Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Vote Labour More Basic Rate Tax!
40 Answers
http://
You can't get 37bn off the "rich" you'll have to tax everyone to do that Jezza! 1p basic rate = approx 6bn so who's for 7p on the basic rate for everyone then?
You can't get 37bn off the "rich" you'll have to tax everyone to do that Jezza! 1p basic rate = approx 6bn so who's for 7p on the basic rate for everyone then?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Read it and weep!
///The party said its funding pledges would be paid for "substantially" by raising income tax for the highest 5% of earners, as well as corporation tax increases, raising tax on private medical insurance and capital borrowing.
Labour would be outlining their taxation plans in their manifesto launched on Tuesday, but it would mostly be funded by taxing those earning £80,000 and more.
"We're asking those with broader shoulders to pay a little bit extra in in tax. And all that tax that's earned from those tax changes for people earning £80,000 or more will go directly to the NHS," he told BBC Breakfast.///
///The party said its funding pledges would be paid for "substantially" by raising income tax for the highest 5% of earners, as well as corporation tax increases, raising tax on private medical insurance and capital borrowing.
Labour would be outlining their taxation plans in their manifesto launched on Tuesday, but it would mostly be funded by taxing those earning £80,000 and more.
"We're asking those with broader shoulders to pay a little bit extra in in tax. And all that tax that's earned from those tax changes for people earning £80,000 or more will go directly to the NHS," he told BBC Breakfast.///
Agreed, naomi. It's the same principle as putting VAT on school fees. Private health and school fees reduce pressure on the NHS and state education sector. Penalising and discouraging both may make some feel better at seeing the better off feeling a bit of pain but the unintended (or maybe deliberate social engineering) consequence will be to drive some people into the state sector and thereby push up costs
I'm not sure what the capital borrowing tax proposal is. I thought it was a financial transaction tax that had been proposed
https:/
but maybe there is a capital borrowing tax proposal too
https:/
but maybe there is a capital borrowing tax proposal too
OK, let’s do a few sums (which I always think is a good idea with questions such as this one)
I think the proposed increases in corporation tax (which will raise next to nothing because most large firms will find ways to avoid it) have already been spent. That leaves the high earners and their income tax. Mr Corbyn suggests that 95% of taxpayers will pay no more tax. This means his efforts will be concentrated on the top 5% of earners. Those people currently contribute around 45% of all income tax. In the coming year the government estimates it will extract £175bn from its citizens by means of this tax, so the top 5%-ers will pay around £78bn. Jezza and his mates reckon to raise £37bn from them in five years – so about £8bn per annum. This means that the income tax burden on the top 5% will raise by around 10%. I don’t know if Mr Corbyn and his financial advisor Ms Abbott have done these calculations. I admit mine are “back of an envelope” but I don’t think they are too far adrift and are probably as reliable as any other.
.
This is not “little bit more tax” to be paid by these broad-shouldered types. They already see around 38% of their pay confiscated in the form of income tax. Labour’s plans would see this rise to around 42%. Somebody on £200k would see their tax rise by about £7,500. These high earners already subsidise the lower paid to an enormous degree and I am grateful that they do. I want to see them valued and not simply seen as cash cows to be milked at will by a jealous administration.
If the NHS needs extra cash it should come from all taxpayers. To put the burden solely on high earners is simply political envy by a party does sees earning good wages as a criminal offence.
I think the proposed increases in corporation tax (which will raise next to nothing because most large firms will find ways to avoid it) have already been spent. That leaves the high earners and their income tax. Mr Corbyn suggests that 95% of taxpayers will pay no more tax. This means his efforts will be concentrated on the top 5% of earners. Those people currently contribute around 45% of all income tax. In the coming year the government estimates it will extract £175bn from its citizens by means of this tax, so the top 5%-ers will pay around £78bn. Jezza and his mates reckon to raise £37bn from them in five years – so about £8bn per annum. This means that the income tax burden on the top 5% will raise by around 10%. I don’t know if Mr Corbyn and his financial advisor Ms Abbott have done these calculations. I admit mine are “back of an envelope” but I don’t think they are too far adrift and are probably as reliable as any other.
