Tax Rate damages UK?

[LazyGun]

So, according to some economists, the 50% tax rate on earnings over £150,000 pa should be abolished. 1% of taxpayers fall into this bracket, and the IRS are looking at revenue generated ( I thought I read somewhere that it generated around £2 billion pa, but I might be wrong).

So, do you think that such a tax, affecting such small numbers, really does discourage job creating entrepreneurs, hence harming the UKs economic outlook ?

What kind of message would removing such a tax for the richest 1% have on the rest of society in this age of austerity, when we are all having to contribute to paying down the national debt? Does it feel fair ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14810323

[Hopkirk]

Personally I have never understood why a high earner should pay a higher percentage. They are paying more anyway.

If the higher rate sends quality people away from this country, we all lose.

[flip_flop]

That's never really made sense to me either Hopkirk.

[Gromit]

No one is paying 50% tax rate. Anyone with any serious amount of money pays accountants to legally avoid high tax hits. Many are paying less a less % than you and me. Some famously pay nothing, the Murdoch's for example.

The telling phrase her is...
// They are part of a campaign being promoted through a PR firm. //

What I want to know is, who is paying for this PR campaign? How much tax do they pay? What is their politics?



Warren Buffett (Super Rich American) says we should stop coddling the rich and has said they should pay more to get us out of this mess because they will benefit more.
// While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places. //

http://www.nytimes.co...per-rich.html?_r=2&hp

//

[jno]

conversely if the higher rate sends incompetent idiots (like Fred the shred) abroad, we'd all be better off. How many of these high payers have actually benefited the country (as opposed to benefiting their shareholders)? How many have made it poorer?

[Hopkirk]

"No one is paying 50% tax rate"

Really Gromit?

I bet a few here will disagree.

[Gromit]

Here is the letter to the Financial Times (on which this report is based).

http://www.ft.com/cms...c0.html#axzz1XFldvs86

[I.Don No]

I, for one, would love to be able to pay tax at 50%........It would be luvlee to earn enough to make that possible.

[jake-the-peg]

And don't forget this is only levied on earnings over £150,000

all your earnings under that are at lesser rates.

Frankly I suspect the majority of people earning over that are drawing their income as dividends on their companies and only paying 42.5% anyway!

[Hopkirk]

I feel a bit silly as I thought the 50% rate came in at about forty something thousand, but that's the 40% rate.

I don't reach that either.

[ichkeria]

I have no idea whether it is harmful or not, but for every economist who says it is at least one will say it isn't. Echoing Gromit, I would be deeply suspicious of these "cabal-like" pronouncements from "groups of economists".

I also find it interesting that we automatically assume that just because someone is earning a lot of money they are somehow a "quality" individual who we need to protect like some sort of endangered species. I am not sure that follows at all.

[Gromit]

Biog of Dr DeAnne Julius, the letter writer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeAnne_Julius

[Gromit]

...for every economist who says it is at least one will say it isn't.

// Other leading economists are more sceptical. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and not a signatory of the letter, said it was much too early to give up on the 50p rate: “The Treasury has been taking a punt on whether [the 50p rate] will raise money. It is taking a risk, but it is not a stupid punt.” //

http://www.ft.com/cms...amp=rss#axzz1XFldvs86

[Sqad]

Ichkeria

///I also find it interesting that we automatically assume that just because someone is earning a lot of money they are somehow a "quality" individual who we need to protect like some sort of endangered species. I am not sure that follows at all.///

Might there be another possibility for these "high earners", immigrants or indigenous but hard working individuals who have built up their businesses, employ many people, pay their income tax, Corporation tax and contribute to society?

Naaaah!......wealthy s0ds lets's "stuff em"

[Gromit]

Sqad

Can you please explain this chart, I am having trouble comprehending it in relation to your comment about contributing to society.

http://graphics.thoms...US_MURDOCH0711_SC.gif

[Sqad]

Gromit....this may surprise you, but Murdoch is not the only UK taxpayer to earn more than £150,000 per annum.

[Sqad]

Gromit...and no, I cannot explain that chart.....but good luck to him.

[Brenden]

Brings to mind a quote by Andrew Lang "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts - for support rather than illumination.

[Old_Geezer]

It is an old excuse that I simply doubt is so. If there is money to be made and a challenge to be met, someone will be there to make it happen. Besides if you have already grabbed vast quantities of the nation's wealth for yourself anyway, then the interest and challenge is in the achievement of getting the business to work, not in achieving even larger numbers for your bank account.

As for why those who take more should pay a larger proportion into the public kitty, well that's obvious isn't it ? First off they can afford to, and secondly, if they have found a way to attract so much of the nation's wealth for their own personal account, then they ought to accept paying most of it back to help run the country they extracted it from in the first place; on purely moral grounds.

I'm unsure why the top rate isn't 100% and be done with it. We have finally accepted the morality of a minimum wage, why not a maximium you can take from society too. Surely no one is worth 100 Jonathan Ross'.

[ichkeria]

"Might there be another possibility for these "high earners", immigrants or indigenous but hard working individuals who have built up their businesses, employ many people, pay their income tax, Corporation tax and contribute to society?

Naaaah!......wealthy s0ds lets's "stuff em" "

That is not the point I was making at all . The question is "does the fact that they pay a higher rate of tax damage the economy" and I say to that: I don't know (and frankly, I doubt anyone does). But, interestingly, you employ the same fawning, unquestioning admiration for all high-earners that I was referring to. I don't think you can judge someone by how wealthy they are.

[Sqad]

Ichk.....my apologies........yes I do have admiration for wealth as long as it has been worked for and acquired by ambition and endeavour.

By "judge a person" I assume that you mean "character of a person" and I am not quite sure what "character " means or how one could judge it.

My idea of character might well be quite different from yours.