[Closed] France abandons 75% tax rate

I always love the way these debates become wonderfully polarised - the idea of higher taxes in itself is not inherently bad - but having it in France at this time was bonkers as anyone who could would move abroad (the high earners maybe ?)

That is all, do continue shouting at each other, because neither side is going to listen to one another

[i]I always love the way these debates become wonderfully polarised - the idea of higher taxes in itself is not inherently bad[/i]

Polarized, you say?...

😀 if that was the only error I will be surprised ......

Affected / effected I always struggle with

So you are saying that finally someone has some proof that the later curve may actually be real ?

Does that mean Hollande will become a rightwing hero ?

No, he appears to be suggesting that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point will be counter-productive for raising further tax revenue.

That's not how it reads to me. Whilst I don't doubt that incresing taxes enough will result in a drop in revenue, Jambalaya seems to be saying that ALL high tax rates (whatever high means) will lower revenue.

People on here have asked for examples of where high tax rates result in less money being collected and here is one, a glaring example of how counterproductive such measures are.

Well, congratulations lefties, here's your proof

Only an idiot would cite one example as proving a curve. Wouldn't they?

[i] andyfla - Member

if that was the only error I will be surprised ......

Affected / effected I always struggle with [/i]

Sorry, but that wasn't my point.

[i]Does that mean Hollande will become a rightwing hero ?[/i]
Calm down dear. The left idealogy for robbing the rich in order to save an economy, is getting a proper kicking. Enjoy it.

[i]No, he appears to be suggesting that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point will be counter-productive for raising further tax revenue. A discussion commonly expressed through the well know 'Laffer curve' - something that we've been told for years by the STW lefties is unproven fantasy - in fact I recall one of the usual suspects on here stating "The laffer curve is a theory only given credence by the right wing. there is no proof of it and many reputable economists deny its existence.

Well, congratulations lefties, here's your proof
[/i]

It's got nothing to do with left or right, and all to do with 'value', perceived or otherwise.

If people believe that they get 'value' from their taxes then they are happy to pay (whatever the rate is). if they don't believe that they get 'value', then they aren't happy to pay.

The actually percentage is irrelevant really, and the Scandic countries show this on the high-tax side. For the low-tax side go to really 5h1t places, and there they begrudge paying anything.

Personally for somewhere with our culture/approach and social protection you need to keep [b]direct[/b] taxes at maximum of just below 50%.

Consequently we have many people who try and evade taxes, and succeed.

[i]Only an idiot would cite one example as proving a curve. Wouldn't they?[/i]

Easy Tiger, don't get your knickers in a twist cos your belief system is being undermined. Only an idiot would try to follow France's example, in principle, now.
Fear not, it will happen.

Easy Tiger, don't get your knickers in a twist cos your belief system is being undermined.

a) It isn't
b) I'm trying to prompt rational analysis and discourage confirmation bias.

I just want to know if there is a laffer curve and what its values might be. Cos if we knew it, we could optimise tax revenue really well.

Only an idiot would try to follow France's example, in principle, now.

What example is that? Should we not raise taxes at all? Should we just avoid raising to 75%?

Molgrips, feeding the troll, will only make him hungrier !

[i]What example is that? Should we not raise taxes at all? Should we just avoid raising to 75%? [/i]

Oh, and now we're, alltogether, going to derive the actual optimum % of tax, to 4 decimal places.

[i]kimbers - Member
Molgrips, feeding the troll, will only make him hungrier ! [/i]

See what I mean, this ^^ is the logic we have to work with on here. Apparently, feeding something, will, erm, make it hungry.
Wow.

Edit:
It's the left, trapped in the paradigm that when things get fiscally tight, "It's ok, we'll up the taxes". This is the default view of the left. It is though, inherently incorrect to do this without also looking at expenditure. Which, AGAIN, the left are idealogically opposed to doing anything which might be seen as a cut. However, as we are seeing in France, they are slowly realizing that they will be forced to look long and hard at what they spend their Euros on.

Sorry, but that wasn't my point.

So the right will say higher taxes are always bad - sighting the fact that France has just given them up the 75% one.

The left will say that they are a good thing and this was particular one was only ever going to be a temporary tax, so it hasn't failed.

