The 50% rate should be...

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

renault12ts

MB Club Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
16,671
Car
2005 W215 CL500.
...abolished.

Discuss.
 
Indeed abolished. Even if tax was at 20% and there was no tiers, the well off would still pay a lot more due to their higher incomes. 20% of £15,000 above the personal allowance is a lot less tax than 20% above £100,000 above the personal allowance so indeed the rich would pay their true fair share.

Making someone pay more per pound on a higher income is by any stretch of the imagination unfair.

Quite where the fiscal funds would come to fulfill this idea of mine would come from beats me, but that didn't stop Gordon Brown.
 
Nothing to discuss... :)

It was a populist move by the previous government, part of an elaborate attempt to make poorer people believe that we can work our way out of recession without any penalties - the costs will be incurred by all those 'others' - the mysterious 'rich' who will pay for us all.

Just to clarify - I am not opposed to the idea that the wealthier should pay more - it is just that everyone rightly said that this particular measure will not generate any real revenue and its purpose was simply to numb the public into believing election promises that we can eat our cake and have it.
 
The point of course is that the 50% rate is not about raising money, but about appeasing the masses.

If (and probably when) the rate is abolished, history has shown that the tax take will increase, as fewer avoidance measures are taken by those who would otherwise be effected.
 
I sincerely believe more tax in aggregate will be raised from the rich through a 40% rate than a 50% top rate.

40% is fair and reasonable whereas I would arrange matters to avoid paying 50% and so I believe would most others.
 
Retained, but at a higher threshold - probably £250,000 rather than £150,000.

I think, just abolished.

But, tackle some of the avoidance measures on other types of income.
 
I remember when tax was running at 87%!
 
Indeed abolished. Even if tax was at 20% and there was no tiers, the well off would still pay a lot more due to their higher incomes. 20% of £15,000 above the personal allowance is a lot less tax than 20% above £100,000 above the personal allowance so indeed the rich would pay their true fair share.

Making someone pay more per pound on a higher income is by any stretch of the imagination unfair.
.

I sincerely believe more tax in aggregate will be raised from the rich through a 40% rate than a 50% top rate.

40% is fair and reasonable whereas I would arrange matters to avoid paying 50% and so I believe would most others.

You're more tolerant than me. 40% is double the taking of 20% and you need to consider NI as well.

My view is that any band of tax is by definition unfair, as the fair way is a flat percentage above a personal allowance, grading it means some people a lot more away relatively than others which IMHO is unfair.

Sadly a workable solution evades me, but previous chancellors have thought up wonderful fiscal schemes so who knows?
 
I know several GPs who are planning not to earn into that bracket by cutting back on their hours, so it could, in that instance create more jobs for other lower earning GPs.

Not that GP earning potential will carry on at that level for long anyway.
 
Abolish it but have an upper rate for for single payments above £200k
 
You're more tolerant than me. 40% is double the taking of 20% and you need to consider NI as well.

My view is that any band of tax is by definition unfair, as the fair way is a flat percentage above a personal allowance, grading it means some people a lot more away relatively than others which IMHO is unfair.

Sadly a workable solution evades me, but previous chancellors have thought up wonderful fiscal schemes so who knows?

Not for the first time, ***, you're looking at this back to front. If there were to be a flat tax, it would be much closer to 40% than 20% - the lower rate for people earning less than £35,000 (above their personal allowance, where applicable) is a concession, so that they retain a larger portion of their income, simply because at that level it makes a difference to whether or not they can pay their bills.

So before you wish for everyone to pay the same rate, make sure you realise just what that rate would need to be.
 
Last edited:
The country might benefit if a flat rate was adopted across the board but coupled with an entry threshold that was higher so that the overall standard of living was better for many lower earners whilst retaining the overall tax income of the populous.

A flat rate of say 30% above a threshold £18k might be the solution.

It could be a win-win.

Let's face it - many of the top earners will be using mechanisms to limit the actual amount of tax that they pay.
 
I'd lower the threshold to 10% for those living north of the Watford gap and raise it to 90% for those below and Lancashire, with a special zero tax rate for those in Yorkshire.
 
There's always an issue when you have a cliff edge....

When - as with progressive tax system - the tax rate goes up gradually, people tend to accept that earning a little more also means paying a little more than they did beforehand.

But when there's a 30% cliff edge at £18, people will bend over backwards not to pay it, including working for cash etc, as it would seem totally daft to go from £17 to £18.
 
I'd lower the threshold to 10% for those living north of the Watford gap and raise it to 90% for those below and Lancashire, with a special zero tax rate for those in Yorkshire.

That presumably already exists indirectly, as people living in less affluent places generally pay less local tax (Council Tax). Or that's the theory at least.
 
That presumably already exists indirectly, as people living in less affluent places generally pay less local tax (Council Tax). Or that's the theory at least.

You'd like to think so, but it's the lower-spending councils that have tended to charge the lower rates of Council Tax, and that has often had more to do with which party was in power rather than how affluent the area was. For many years, Westminster and Wandsworth prided themselves as having some of the lowest Council Tax rates in the country.
 
I remember when tax was running at 87%!

What about Wilson's 95%...?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom