50% rate of tax to be abolished.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sylvain

Sylvain

Player Valuation: £1m
Thoughts?

50% is high but we are in austere times.

I don't buy into the argument that removing the top rate of tax will encourage businesses to employ more people. Would a sustainble business that has the capacity to employ people anyway, pay it's owner (who then has to be taxed at 40% anyway) and who will then decide to reinvest it in the company. I don't believe it, taxing income and bonuses doesn't hurt business and banks, taxing profits probaly does.

I think the tax system on paper doesn't look fair either, why should somebody earning just over 34k, with a mortgage to pay and a family to support, who's also loosing child benefit and tax credits., pay tax at the the same rate as somebody earning even 100k, let alone the 150k the 40% band currently extends to .
 

Good. The government have no right to take 50% of anyones income. When you add in national insurance, VAT and every other tax as well it becomes an absurd situation. It'd be nice if they chopped the 40% rate a whole lot as well.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
Good. The government have no right to take 50% of anyones income. When you add in national insurance, VAT and every other tax as well it becomes an absurd situation. It'd be nice if they chopped the 40% rate a whole lot as well.
Click to expand...

hahah! good one, that would be sensible(it wouldnt)
 
I've no problem with it being lowered if the economic conditions where better than they are but according to the government we're still up **** creek minus a paddle and as such sadly taxation and i mean up front taxation not the hidden malarky is a far fairer way for everyone to dig in and help out,becuase after all we're all in this together.
 

Bruce Wayne said:
FFS not you as well. Can't you boys back up your opinions? :lol:
Click to expand...

Ha Ha. I'll try.

The 40% bracket exists above 35k and high earners still pay the 20% rate, on the same amount as low income earners, and relativley high earners get a personal allowance (no taxation) of 8k (or something like that) as well.

If this country was enjoying prosperity and the economy was considered sustainble and with secure infrastructure, then maybe their would be some (the rich) suggesting a lower rate than 40%. As it is, it's only you Batman suggesting it.

I think a more reasonble suggestion would be the reintroduction of a 10% bracket of tax, it's the low income earners who need help. Altough, of course high income earners would also equally benefit from that bracket.

Have you noticed the state of the economy? The treasury and therefore and therefore the defecit reduction will not be helped by a lower than 40% band.

So don't suggest the higher rate of tax should be reduced.
 

Only hit about 350k people anyway. The so called mansion tax is a joke as well as how many homes are valued at £2mill or over?
Will palaces be on the agenda?
 
neil999 said:
where would you get the money thet would missing from cutting the top rate of tax?
Click to expand...

Sylvain said:
Ha Ha. I'll try.

The 40% bracket exists above 35k and high earners still pay the 20% rate, on the same amount as low income earners, and relativley high earners get a personal allowance (no taxation) of 8k (or something like that) as well.

If this country was enjoying prosperity and the economy was considered sustainble and with secure infrastructure, then maybe their would be some (the rich) suggesting a lower rate than 40%. As it is, it's only you Batman suggesting it.

I think a more reasonble suggestion would be the reintroduction of a 10% bracket of tax, it's the low income earners who need help. Altough, of course high income earners would also equally benefit from that bracket.

Have you noticed the state of the economy? The treasury and therefore and therefore the defecit reduction will not be helped by a lower than 40% band.

So don't suggest the higher rate of tax should be reduced.
Click to expand...

That assumes two things.

Firstly it assumes that the tax level doesn't harm the ability to grow the economy. To use a football example for instance, we've seen recently many leading players move to Spain, due in part to the better tax they'd get there compared to here. I don't really buy the argument that you wouldn't build a company because of the tax rate (unless it's really, really high), because that doesn't really enter your thinking at the outset. BUT, if you have a mobile individual (a footballer for instance), and all things being equal you had a choice of two countries to live in, one where you got to keep 80% of the money you earn, the other where you only got to keep 50% of it, which would you choose? Given that the top rate tax payers pay much more tax than lower rate tax payers (as a percentage of the whole), it doesn't take many of those to up sticks for the total tax take to go down.

The second assumption is that everyone in the top tax band pays 50%. Lets face it here, the accountancy industry might exist in part to ensure we don't fall foul of the inland revenue and obey the rules, but I suspect it exists much more because they have the skills to ensure people pay as little tax as possible. We've all seen stories of people like Warren Buffet paying less tax (proportionally) than their cleaner does. Heck even some local council officials were doing that recently. Tax avoidance is rife, and it's hardly surprising to see people paying accountants to ensure they get to keep as much of their own money as possible. The higher the rate, the more avoidance will go on.

A simpler tax system, say a flat tax, would not only save a fortune when you think of all the money spent collecting taxes, understanding taxes, filing taxes and so on, but it'd also I dare say reduce avoidance. Most of the countries that have tried a flat tax for instance have seen revenue go up, despite the nominal tax brackets going down. Records show that the total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has not changed that much historically, despite their being significant shifts in tax rates during that time.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
That assumes two things.

Firstly it assumes that the tax level doesn't harm the ability to grow the economy. To use a football example for instance, we've seen recently many leading players move to Spain, due in part to the better tax they'd get there compared to here. I don't really buy the argument that you wouldn't build a company because of the tax rate (unless it's really, really high), because that doesn't really enter your thinking at the outset. BUT, if you have a mobile individual (a footballer for instance), and all things being equal you had a choice of two countries to live in, one where you got to keep 80% of the money you earn, the other where you only got to keep 50% of it, which would you choose? Given that the top rate tax payers pay much more tax than lower rate tax payers (as a percentage of the whole), it doesn't take many of those to up sticks for the total tax take to go down.

The second assumption is that everyone in the top tax band pays 50%. Lets face it here, the accountancy industry might exist in part to ensure we don't fall foul of the inland revenue and obey the rules, but I suspect it exists much more because they have the skills to ensure people pay as little tax as possible. We've all seen stories of people like Warren Buffet paying less tax (proportionally) than their cleaner does. Heck even some local council officials were doing that recently. Tax avoidance is rife, and it's hardly surprising to see people paying accountants to ensure they get to keep as much of their own money as possible. The higher the rate, the more avoidance will go on.

A simpler tax system, say a flat tax, would not only save a fortune when you think of all the money spent collecting taxes, understanding taxes, filing taxes and so on, but it'd also I dare say reduce avoidance. Most of the countries that have tried a flat tax for instance have seen revenue go up, despite the nominal tax brackets going down. Records show that the total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has not changed that much historically, despite their being significant shifts in tax rates during that time.
Click to expand...

Some of what you say may be correct, but tax evasion shouldn't justify getting rid of the 50% tax rate, instead more effort should be made to crack down on it. I also don't think using just one industry and only exulusive type of tax payer within it, foreign imported players, who reject an offer from Spain or Italy, is enough to argue it will bring in more money.

I'm not even going to argue against lowering the 40% bracket now, because quite frankly there is no debate.
 
That was merely an example. The film industry often locate movies wherever the tax incentives are best for them. You suspect the same is the case for any manner of other industries where talent can move to other countries easily.

More effort = more money spent on collecting taxes rather than on what taxes are supposed to be used for. The system is already too complicated as it is and wastes huge sums of time and money on collection and policing on one side, and adherence and avoidance on the other side. The tax system should be made simpler, not more complicated.

I'm not even going to argue against lowering the 40% bracket now, because quite frankly there is no debate.
Click to expand...

Why?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top