I just get really frustrated generally with peoples refusal to listen to others and occasionally go - Ok higher taxes may not be a bad thing all the time, but in this case it was bloody awfully thought through as it was far to high ?

Maybe ? or are we all far to afraid of showing some ability to think and not just spout our own political ideology - just as our politicians must always keep toeing the party line and can never say that an idea that someone else came up with was a good one

Do carry on ....

I just want to know if there is a laffer curve and what its values might be. Cos if we knew it, we could optimise tax revenue really well.

Molgrips read Br's very sensible post above yours.

Its not that simple its about value as well as tax. For example, even if you were taxed at 20% if it all went into a couple of peoples pockets you'd probably not want to pay it.

If people believe that they get 'value' from their taxes then they are happy to pay

And people's perception is malleable, and heavily controlled by the media.

Apparently, feeding something, will, erm, make it hungry.
Wow.

Isn't that IDS stance on benefits ?

[i]What I was trying to get at was we seem to degenerate here (much as our politicians do) into my way is right yours is wrong shouting at each other without listening to what others are saying.[/i]
You're correct there.

[i]So the right will say higher taxes are always bad - sighting the fact that France has just given them up the 75% one.[/i]
Higher taxes, possibly. But its the expenditure, the right do seem to have at least a vague idea that there must be a limit to how much you're raising in taxes. Therefore you have to think carefully about how you spend that revenue.

[i]Ok higher taxes may not be a bad thing all the time[/i]
Imo, high rates of tax are always wrong, when I work Monday to Friday and only get to have Friday's money to myself? That aint right.

[i]And people's perception is malleable, and heavily controlled by the media. [/i]
In the absence of what....

Imo, high rates of tax are always wrong, when I work Monday to Friday and only get to have Friday's money to myself? That aint right

But solo you are talking about an 80% flat tax there, even the French income tax is progressive

I call homme de paille

There are quite a number of things acting on Laffer at the moment.

One of them is the vastly increased disclosure requirements in France for wealth held in offshore trust structures for the benefit of French residents - avoidance behaviour is getting much harder without straying into outright criminality. That means that , for a given value of "e" in the equation that generates the Laffer curve, more people will emigrate than was previously the case. A proportion of people who wanted to stay in Paris and be in technical legal compliance while paying little tax will have left for London rather than indulge in criminal evasion. If the London option wasn't as easy and non-criminal avoidance wasn't being simultaneously tightened up you might see a less pronounced effect on the curve - i.e. the value of "e" would be lower.

The main stray factor in Laffer is producing a defensible value for "e" anyway. That is what makes its [i]predictive power for determining optimal rates[/i] so sketchy.

(I'm a tax guy not an economist. Actual economists, please forgive any gibberish that has crept in there)

The left idealogy for robbing the rich in order to save an economy, is getting a proper kicking. Enjoy it.

Meanwhile, in Greece, the opposite approach is working out ever so well. Not.

I work Monday to Friday and only get to have Friday's money to myself? That aint right.

There's no absolute right. If you were taxed at 80% you'd expect a great benefit to society. What's right is that you get a good standard of living proportional to your work, and those less fortunate do not get screwed over. Progressive tax reflects the fact that there is a minimum comfortable cost of living.

Jamby, why do I get the impression that you are literally erect and throbbing with excitement as you type that?

75% was just plain stupid financially, great political soundbite and helped Hollande get elected so he's happy. However 50% is a very important level psychologically as was proven last time around, add the NI and it's 52% so more than half and at that point you most definitely get a change in behaviour. The top rate now is 47% (45+2) so we are close to that point. The top earners typically have the most geographical flexibility, the most ability to change the way they are compensated. We can't all be Phillip Green and pay our wives a £1 billion offshore to avoid £300m in tax but people will change their behaviour.

If you look at the maths of going from, say, 45% to 50% to actually collect less you only need 1 in 10 to relocate (thus losing all their tax revenue) and this is without factoring in the economic impact of less VAT and less money in the economy as it's now in the governments pocket. With incremental changes you will get people maxing out their tax allowances, eg at 50% you do max pension at 40% you pay the tax and take the cash. These affects mean you always collect less than you thought if you just assume nobody changes their behaviour.

