Obelix Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Income tax does not apply to capital? No it doesn't. It's more convenient to have your capital in the country that you are domiciled in though. That and the fact I wouldnt trust Labour to introduce an envy tax like the French and go after peoples capital as well as income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Reducing taxation rates has been proven (many a time) to increase tax revenue. Have a read (simple explanation). Basically, the economist's take on the famous mantra that "too much tax kills tax" (Adam Smith, reprising Jean-Baptiste Say's "trop d'impôt tue l'impôt"), based on the common-sense principle of ever-dimishing returns. Most of course will choose to see it as a centre-of-right Gvt "chumming up to the the rich", and keep the matter to a sterile political debate (yawn!) When there is a mountain of evidence that such a measure can favour economical growth. You can't blame the Gvt for trying this one on (amongst the others), when their core economical agenda for overcoming the budgetary deficit is to drive up entrepreneurship. At the same time, nothing at the macro-economical level happens overnight, so you'd have to give the measure at least a bit of while to see if it works. Unless of course you prefer political posturing and puerile point-scoring...each to their own, it's a free country after all As a colloray, why is Greece in such a mess at the moment? It's not because they don't have the money, (well it is) but more that a lot of people are not paying the tax they owe. So why are they not paying the tax that they owe? Well they think that the rates are unfair. So they don't pay it. Now you could say that well if they set the tax rate fairer, then people will pay it. True... but then again the people may smell blood in the water and wait until they try lowering the tax rate even further.... Once you have gone that far down the route of lack of public confidence then you've got many problems to content with. Nigel Lawson reduced the top rate of tax from 60% to 40%. The amount of tax collected from those people went up. Why? Because people thought that it was a fairer rate so they brought moneis back from offshore accounts, started to declare it, and paid tax on it. Cut taxes to increase revenue... Hollande has increased French tax rates for the top end to 75%. There are a lot of French people buying properties in the UK, where you can pay 30% less tax. Oh and not have to pay the wealth tax as well... France has just slaughtered it's golden goose and found a note inside that reads "b**se tu!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 LooB, as you will know if you read the wiki Laffer curve entry you will know that it's about finding an optimum level of taxation. This might involve increasing tax rather than decreasing. You only decrease if you are at a less than optimum point on the curve. Knowing what point on the curve an economy is at is very difficult to determine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 What were all of the tax breaks given to the super rich? I know of the scrapping of the 50p rate (which seemed quite cheeky in a way) but I don't know of all the others. There's plenty of rumours and allegations of tax avoidance by the rich and large corporations - perhaps more effort should be put into shutting that down before messing around with the budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 LooB, as you will know if you read the wiki Laffer curve entry you will know that it's about finding an optimum level of taxation. This might involve increasing tax rather than decreasing. You only decrease if you are at a less than optimum point on the curve. Knowing what point on the curve an economy is at is very difficult to determine.Bit of a truism there, I1L2T3, which does not progress the debate much (and is not really a counter-argument, or... what's your point? ) Would you happen to know better than the Gvt how close to/far from this "optimum point" the UK is? Nigel Lawson reduced the top rate of tax from 60% to 40%. The amount of tax collected from those people went up. Why? Because people thought that it was a fairer rate so they brought moneis back from offshore accounts, started to declare it, and paid tax on it. Cut taxes to increase revenue...I always look at tax avoidance/evasion by those concerned as a cost-benefit exercise: what's the gain, what are the risks, what efforts are needed to exploit it. There comes a point at which the risks and efforts outweigh the gains, and that point is entirely dictated by the taxation rate/asset types (i.e. the Laffer curve in application indeed, supplemented as it is by the scale of statutory penalties for evasion). ...Nowt to do with 'fairness' (IMHO, but then again I am one cold-hearted barsteward where £s are concerned , fully at home in Yorkshyre ) Hollande has increased French tax rates for the top end to 75%. There are a lot of French people buying properties in the UK, where you can pay 30% less tax. Oh and not have to pay the wealth tax as well... France has just slaughtered it's golden goose and found a note inside that reads "b**se tu!"And that particular drum I've banged a lot lately. Funny how the UK left/centre-of-left powers of observation seem to suddenly stop at the Dover cliffs, since Hollande got in I'm still laughing at Hollande's blue/white collar working electorate, whose overtime income he decided to tax pretty much as soon as he went in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think it's time for Rebeckah to return Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 Reducing taxation rates has been proven (many a time) to increase tax revenue. You’ll never be able to prove that either way as there are so many variables that make up the Tax Revenue received. The problem I have is that this argument is churned out regularly and the cynic in me believes that this is in order to get the masses to accept the policy. In reality you are asking us to believe that someone earning £150000 per year will be more incentivised to work longer if they are earning £43 per hour (net) instead of £36 and I just don’t buy that. If there are people who think that a difference of £7 an hour when getting £36 isn’t worth working for then we are in a very sorry state when there are a lot of people who would be very grateful for the £7 an hour alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Perhaps if this government used some of the wealth created by the last government we wouldn't be needing to make them. You're STILL claiming this are you even though you ave been shown to be wrong countless times! The wealth you keep talking about was DEBT you muppet! Is it any wonder the country nearly went down the drain when people like you simply cannot understand the simple economics! To borrow from another forum member, you really are a one trick pony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 You’ll never be able to prove that either way as there are so many variables that make up the Tax Revenue received.I won't, but I have no doubt whatsoever that HMRC can, and will - since they know perfectly well which portion of tax revenue for any given period is generated by which tax type (income, corporate, stamp duty, etc, etc.) The problem I have is that this argument is churned out regularly and the cynic in me believes that this is in order to get the masses to accept the policy.But that approach contributes to stagnation. It could be that the measure will work and increase tax revenue. It could be that it won't and decrease tax revenue (whereby it will eventually be axed). Assuming that Nos. 10/11 have all relevant figures and stats from HMRC (which I am pretty certain they do, having worked in fairly high-up executive civil services myself some 16-odd years ago) to justfy trying it, then unless it's tried, neither you nor I nor Nos.10/11 will ever know, and this measure (which has factually worked several times over) will not have been tried nor helped a recovery (whereby the LibCons will be pilloried for not trying it, with 20/20 hindsight, as usual ). In reality you are asking us to believe that someone earning £150000 per year will be more incentivised to work longer if they are earning £43 per hour (net) instead of £36 and I just don’t buy that.Wrong. Using your example/analogy, they won't work "longer", they'll come to work/stay working here and/or spend more here. And -more importantly- stop paying their acountant/tax lawyer and 'remote' bankers to squirrel the £7 (likely much more) not currently being paid to HMRC already. The point of the measure is to discourage avoidance/evasion/offshoring with a carrot, rather than a stick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larky Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Does anyone agree with taking money off the poor to give to the rich? Ive always been a believer that money should be spread out more fairer the Rich do not need more, and have an easy time of it the poor should have some of what the rich have and Governments should tax the rich big time and give that towards the poor in Society would make for a slightly happier country in which Britain seems to have a divided class system and the Wealthy get richer whereas the poor are now even getting poorer is that a fair system No it is not .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.