How Bad Was My Attempt In Approaching...
Family & Relationships1 min ago
Labour's Tax Pledges.
We knew it was coming, again, but Mad Dog McDonnell has now confirmed it.
https:/
"The shadow chancellor said Labour’s manifesto will ask the richest 5 per cent to ‘pay a little more’.
The 45p income tax threshold would be cut from £150,000 to £80,000 – hitting all those earning more than this amount. Mr McDonnell also said Labour would reintroduce a 50p rate of tax for those on more than £125,000.
He did not say what would happen to national insurance rates for those on more than £80,000.
However there would be no rises in income tax or national insurance for everyone else."
I particularly liked the 'ask' to pay a little bit more - this suggests there's a choice.
IF Labour genuinely wants to raise revenue for the NHS, and this is not merely a success tax in order to punish those who have had the bare-faced temerity to do better in life than some others, wouldn't it be more sensible to collect an additional 1% from every taxpayer, rather than just targeting those who are (a) proportionately paying more (because, hey, that's how percentages work) and (b) are already paying an increased % amount over certain thresholds?
Somebody earning £80k is already paying a % amount of double that of somebody earning £20k, which equates to 8 x as much in pound note terms.
https:/
"The shadow chancellor said Labour’s manifesto will ask the richest 5 per cent to ‘pay a little more’.
The 45p income tax threshold would be cut from £150,000 to £80,000 – hitting all those earning more than this amount. Mr McDonnell also said Labour would reintroduce a 50p rate of tax for those on more than £125,000.
He did not say what would happen to national insurance rates for those on more than £80,000.
However there would be no rises in income tax or national insurance for everyone else."
I particularly liked the 'ask' to pay a little bit more - this suggests there's a choice.
IF Labour genuinely wants to raise revenue for the NHS, and this is not merely a success tax in order to punish those who have had the bare-faced temerity to do better in life than some others, wouldn't it be more sensible to collect an additional 1% from every taxpayer, rather than just targeting those who are (a) proportionately paying more (because, hey, that's how percentages work) and (b) are already paying an increased % amount over certain thresholds?
Somebody earning £80k is already paying a % amount of double that of somebody earning £20k, which equates to 8 x as much in pound note terms.
Answers
Diddly, //someone like me with a social conscience./
15:05 Thu 14th Nov 2019
diddlydo - that's total nonsense.
Somebody earning £80k earns four times as much as somebody earning £20k, but pays eight times as much in tax, and yet you don't think that's already enough?
The high earners are already paying.
Given you feel anybody on more than £80k "can afford to pay as much as the Government needs..." is there a line you would draw where even you think it would be too much?
Somebody earning £80k earns four times as much as somebody earning £20k, but pays eight times as much in tax, and yet you don't think that's already enough?
The high earners are already paying.
Given you feel anybody on more than £80k "can afford to pay as much as the Government needs..." is there a line you would draw where even you think it would be too much?
Socialists have always been wedded to direct taxation, they like it because they can punish those who are doing a bit better for themselves. The problem is that taxing the rich raises less than they think so in the end what is "rich" has to get lower. £80k is comfortable but it's as far from rich as Pluto is from the sun.
-- answer removed --
At the risk of repeating myself, I said what I thought on this thread at 9.13 on Tuesday
https:/
However, I’d like to add that these tax increases will be popular with lots of people, because they will never earn enough to be in the higher tax bands, so it will never affect them.
I wonder if that includes diddly-on-the-dole-do.
https:/
However, I’d like to add that these tax increases will be popular with lots of people, because they will never earn enough to be in the higher tax bands, so it will never affect them.
I wonder if that includes diddly-on-the-dole-do.
Income tax rates for the rich were massively higher in the 50s/60s & 70s. Peaked at 98% with investment income surcharge. Reduction to current levels has been compensated by the introduction & increase of VAT. Overall - direct & indirect - I think the poor may now pay proportionately more of their income in tax than the rich.
//Why shouldn't the high earners pay?//
They do pay – and dearly. Imposing even higher taxes removes incentive Why would anyone who’s working hard to earn a high wage do it if he ended up little better off than someone who gets in to work at the last minute and scurries off the moment his time’s up? Why would anyone work all hours to build a business – which don’t forget provides employment for others – only to see his hard earned money whisked away? No incentive in any of that – and no creation of jobs either. Kill incentive - kill jobs - kill the economy. Not very clever is it.
They do pay – and dearly. Imposing even higher taxes removes incentive Why would anyone who’s working hard to earn a high wage do it if he ended up little better off than someone who gets in to work at the last minute and scurries off the moment his time’s up? Why would anyone work all hours to build a business – which don’t forget provides employment for others – only to see his hard earned money whisked away? No incentive in any of that – and no creation of jobs either. Kill incentive - kill jobs - kill the economy. Not very clever is it.