There's no absolute right. If you were taxed at 80% you'd expect a great benefit to society. What's right is that you get a good standard of living proportional to your work, and those less fortunate do not get screwed over. Progressive tax reflects the fact that there is a minimum comfortable cost of living.

And who decides? This is fundamentally flawed thinking, it implies that there ought to be a ceiling on pay but not achievement, why should that be the case?

There's nothing special about the laffer curve - it's just a graph that explains a basic concept ie price elasticity in the context of tax revenue. It's neither RW or LW, it just is.

There is lots of work on the point at which revenue begins to fall as the tax rate increases. The last time I was going to link to this, we ended up with a ban, so I won't bother again. Suffice to say it is well below 75%. Most economists point to a range and funnily enough guess where the debate in the UK is?

Hollande as a RW hero? Well he is now implementing policies that are more RW that the RWers and vice versa. So perhaps, yes!!

Either way political stances are largely irrelevant. Across Europe there is a basic policy mix - tight fiscal policy (negative), unorthodox loose monetary policy and supply-side reforms. The problem? Monetary policy is not working because the banking system is still buggered and supply side policies take time. On top of that, Europe is constrained by an unworkable currency regime.

BD - good for you mentioning e. It is all about the e and it's a bugger to measure!

This is fundamentally flawed thinking, it implies that there ought to be a ceiling on pay

No it doesn't. A ceiling on pay would be a 100% tax band. I'm not advocating that, nor am I advocating an 80% or even 75% tax band.

And who decides?

Who decides on what?

This is fundamentally flawed thinking, it implies that there ought to be a ceiling on pay but not achievement, why should that be the case?

I don't know how many people contributing to this have read Piketty, but his stuff on the explosive growth in top earnings in the last few decades is interesting. Essentially, some places (chiefly UK and USA) dismantled their very high top marginal rates, other countries did not do so. While salaries rose astronomically in the US and UK (and not in countries that still had high marginal rates), there was no measurable difference in productivity growth between the two different scenarios.

Another related anecdote - working on a big corporate reorganisation of a £3billion corporate group, I was struck by how much time was being spent negotiating senior executives' packages, and asked the consultant from a Big 4 practice what proportion of board time in big companies was typically spent working out how much to pay the board. Her answer was "about 50%".

That may have been flippant, I'm not sure. Piketty's point is that if an executive gets 20% of every additional pound of salary that he negotiates for, he is unlikely to bother, and a company that knows that 80% of what it pays above a certain level is tax is unlikely to go any higher. If the executive can get 50% of each additional pound, he'll try harder to convince the company that it is worth them paying it. There is no particular evidence that this is the case.

🙂

Who decides what's right regarding standard of living proportional to work? You're in a minefield of subjective opinion and enforced "fairness". I completely agree that the poorest in society should have a safety net and that adequate provision is made for pensions through NI I belive we should contribute to society. I do not believe that it's for you, me or anyone else to decide that, above a certain threshold, taxes should be punative as it would (and has previously) created artifical pay ceilings and allowed those in the know to avoid paying their dues.

It's easy to create a scenario where a person, through luck, judgement or hardwork does exceptionally well. The idea of any of their earnings being taxed north of the current 45% seems unfair as they will make a much larger contribution anyway. Didn't we do this last week.

the explosive growth in top earnings in the last few decades

But those high wages still pay lots more in tax, even if the percentage is no higher than someone on £40k...?

Who decides what's right regarding standard of living proportional to work?

Well quite, this is a good question. As a society we have to look at what's acceptable, and we have been doing this for 150 years.

I do not believe that it's for you, me or anyone else to decide that above a certain threshold taxes should be punative

Who's talking about being punitive? If you get a £100k payrise, and you are taxed 50% on it, why is that punishment? You've just made an extra £50k FFS, what's to complain about?

Because It's not for you to decide that 50k is enough, do you really not see that?

Simple maths - A person earns 250k and pays 10% tax = 25k tax paid
A person earns 25k and pays 10% tax = 2.5k tax paid.

One is paying 10 times more than the other, seems really simple to me.

Who says it's not for me?

Someone has to decide tax thresholds, otherwise how can you have tax?

Look - the country needs a certain amount to run. You can take it from poor people or from rich people. Stands to reason that you should take more from rich people, and given the economics of daily life I think you could take proportionally more. Instead of robbing the rich, think of it as not robbing the poor, and it makes much more sense.

seems really simple to me.

