and the student loans system means that cost is simply not a factor for doing a worthwhile degree. Actually the poorest do the best and get grants or bursaries. It is the children of rich parents that are most disadvantaged here.
You don't have to be rich to go to a top 10 university. You don't have to be rich to be awarded internships. You don't have to be rich to get a First in Maths from Ox-bridge.
Nah, there are a few EU countries with top rates around 50%:
Austria: 50%
Belgium: 50%
Finland: 53%
Netherlands: 52%
Norway: 54.3%
Sweden: 56.6%
And then countries like Germany, France and Italy are all around 45%.
As I understand it, the 50p rate was supposed to raise £3bn in 2011/12 but only raised £1bn. The idea of lowering this top rate to 45p is supposed to bridge the gap so we do generate £3bn from the top-rate earners.
I just can't see this happening because, as we both agree, people are going to leave the UK for tax havens no matter what and they won't be going to any of the other EU countries with the same tax rates as us IF the tax rate is the deciding factor for choosing where to live.
The make up wasn't in the drop. The make up was the tightening on tax avoidance, stamp duty for companies and the like. Iirc weren't these measure forecast to earn the government 5times more than the 50% rate. Assuming its based on the 1billion rather than the forecast.
Be use it made the government next to nothing. Some quotes as low as 100million. 1 billion was what was taken, not the profit.
By lowering it, you also make it more attractive for people to come to the uk, especially with the other measures announced to day, coporation tax, reserch, talent grants etc.
They are closing the loopholes or some off them, why shaft them more than needed and lets remember 50% tax rate doesn't affect the super rich much. It affects the payee guys far more as they can't get paid in other ways. Be much better off with a "tycoon" tax which is what Lib Dems want.
The problem with that statement is the first claim - "anyone can go to university if they have the ability". There's some truth in it, but there are also many issues. For example, do you not find it a coincidence that university attendance rates of students that come from poor backgrounds are significantly lower than those that come from wealthy? I imagine the key differentiator is the quality of primary and secondary education. Poor areas typically have bad primary and secondary schools, which means that even the brightest pupils do not get the education and start in life they deserve, resulting in them never achieving their potential and not going to university, and then not achieving any of the other things you list.
I don't pay any attention to what labour say, Ive read the BMJ and all the other academic sources who say its going to screw the NHS, even the doctors think its a load of **** and they are the ones now doing the commissioning
Because the 50% tax rate is fundamentally unfair and one of the highest punishments for success in the world?
A lot of the academic sources don't like the competition it brings, and a lot are after what's best for them in a selfish way.
We have the Royal Collage of Surgeons to thank for us having to wait weeks for minor surgical procedures at the hospital instead of them being done at your GPs for instance.
Last edited:
I will be £171 better off, more then the Labour party and Gorden ******* Brown ever gave me
Last edited:
The key difference is a complex array of social factors, not money.
IF a child's parents are intelligent and hardworking then are likely to be wealthier and to have more intelligent and hardworking offspring (intelligence is largely related to genetics and family environment/upbringing). Thus children of wealthy intelligent parents will likely go to university and do well, but that has nothing to do with wealth.
The converse is also going to hold, with children of lazy workshy parents being less likely to put in the effort to get the grades and go to university.
If a child is bright then they will tend to do well regardless of the school system, especially if the parents are responsible. Having poor teaching standards wont limit a bright child. I know, my teachers were god awful and I had a terrible time at school due to various reasons. But I worked hard, I got some supporting books, often free from the school library. My parents were close to the poverty line when i went to university. Finances had nothing to do with it.
These are generalizations and i am to saying this is always the case without exception. But it does explain why on average students come from wealthier backgrounds. There may be a small minority of children who get severely disadvantaged by the school, but again, a bright child with caring parents can take care of this without cost.
My parents were very supportive of my homework, helped teach things above an beyond the school curriculum, made sure I took the mock exams seriously.
Any parent who thinks their child is not being properly educated at school can do a lot to help with no or minimal costs.
Couldn't agree more, when you get parents who pay no interest in education what do you expect and when you get parents who come in and punch the headmaster for calling the police on their kids for stonning another teacher. What hope is there.
On the other hand I know someone rom one of the worst estates in Liverpool, no had. A single mother and very much definition of extremely poor and yet had the support, went to uni, then masters and has a very good job.
On the other hand I know someone rom one of the worst estates in Liverpool, no had. A single mother and very much definition of extremely poor and yet had the support, went to uni, then masters and has a very good job.
I don't think there's much bashing, it's more of a desire to find a balance.
The 50p tax rate probably makes little difference, anyone that is lucky to earn enough to be affected by that rate are probably in a position to be able to receive their income in a way that circumvents this anyway.
I do however see the benefits in taxing the wealthy more to an extent. Putting money into the pockets of people at the lower end creates a fairer and more stable society that promotes demand and growth from the bottom up. This in turn creates far more demand and thus the entrepreneurial spirit and desire and growth that stems from this to meet it.
Far more than the rich sequestering their huge sums away because they feel entitled to take advantage of the opportunities this country gives, without ensuring this society can keep supporting growth and opportunity in the future.
This is why it makes no sense, it doesn't affect the super rich. It massively afffects the successful people in ordinary jobs, who get a payslip just like us and can't do anything about avoiding it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,381
- Location
- Bucks
On the subject of education a lot of it is down to personal belief and someone telling a student that yes they can't do it. As someone that works for Oxford uni you can imagine the amount of students that see us at a he fair and laugh whilst muttering no chance. Normally I grab them and 8/10 there exceptionally bright, predicted bs and as and actually would have a shot for the top unis. Problem being the schools aren't informing them, their parents are useless and I would be the first person to actually tell them they have a chance!
The whole education system is a series of steps that requires everyone to contribute and if one of those steps gets missed then that could potentially result in said student underacheiving etc etc.
I talk to a lot of teachers , there are some great ones out there but my god some teachers and heads of sixth should not be employed and their attitude to top unis absolutely sucks and really makes me angry....it's their job to get the best out of students and they couldnt give a **** and iv noticed it happens more up north than it does down south.
Rant over
The whole education system is a series of steps that requires everyone to contribute and if one of those steps gets missed then that could potentially result in said student underacheiving etc etc.
I talk to a lot of teachers , there are some great ones out there but my god some teachers and heads of sixth should not be employed and their attitude to top unis absolutely sucks and really makes me angry....it's their job to get the best out of students and they couldnt give a **** and iv noticed it happens more up north than it does down south.
Rant over
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 6 May 2009
- Posts
- 566
You said my comment was 'total nonsense' then go on to detail a number of 'favourable conditions' that I was talking about
I was saying that from an ethical point of view it does not make sense to conclude that people who have had more help (however delivered- you are suggesting that a big part of this is your parents- I agree. I think we have simialr views on this) to get educated / get opportunities 'deserve' greater benefits, in this case wealth. I didn't say or imply that it is wealth that necessarily increases opportunities.
If you read the evidence/policy about 'early intervention' (Ian Duncan Smith) there are pretty clear links between underachieving parents and underachieving kids, and links between poorer material situations and poor parenting, so wealth is a factor to some degree in these cases, not necessarily the factor.