Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Cynic,

"and you even agree that the voters (you being the non-voting exception of course) would never tolerate the massive tax increases required"


I wrote :

“I differ, I think the country probably does want both NHS and Pension and "Welfare Care", but don't want to finance it.”


I believe, when confronted with the alternative that the majority won’t revolt, or reject the sense of funding the above and that money will be found from other areas of public spending.


One of the problems with the present government is that with its abrasive attitudes it has opened too many fronts with the public sector at the same time.
Many of the general public and small businesses have members of their family dependent in one way or another on the Public Sector , and more likely to sympathise with family rather than a tory led government.

---------------


Hays,

"Silly point of view"

You read more and more like a member of the "blue rinse" brigade.

Bring back Ted and Maggie.

"found from other areas of public spending" ...... like where? ..... of course, part of the problem is that the welfare system in its present format, is an indefinitely expanding black hole, but even as a sticking plaster solution for today only, short of the country borrowing/spending its way out - and we all know where that led last time - i cannot see any obvious sources

If we were not in coalition with the 'silly party' then the government would be a whole lot more abrasive hopefully. And personally, I would welcome the return of Maggie. I wonder if she will get a state funeral as she deserves.

I keep forgetting to tell you that my name is NOT hays. haystack was the name of our Unix server (you have to name Unix computers). It was made up of a combination of part of the business name and 'stack' which is another name for computer memory.

No I would not , she cut the higher rate of tax to hard.

High earners should pay zero-rate tax. You've only got to look at the mess Hollande is creating in France with his 75% upper level to understand that basic concept.

Flat rate taxes are becoming more popular as it has been found that compliance increases. Thapere more than 30 major countries who now have gone the flat tax route.

Russia has a flats rate of 13% personal and 24% corporate tax. Compliance and actual revenues have risen.

During Labour's hay day the rate of personal tax got so high that it was more beneficial for tax to sell a business than to run it. That can't be good for the economy.

Higher rate tax payers were payed these high sums mostly for that reason, then overnight they were given a huge rise. Wrong in my opinion. The average man on the street cannot keep paying more and more. She got that wrong.

The rich have got to pay more, the man on the street is eating beans on toast for tea and unable to heat his house now or run a car. As long as its not wasted I do not mind paying more.

There is nothing fair about who pays more or less tac. Tax itself is unfair. There is no reason for the better paid to have to pay a higher differential tax. They pay more anyway because the tax is on a higher amount.

It was reported in the weekend press that PSG are hoping to attract Cristiano Ronaldo with a bumper pay offer, but that he was more likely to snub the French and return to Man Utd for half the salary.

Now I don't know how much money Ronaldo would earn, but let's guess it would be £10m pa at PSG. He'd see approx £2.5m after tax.

If he went to Man Utd for £5m a year, he'd still earn £2.5m after tax. Despite earning half the basic salary, he'd be no worse off, and PSG are likely to be the ones who lose out. I know those figures are only approximate as they don't take into account that French Super Tax only applies on income over €1m, but the principle is still the same.

Similarly, David Beckham has just signed for PSG, and he is donating his entire salary to charity to avoid paying any income tax. He's also only signed a 5 month contract so he doesn't become a French resident and become subject to a wealth tax on his global assets.

In other words, the French tax authorities get no revenue from Beckham and are unlikely to get any from Ronaldo either. If they hadn't been so greedy, they would have at least got something. And this kind of thing is universal. Vis a vis Gerard Depardieu quitting France for Russia. The taxman doesn't get a fraction of the money they think they'll get and, in certain cases, they get less.... Employers risk losing their top staff (or have to pay them more to keep them) and risk becoming uncompetitive as a result.... There are no winners whatsoever when the 'Brain Drain' kicks in.

And even in the UK, you've got a group of high earners who decided they 'wanted their Wednesdays back' after the top rate was raised to 50% (K2 and Jimmy Carr). They could live with working Monday and Tuesday for the taxman, but being asked to work part of Wednesday as well is a step too far. Now everyone is filtering their earnings through Seychelles or BVI IBCs rather than pay tax, and HMRC end up losing out completely.

Ronaldo currently get $17.5. Ronaldo might get the same deal as Beckham at PSG. Beckham keeps his UK residency and has just to spend the minimum of days earning in France. That way he pays UK tax rates.

DC - tell us how much extra tax you would be prepared to payu .... would you accept a top rate of 60%? 70%? more? ..... remember that kicks in at quite a low level (how low someone please?) .... what do you think the effect on middle management incomes would be with your new super-dooper tax?

QED then, Haystack! :)

Yes I agree, Maggie needs a funeral. Should have been about 30 years ago.

I remember when income tax was 87% and unearned income from investments and property etc was taxed at 98%. These rates were in the 1970s and came in under Harold Wilson. Many people left the country. The ones who could not just did not bother to try and earn any more when they got just 2p in the pound for themselves. My accountant always said that he was far busier in those days helping people avoid the tax. When the rates come down people don't want to pay so much to save tax. It is a case of diminishing returns. When rates are lower people accept them and don't fight too much.

Just think it through cynic - Yes I would accept 60% Tax . I think the ceilings would have to be changed as you say, as this kicks in at a low rate. I'm not talking taxing someone on 50k at 60% but someone on 500k +, yes . Far from a super -dooper tax.

Income Rate

2012-13

2013-14



Starting rate for savings: 10%.

£0-£2,710

£0- £2,790



Basic rate: 20%

£0-£34,370

£0- £32,010



Higher rate: 40%

£34,371-£150,000

£32,011-£150,000



(Old) additional 50% rate

Over £150,000

n/a



(New) additional 45% rate

n/a

Over £150,000

The rate of 50% that the coalition cut back to 45% was only introduced in the weeks before the election to make problems for the Conservatives. Labour had all those years to raise the tax to 50% and chose to do it with an election looming.

A cut for those on £150k+ of 10%

Crazy ?