Yes, that is simple, but it's not as fair as a progressive system, because as mentioned the cost of living is not proportional to your income. So your simple maths is too simple.

Simple isn't necessarily good - I could say that eveyrone pays £50 - that's the simplest, but it's not workable.

And that's what your vote is for, happily tax increases are political suicide.

If you get a £100k payrise, and you are taxed 50% on it, why is that punishment? You've just made an extra £50k FFS

but you have to look at what the effort was that had to be put in to get the 100k bonus.

If tax rates are high you might decide that it wasn't worth the effort/stress/shortening of life expectancy that working hard entails.

Rich people whining about more tax is people with a comfortable life whining about how it's not even more comfortable. Whilst other people are suffering.

Sickening.

There are much simpler models mol as we discussed before! Simplicity can be very good.

There are plenty of sound arguments why taking higher propositions from higher earners is neither morally or legally better - they just are not the current collective wisdom.

If tax rates are high you might decide that it wasn't worth the effort/stress/shortening of life expectancy that working hard entails.

As if salary is proportional to effort and stress! Are you actually from Earth?

Yes, sounds as if TG is from earth. Google income and substitution effects mol. It's a perfectly valid point.

Simplicity can be very good.

Yeah, it can also be bad. So..?

There are plenty of sound arguments why taking higher propositions from higher earners is neither morally or legally better

Yeah I keep asking for you to share them with the group but you never do..

I'm not a wealth-hater, all I want to do is make sure the lower and middle incom brakcets are well looked after, and public services are good. If a flat rate tax can do that, then great. Let's have it.

As if salary is proportional to effort and stress! Are you actually from Earth?

Of course I am - I earn a decent salary but I have also spent a lot of my own time and money either keeping my skills up to date or learning new skills.

Or I could sit on my backside and complain that my employer never provides any training or assuming that I can learn everything I need to know on the job.

I got a bonus last year and a paid holiday this, but only after working sh1t loads of hours over last summer and losing a lot of fitness and getting a lot more grey hairs.

I got decent bonuses at banks I worked for, but also caught the 1.05am train home on more occasions than I would like.

There are plenty of sound arguments why taking higher propositions from higher earners is neither [b]morally[/b] or legally better

Go on then.

TG - that's you, you worked hard. Lots of other people work hard, and get paid far less.

There are plenty of sound arguments why taking higher propositions from higher earners is neither morally or legally better

Let's turn this one around. The corollary to that is that there are plenty of sound arguments why taking lower proportions from low earners is neither morally or legally better.

But those high wages still pay lots more in tax, even if the percentage is no higher than someone on £40k...?

They do, yes. However, the amount of tax you levy on wages has an impact on what wages are paid and why. Piketty is also very interested in the tendency of wealth to concentrate, and the tendency of large concentrations of inherited wealth to out-perform working as a source of income.

Essentially, the case is that you need to redistribute quite a lot (even of earned income) if you don't want a sclerotic society based on inheritance. That's a rather bigger argument than one which is just about balancing the books however.

🙂

Mol - what has effort to do with it? A little yes because it affects the supply of labour. But it is supply, and demand not effort that determines wages.

Aracer - there are different ways of arguing justice or what should we do, that is all I am saying. It is not correct to argue that one is morally superior in my mind. They are just different

There are plenty of sound arguments why taking higher propositions from higher earners is neither morally or legally better

Putting aside what may or may not be "legal" or "moral" and focusing on what may be practical, I direct your attention to the opening post. The French tried this and it didn't work.

Their high net worth earners are fleeing the country and their economy is (not surprisingly, except for perhaps the most fervent believers in the Magic Money Tree) down the crapper.

[list]Anyway far more worrying than France's barmy tax policies is the fact the Germany looks closer to slipping back jnto recession. Dreadful industrial production figures today.

The French tried this and it didn't work.

Did they abandon it then? 😉

I have always liked the [url= http://www.themarketingblog.co.uk/2013/04/explanation-of-tax-10-men-go-into-a-bar%E2%80%A6/ ]bar stool economics[/url] view of why tax breaks always err towards the rich and why we shouldn't tax too highly (Perhaps I should have sent it to François Hollande ?)