.
This is not “little bit more tax” to be paid by these broad-shouldered types. They already see around 38% of their pay confiscated in the form of income tax. Labour’s plans would see this rise to around 42%. Somebody on £200k would see their tax rise by about £7,500. These high earners already subsidise the lower paid to an enormous degree and I am grateful that they do. I want to see them valued and not simply seen as cash cows to be milked at will by a jealous administration.
If the NHS needs extra cash it should come from all taxpayers. To put the burden solely on high earners is simply political envy by a party does sees earning good wages as a criminal offence.
I'm not sure how if or how NJ would answer but here are my thoughts, Garaman.
"those who earn most deservedly do so" Depends on how you measure deservedness, if there is such a word. I don't think it's possible to have different tax rates for those who do and those who don't deserve their salary
"that all people have the same chance to become high earners if they are prepared to work hard". No, whilst it is important to work hard, one's background plays a big part , one's intelligence and attitude to learning at school, the ability to see and take opportunities, luck, career choice, desire to earn more... the list of factors goes on.
"those who earn most deservedly do so" Depends on how you measure deservedness, if there is such a word. I don't think it's possible to have different tax rates for those who do and those who don't deserve their salary
"that all people have the same chance to become high earners if they are prepared to work hard". No, whilst it is important to work hard, one's background plays a big part , one's intelligence and attitude to learning at school, the ability to see and take opportunities, luck, career choice, desire to earn more... the list of factors goes on.
I think f-f has answered your question to me almost as I would have done, garaman.
Life’s a lottery. Some choose winning numbers, others don’t. All manner of factors come into play: aptitude, talent, family, education, contacts, luck, a following wind, all sorts. Some people will always reap more rewards than others. The problem with socialism is that it seems to have a constant need to try to even out these inequalities and it just won’t happen. So whilst that’s the case those on lower earnings should be extremely grateful to those earning considerably more because without them their own tax bills would be much, much higher.
Life’s a lottery. Some choose winning numbers, others don’t. All manner of factors come into play: aptitude, talent, family, education, contacts, luck, a following wind, all sorts. Some people will always reap more rewards than others. The problem with socialism is that it seems to have a constant need to try to even out these inequalities and it just won’t happen. So whilst that’s the case those on lower earnings should be extremely grateful to those earning considerably more because without them their own tax bills would be much, much higher.
Well, maybe the tax system could even out a small part of life's lottery, NJ. I am not a socialist, and believe in capitalism, and I myself have been fortunate enough to be a high-rate tax payer for most of my working life, but I never objected to paying a bit extra into the system knowing that I had been lucky. I worked hard, but I would never have been able to look my father in the eye and tell him that I worked harder than he did in the factory; just luckier really.
A s well as the high marginal tax rates mentioned here (20%), 40%, 45% ( and the higher effective rate due to reduction of personal tax allowance for high earners), and NI (around 11-12% initially, then falling to 2%) there is also Student Loan repayments at a marginal rate of 9% for higher earning graduates.
There must be some scope for merging NI and tax since the separate bandings lead to big variations in effective marginal rates.
There must be some scope for merging NI and tax since the separate bandings lead to big variations in effective marginal rates.
“…but I never objected to paying a bit extra into the system”
In fact, quite a bit extra into the system as a higher rate taxpayer. Now, many of those higher rate taxpayers will be asked to contribute even more than the quite a bit extra they already pay. It’s completely unjustified and nothing will convince me otherwise.
In fact, quite a bit extra into the system as a higher rate taxpayer. Now, many of those higher rate taxpayers will be asked to contribute even more than the quite a bit extra they already pay. It’s completely unjustified and nothing will convince me otherwise.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.