Poll: The Budget
- Thread starter No1newts
- Start date
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
Go south on their bikes?
What, not even waiting for the figures to come in? So much for the champion of "evidence-based policy making"...
From the leaks (again, not confirmed), it appears the 50p rate is only raising a few hundred million a year. Abolishing the 50p rate and implementing a general avoidance rule will be far more productive in terms of trying to balance the budget, although it is worth noting that we don't have a taxation shortfall, we have an excessive spending problem.
Don
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/15/george-osborne-top-tax-rate
The projected £2.6bn a year tax rase didn't even happen in the first year, it fell short and continues to fall as people move their money and themselves out of the country. It's damaged the UK economy.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
Isnt that the point ? It is questionable that the 50p rate does raise more taxes and if removing it means a greater tax take then it makes sense to remove it. Keeping it otherwise is just an act of appeasing the rich haters.
Im not saying whether the 50p rate does or does not raise more taxes as I havent seen any proof either way.
There's been leaks so far, and the self assessment data doesn't look hopeful for the tax raising anything like the level of income Labour claimed when they brought it in (or indeed Osborne claimed when he declined to remove it in the past).
The evidence historically is pretty clear, high tax rates don't achieve greater income. Compare the income distribution for taxation from the 1970 to today.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf
Section 4, page 35ish onwards. The table on page 41 is especially interesting to show how much the income tax burden shifted to the top end as the tax rates were reduced.
As to whether its damaged the economy is your opinion. Fact is, both right and left-wing forecasters are looking at a higher tax dividend because of the 50% tax rate. Whether this does turn out to hundreds of millions or six billion is not particularly interesting in other than it proves that despite the right-wing protestations to the contrary, we weren't to the right of their much-loved Laffer Curve.
To a more general audience, as to whether the additional tax yield of 'hundreds of millions' is worth bothering about. I would hope these people ask whether they presented an consistent argument for bothering about our foreign aid bill which also adds up to the same total...
Of course clamping down on tax evasion and the more, unscrupulous, tax avoidance would be important too in boosting the overall total. I'd like to see urgent policy made in this regard, but I won't hold my breath.
On the contrary, if the levy was expected to raise £2.5bn, and it only raised a few hundred, that exactly proves the point of the Laffer curve
I've never made a fuss about foreign aid bills, however the big ticket items of welfare spending and public sector employment costs have the potential to produce far more savings than a few hundred million if they are sorted out, and yet you're constantly opposed to such things.
Well, tax evasion is already illegal, and pretty well clamped down upon. Tax avoidance can only really be clamped down on by simplifying the tax system, because it's the vast complexity (made far worse by the previous government), and the inconsistent application of tax rates that creates the avoidance situation. Having said that, I'd have no problem with either a general avoidance rule or a tycoon tax as proposed by the Lib Dems.
Yes, the historical evidence would be exceptionally useful if all the variable conditions remained the same every time such a change in taxation policy occured. In real terms however, it just remains a useful guide.
Still, there are a lot of fans of 'clairvoyance-based policy-making' so at least you won't be lonely...
Soldato
I don't agree with regional variations for SOME public service jobs e.g. Emergency Services. You really want coppers, firemen, paramedics to be paid depending on where they work (over and above London weighting which some get)?
Simple question, will you support the removal of the 50p band if it demonstrated that it doesn't work effectively?
Last edited:
Yes, because to be fair to the taxpayer, pay rates should be set at the level that attracts the right staff, which varies by area.
Why do you think they should be fixed?
Why would you be a copper in Sheffield if you could have exactly the same disposable income after living costs if you instead decided to just move to Hertfordshire? Hertfordshire is a nicer place to live.
Currently, it's more expensive to live in Hertfordshire so you can increase your disposable income after living expenses by living somewhere cheaper if you are a police officer. This helps stop everyone just moving to the nice parts of the country. One of the main reasons why there isn't an even bigger North/South divide than there is now is because the cost of living in the South versus the North puts enough people off to prevent huge North-South migration.
Perhaps we should pay police officers different rates of pay depending on the car they chose to drive or the holidays they go on, so that a police officer who drives an Audi and holidays in Hawaii has the same disposable income after said purchases as one who drives a Corsa and holidays in Bognor Regis?
Last edited:
On the contrary, if the levy was expected to raise £2.5bn, and it only raised a few hundred, that exactly proves the point of the Laffer curve
Well, lets take a closer look at that figure of 2.5bn (or 2.6bn is the correct figure IIRC). It's actually based on an uncharacteristic growth for recent years in the number of 150k'ers for the past year. Considering our economy is dead, that is rather unlikely. The common sense perception is that the total number of 150k'ers has probably remained static and if so, this would make my claim correct.
There is a good reason the public sector and the welfare state costs. It's the price of having a civilised nation and not some kind of textbook libertarian 'utopia' or minarchist Victorian slum.
When I talk about clamping down on tax evasion I refer to the kind of cushy deals made with Swiss banks and the UK tax evaders they shield.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 3,728
How come when the minority rich are seen as 'unfairly taxed' it's very bad for the economy, yet it's ok to reduce the living standards of millions of working class people without so much as a backward glance. 
[TW]Fox;21497671 said:
How is this relevant when the definition of pay given is 'sufficient to attract and retain the appropriately skilled employees'?
But there are a finite number of jobs in these areas... this, combined with the above 'attracting and retaining appropriate employees' ensures fairness for both the employee and the taxpayer.
Perhaps we should pay police officers different rates of pay depending on the car they chose to drive or the holidays they go on, so that a police officer who drives an Audi and holidays in Hawaii has the same disposable income after said purchases as one who drives a Corsa and holidays in Bognor Regis?
Why? It's not the same thing at all. One is related to ensuring value for money for the population who have their income forcibly taken to pay for these things, and the other is about personal choices of the employee...
How come when the minority rich are seen as 'unfairly taxed' it's very bad for the economy, yet it's ok to reduce the living standards of millions of working class people without so much as a backward glance.
Because the rich self-fund whereas the poor tend to be funded by others, and there is a world of difference between not taking as much of someone's property, and not giving someone as much of other people's property?