Simplistic I know and it doesn't cover all situations - but I think it poss covers France quite well at the moment

there are different ways of arguing justice or what should we do, that is all I am saying. It is not correct to argue that one is morally superior in my mind. They are just different

Yes, but it seems a lot more defensible when you put it your way rather than mine.

Putting aside what may or may not be "legal" or "moral" and focusing on what may be practical, I direct your attention to the opening post. The French tried this and it didn't work.

Except they still have a progressive taxation system, which is what THM is actually suggesting there are arguments against. We also have a progressive taxation system which does (by some measures) work.

Can I just check, are we simply arguing over how high the upper tax rate should be set to maximise revenue, or are there others who have an ideological stance on this (such as that progressive taxation is a bad thing - tell us how you really feel THM).

Not putting my way - merely articulation another way. Kept my way out of it for now.

Bad idea on tax threads!!!

Because It's not for you to decide that 50k is enough, do you really not see that?

Surely it is exactly us, as in society, to decide exactly this. There is no higher absolute authority, unless you're expecting God to appear with new tax bandings?

Their high net worth earners are fleeing the country

Got any stats on how many? You might recall the threatened mass exodus from the City with the 45% tax rate that turned to be a handful of people who actually left.....

A salutary lesson.

It's not as good as "Consider the lilies", tbh.

tell us how you really feel THM

Especially if it is - to quote - a moral issue.

Not putting my way - merely articulation another way. Kept my way out of it for now.

Well it was what you wrote in your post - are you trying to attribute it to somebody else?

If you prefer then: it seems a lot more defensible when you put it the way THM wrote in his post rather than mine.

I am OK with progressive tax with a sensible maximum threshold. Ideally around 30-35% however as we are in dire straits currently 40% seems bearable.

I'd prefer a flat rate system that had a single no tax band then a straight 25% over that. Mainly because it would save a fortune in admin and I believe it would mean less evasion and avoidance and resources would be freed up to pursue corporate and other major tax streams worth far far more than personal tax.

Because It's not for you to decide that 50k is enough, do you really not see that?

Simple maths - A person earns 250k and pays 10% tax = 25k tax paid
A person earns 25k and pays 10% tax = 2.5k tax paid.

One is paying 10 times more than the other, seems really simple to me.

FWIW you could do 10 % for 25 k and the 1.01% and your 250 k person still pays "more"
I think you would struggle to convince folk of the simple maths fact that the later pays "more".

it would mean less evasion and avoidance

Ok OTT but you get the point.

Flat rates favour the wealthy as they pass the tax burden to the "squeezed middle " [ assuming we have a 10 k + threshold

Of course they pay more 2.5k is 10 x less than 25k. You're the one being disingenuous. At what point has a person contributed enough or is there no limit to how much they should pay? It's also highly likely that high earners are using significantly fewer public services except, it would seem, those based in the tax office.

At what point has a person contributed enough or is there no limit to how much they should pay?

You're suggesting an upper threshold on total tax paid, ie a 0% upper rate? 😯

t's also highly likely that high earners are using significantly fewer public services

Your issue is actually people not getting back what they've paid for then? Presumably as the poor use more public services they should pay more?

Progressive tax rates, ie higher rates on higher incomes are pretty much universal even in Hong Kong and Singapore where the top rates at 15% and 20%. What this does is create a situation where the well off pay a disproportionately large portion of the tax burden. Many here seem to believe the "rich don't pay enough" but in the UK the top 1% pay nearly 30% of the income taxes. We already have a progressive tax system where the less well off have public services and welfare provided by others.

I see lots of comments above which concern me, statements like whether someone has worked "hard enough" for that extra £100k or whether it is fair they get paid so much. Those are impossible concepts to judge or to get any consensus on.

What we have to have, as @molgrips says, is a tax system which pays the bills. You can talk fairness all you like but if in trying to artificially create this mythical fairness (which frankly is like trying to find the Holy Grail) by redistributing wealth via the tax system you actually shrink the pot that's bad for all.

Those are impossible concepts to judge or to get any consensus on.

I earn (roughly) £8.50 an hour as an auxiliary nurse... let me think about it. 😈

The point being: you don't have to be an unreconstructed commie to view, say, the stratospheric rise in CEO pay as being entirely out of step.

