unbeliever Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) There are often complaints about state spending on one thing or another on this forum. I'm curious as to whether the forumers are aware of the Laffer curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve Whilst I appreciate the attractiveness ideologically of, in the Robin Hood vein, collecting more from the rich to give to the poor; we may have already reached the peak of what we can in practise collect from the rich. It is my impression that the 45% income tax rate is beyond the peak of the Laffer curve for income tax. The 50% rate certainly was. I base this on the fact that when the top rate was reduced from 95% to 60% and then later 40% in the early '80s, tax revenue from the wealthiest went up. Furthermore income tax revenue from the rich has gone up since the rate was reduced from 50% to 45%, having fallen when it went from 40% to 50%. A similar case can be made for capital gains tax, as revenue from that has also gone down since the rate was increased. So my question I suppose is this: If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that cutting the top rate of income tax would actually increase tax revenue from the rich, would you support it? Edited July 28, 2015 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Flat tax is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Flat tax is the answer. I don't think that taxing flats would be an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 So my question I suppose is this: If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that cutting the top rate of income tax would actually increase tax revenue from the rich, would you support it? Yes, but then it would be a good idea to raise more taxes on the rich by other means. I think 50% is about right, our problem is not how much tax we raise, just that we have over spent and have too large a debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 28, 2015 Author Share Posted July 28, 2015 Yes, but then it would be a good idea to raise more taxes on the rich by other means. I think 50% is about right, our problem is not how much tax we raise, just that we have over spent and have too large a debt. What would you suggest? Also, where would you cut spending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I'm curious as to whether the forumers are aware of the Laffer curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve There is a certain validity to the idea that raising taxes to a high level ultimately reduces tax incomes. Look at the late 70s in the UK. The top marginal rate of income tax under the Callaghan-Healey government of 1976-79 was 98 per cent. We should have been ROLLING in cash, yes? No. That was the same era when the UK had to go cap in hand to the IMF for a loan. FACT. Embittered and impoverished lefties just don't understand why those with a bit of cash don't want to be dragged down to their level. If they have to leave the country to do so, they will. A clear sign of the times occured in 1979 when the Bond film Moonraker came out. The main shooting was switched from the usual 007 Stage at the Pinewood Studios to France, due to high taxation in England at the time. LINK So British studios and British technicians lost work and the government got no tax income at all. Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 The model in the Netherlands is low tax on business, high tax on individuals. I personally can see the merit in that, although it is very frustrating for those in employment at times. Tax should be seen as part of a system and needs to be balanced to encourage investment whilst keeping the state in cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo68 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) I am not rich , and am no particular friend of the wealthy and I'm taking no sides in this debate. But I would be interested to see how people can justify taxing one set of individuals more than others just because they are successful. Bearing in mind that ..If some of these people were not successful then a lot more people would be out of work. If people are to be punished for being wealthy in the UK then we should perhaps not complain if they choose to invest their money elsewhere. . Edited July 28, 2015 by Tommo68 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I am not rich , and am no particular friend of the wealthy and I'm taking no sides in this debate. But I would be interested to see how people can justify taxing one set of individuals more than others just because they are successful. Bearing in mind that ..If some of these people were not successful then a lot more people would be out of work. If people are to be punished for being wealthy in the UK then we should perhaps not complain if they choose to invest their money elsewhere. . or maybe everybody should pay the same rate of tax regardless of income Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I think that it's very fair to have a lower tax rate if you earn less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now