Obelix 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. 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. You don't understand the basic motivations of people, which I think is your problem here. Someone earning £150k a year isn't going to want to earn more mony by working longer. Once you are at that level, earning more by working longer isn't attractive - and it's probably impossible anyway as you won't be waged it'll be salaried and more hours doesnt equal more pay. What people want to do is minimise the time they work for that money. Or, to maximise what they have. That means be efficient in both time, and tax planning and tax affairs. If I can save a reasonable amount of money by moving my tax affairs offshore, I'll do so. If it's really worth it, I'll move myself (and did). If you want to maximise tax revenue as a Chancellor then the trick is to pitch your tax take that targets these people so it's a little below what similar, easily accessible countries are like. Now the UK has it easy in this regard - as most people don't speak a fluent continental language and so moving to somewhere cheap(er) like Luxembourg for example is a bit of a non starter. you could of course move to a totally tax free regime, like Afghanistan, but that has certain disadvantages and the loclas are rowdy. We don't get many from the Continent coming this way, as most don't like the weather, or the indiginous population, although the French distaste for les Anglais and their weather is not as high now as their distaste for Hollonde and his 75%... But if we upped our tax a bit too much, we'd have people leaving and moving overseas and taking all that with them. Supertax did for the UK after the war and people fled to the USA and it's nice langauge, nice opportunities and weather, and low taxes. If you increase taxes too much, it'll happen again I'm sure.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 You don't understand the basic motivations of people, which I think is your problem here. Someone earning £150k a year isn't going to want to earn more mony by working longer. Once you are at that level, earning more by working longer isn't attractive - and it's probably impossible anyway as you won't be waged it'll be salaried and more hours doesnt equal more pay. What people want to do is minimise the time they work for that money. Or, to maximise what they have. That means be efficient in both time, and tax planning and tax affairs. If I can save a reasonable amount of money by moving my tax affairs offshore, I'll do so. If it's really worth it, I'll move myself (and did). If you want to maximise tax revenue as a Chancellor then the trick is to pitch your tax take that targets these people so it's a little below what similar, easily accessible countries are like. Now the UK has it easy in this regard - as most people don't speak a fluent continental language and so moving to somewhere cheap(er) like Luxembourg for example is a bit of a non starter. you could of course move to a totally tax free regime, like Afghanistan, but that has certain disadvantages and the loclas are rowdy. We don't get many from the Continent coming this way, as most don't like the weather, or the indiginous population, although the French distaste for les Anglais and their weather is not as high now as their distaste for Hollonde and his 75%... But if we upped our tax a bit too much, we'd have people leaving and moving overseas and taking all that with them. Supertax did for the UK after the war and people fled to the USA and it's nice langauge, nice opportunities and weather, and low taxes. If you increase taxes too much, it'll happen again I'm sure.. It''l be interesting to see how Hollande's tax regime affects the French revenue income.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Does anyone agree with taking money off the poor to give to the rich? No. But that's not what is happeneing. The phrasing as someone else said is deliberatly misleading Ive always been a believer that money should be spread out more fairer Why? the Rich do not need more, and have an easy time of it True. Perhaps there is a reason for that the poor should have some of what the rich have Why? Should the rich work hard to support the indolent poor? and Governments should tax the rich big time and give that towards the poor in Society Why? Should the rich work hard to support the indolent poor? Note there is a difference between the indolent poor, and the disadvantaged and truly needy. would make for a slightly happier country in which Britain seems to have a divided class system The inherent virtue of Socialism is indeed the sharing of misery. and the Wealthy get richer whereas the poor are now even getting poorer is that a fair system No it is not .. But that's not what is being described. Everyone in the UK over the last forty years at least has gotten richer, just that some have gotten richer than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It''l be interesting to see how Hollande's tax regime affects the French revenue income..I'm fully expecting it to drop like a stone from a great height, especially after the recent 60% entrepreneur tax 'try-on' (currently being trap-doored on the very quiet, lest Hollande gets still more egg on his face, so early in his presidentship). Hollande is even more trapped than Sarkozy was, because he has no more economical choices than Sarkozy had, but is politically constrained by his party/side (centre-of-left, can't be seen to implement traditionally conservative measures, which are however exactly what is needed to reboot the national economy - Sarkozy had started them (in the same vein Cameron has in the UK) and they hurt (of course) so he got kicked out for his pennance; Hollande knows he must continue them for the sake of the country, but got elected on promises to do away with them...ho-hum indeed!) I'm still looking for a bookie with odds on Hollande not finishing his term Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I'm still looking for a bookie with odds on Hollande not finishing his term PM when you do find one To make anything at all though will probably need an accumulator: riots, country collapse AND unfinished term. Still probably worse odds than Celtic winning this year's title Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larky Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 PM when you do find one To make anything at all Still probably worse odds than Celtic winning this year's title Celtic already top and no one shall stop us winning the Championship Rangers on the other hand just lost to the very bottom team in Div 3 in the Scottish league , they are a laughing stock and at their worst ebb in their lifetime ..Celtic meanwhile are a strong side and a young side no we dont think we shall get results v Barcelona but we do know we can hold our own v vast majority of top sides in Europe reason were in the Champions League as were one of the top sides as fir Rangers FC ---> R.I.P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 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! If you think a lot of people weren't considerably richer when Labour left office than when they came in, then you are a very naive and somewhat stupid individual. The fact is we have the money in this country, it's just that both political parties refuse to take it from those who have acquired it and the one currently in government are trying to take it from those poor sods who have very little to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 You don't understand the basic motivations of people, which I think is your problem here. Someone earning £150k a year isn't going to want to earn more mony by working longer. Once you are at that level, earning more by working longer isn't attractive - and it's probably impossible anyway as you won't be waged it'll be salaried and more hours doesnt equal more pay. What people want to do is minimise the time they work for that money. Or, to maximise what they have. That means be efficient in both time, and tax planning and tax affairs. If I can save a reasonable amount of money by moving my tax affairs offshore, I'll do so. If it's really worth it, I'll move myself (and did). If you want to maximise tax revenue as a Chancellor then the trick is to pitch your tax take that targets these people so it's a little below what similar, easily accessible countries are like. The argument being churned out by some is that by reducing taxation for those earning (use that word because I can't think of a better one) over £150000, you'll actually increase tax revenue from them. Now I'm struggling to see what type of person this could affect and how this would then lead to extra revenue so kindly explain this concept of "basic motivation" and what type of people are affected by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 If you think a lot of people weren't considerably richer when Labour left office than when they came in, then you are a very naive and somewhat stupid individual. The fact is we have the money in this country, it's just that both political parties refuse to take it from those who have acquired it and the one currently in government are trying to take it from those poor sods who have very little to give. Ah. so by your argument it's acceptable to take it from one group of people, but it's not acceptable to take it from a different group of people? Can you explain this dichotomy? No... I know you can't. Tht's because it's not true. Why? The Govt is not taking money from the poor here. It is simply giving them less. Listen to that again... It's *giving* them less. It's not *taking* from the poor at all. That's an important point I think you are missing. Now that that is resolved, although I'm sure there will be more spluttering from you on it, would you like to explain why it's reasonable to take money preferentially from any section of society? What would your criteria for this be? Please not you can't just say "the rich" aka "those who earn more than me" because that's probably everyone it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The argument being churned out by some is that by reducing taxation for those earning (use that word because I can't think of a better one) over £150000, you'll actually increase tax revenue from them. Now I'm struggling to see what type of person this could affect and how this would then lead to extra revenue so kindly explain this concept of "basic motivation" and what type of people are affected by it. It's already been explained above. I refer you to the answers I gave some time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.