Of course they pay more 2.5k is 10 x less than 25k

In your view 1.01 % @ 250 k would still be them paying more than the person paying 10 % as this number was the highest - few would agree with your assessment.

is there no limit to how much they should pay?

@noteeth - sorry to be very controversial here (for the purposes of the discussion) but a fair society is one where you have freedom of choice for what you do for a living, I imagine you could have got into other lines of work which pay more ? That is a different question as to whether you are paid enough of course, wendyballers get paid a hell of a lot for kicking a football/opposition. The NHS has a budget of £130bn perhaps you can argue it should be distributed differently. Our tax system does protect you with a tax free amount before you start paying tax and you have access to all the other facilites like education, health care and if you need it welfare support in the same way as someone earning a lot more.

EDIT: Free movement of labour and offshore manufacturing have undermined wages at the lower end. That CEO is being paid a lot and in fact he's paying more tax for the same £1 than you would pay if you received it which is arguably "better for the country". You cannot fix pay differentials via the tax system. Do I think £8.50 an hour for an auxiliary nurse is too little, yes I do. However if you try and fix that by raising taxes on the "rich" what I fear you'll do is cut the size of the pot for all.

all wages do is show why the laws of supply and demand are a bit crap and less than perfect.

Footballers paid 300k per week whilst carers get the MW for unsocial shift work and weekend work- we can all explain it but I imagine none of us want to justify it [ bound to be someone who tries]

a fair society is one where you have freedom of choice for what you do for a living

Of course, I agree entirely - I'm not bemoaning my choice of career (or even, tbh - the pay... having days-off midweek & riding empty trails is the pretty much the best compensation ever). But the "justification" for stellar salaries is often, in my view, [i]very[/i] weak & rarely stands up to scrutiny - not least the brightest-and-best BS that gets slung around. It's not simply a matter of shrugging one's shoulders and claiming that it is impossible to get a consensus on these things - the relationship between effort/supply/demand in executive pay is utterly borked.

[i]You've just made an extra £50k FFS[/i]
But you may have earnt 1,000,000 extra for your company, hence the bonus. Then as well as paying their liability on your bonus, they'll be taxed on that extra million profit, too.
😯

[i]Who says it's not for me?[/i]
Whoops! Me, I won't vote for you, in anything other than the STW whingey leftite competition and even then, I'm not sure you'd win, you've plenty of stiff competition.
😉

[i] Instead of robbing the rich, think of it as not robbing the poor, and it makes much more sense.[/i]
So you're still missing how having the rich around, actually helps the poor, who all need jobs. The Rich contribute to an economy in some mysterious way other than paying lots of tax, or leave, as we've seen in France. How many Lamborghini sales men have you ever employed? I'd love to employ one for a day, but I can't afford a Lamborghini.

[i]I'm not a wealth-hater, all I want to do is make sure the lower and middle incom brakcets are well looked after, and public services are good.[/i]
Pick one! As funding [i]better[/i] public services, by its very nature, is a direct drain on my income at source, ie, tax. Furthermore, if you ( and me) want better incomes for the lower and middle income brackets, then surely this is the burden the employer / shareholder should face by paying correct wages, rather than have those wages subsidized with tax payer £s.

[i]TG - that's you, you worked hard. Lots of other people work hard, and get paid far less.[/i]
Bet most of the people on that 1:05am train weren't still in their office clothes from the previous morning though... There's working hard and there's having no life and probably shortening whatever life you might have. Working like that. So why no a bonus.

I asked a question I did not suggest anything. It seems to me that if a millionaire is paying several hundred thousand in tax, perhaps also owning businesses doing likewise and then, through their spending, adding more revenue through VAT that they have made an adequate social contribution. My question was rhetorical, tax is for making provision of shared services and providing social security so at some point someone will have paid more than enough toward the general good. To then take their money because "they can afford it" is what thieves say..

[i]at some point someone will have paid more than enough toward the general good to take their money because "they can afford it" is what theives say.. [/i]

At which point, the continous tax grab becomes a morally questionable activity.

Except they still have a progressive taxation system, which is what THM is actually suggesting there are arguments against. We also have a progressive taxation system which does (by some measures) work.

There are for some. We do indeed, but it is overly complex and inefficient to run. Needs major reform.

Can I just check, are we simply arguing over how high the upper tax rate should be set to maximise revenue, or are there others who have an ideological stance on this (such as that progressive taxation is a bad thing - tell us how you really feel THM).

The first thing "may be" setting the rate at a level where you will maximise revenues. This is not ideology it's mere practicality. As discussed above this depends on tax income elasticity (e) and there it is difficult to calculate with precision. In the UK it is between 40-50%.

yes you did hence why we both got your position correct - deductive logic innit.

at some point someone will have paid more than enough toward the general good to take their money

because "they can afford it" is what theives say..

So Proudhon was wrong property is not theft but taxation is ..you are the tea party and I claim my sarah palin memorable flag sticker pack.

Mol - what has effort to do with it?

That's my point.

I am OK with progressive tax with a sensible maximum threshold. Ideally around 30-35%

Wait, I thought it wasn't for any of us to decide?

Simple maths - A person earns 250k and pays 10% tax = 25k tax paid
A person earns 25k and pays 10% tax = 2.5k tax paid.

It's about affordability. 25k from a person earning £250k is peanuts, but £1000 from a person earning £10k is much more onerous.

We do indeed, but it is overly complex and inefficient to run.

Are you seriously suggesting the presence of a higher tax band is what makes it complex and inefficient? Don't talk rubbish. Tax allowances are far more complex, but you aren't arguing for the removal of those are you?

It's an emotive subject. You're claiming that it is fair to tax the wealthy at a much higher rate than others. You further suggest that arbitary decisions can be made as to how much wealth is appropriate for a given individual.

I disagree. Aligning me with Sarah Palin, really?

It's about affordability. 25k from a person earning £250k is peanuts, but £1000 from a person earning £10k is much more onerous

Despite quoting me in the same post you ignore the sensible theshold I mentioned. I do not agree a 10k earner should pay tax.

As to 25k being peanuts,it's still 10x more than the other person in my example.

[i]It's about affordability. 25k from a person earning £250k is peanuts, but £1000 from a person earning £10k is much more onerous.[/i]

While not sticking to the original example given. Based on personal experience, I fear that 25K may be a significant way short of what Mr/Mrs 250K would actually pay, here in the UK.

Does anyone actually have a reasonably judged figure, total payable take in the UK for 250K?

Might I make a small modification to:

[i]at some point someone will have paid more than enough toward the general good to take their money because "they can afford it" is what theives say..[/i]

towit:

[i]at some point someone will have paid more than enough toward the general good. To take their money because "they can afford it" is what thieves say..[/i]

Are you seriously suggesting the presence of a higher tax band is what makes it complex and inefficient? Don't talk rubbish. Tax allowances are far more complex, but you aren't arguing for the removal of those are you?

+1 - it's not the tax system being progressive which makes it complex and inefficient - that's all the allowances for various things, where the tax system is used to attempt to modify people's behaviour. Not really what the tax system should be designed to do IMHO. I am unconvinced that having more than one tax band in itself makes a huge difference to the cost of administering the system nor that it makes evasion and avoidance more likely.

In the UK it is between 40-50%.

That's a pretty definitive statement. Not 51% or 52% then? So you reckon the current upper rate is too high?

[i]klumpy - Member
Might I make a small modification to:

at some point someone will have paid more than enough toward the general good to take their money because "they can afford it" is what theives say..

towit:

at some point someone will have paid more than enough toward the general good. To take their money because "they can afford it" is what thieves say.. [/i]

YIPPEE!!! We're all going to Live!

I already had! Typo on my part.

You're claiming that it is fair to tax the wealthy at a much higher rate than others.

Let's do this again. I'm claiming that it's fair to tax the poor at a lower rate than the wealthy. Is this something you disagree with?

You further suggest that arbitary decisions can be made as to how much wealth is appropriate for a given individual.

Arbitrary decisions have to be made. Of course it won't be absolutely "fair" for everybody, but I don't think most sensible people would dispute that a progressive tax system is more fair for more people than one which isn't.

That's a pretty definitive statement. Not 51% or 52% then? So you reckon the current upper rate is too high?

Yes. And not just me, that is where the current analysis suggests. It's all available online 😉 even at the HRMC

Are you seriously suggesting the presence of a higher tax band is what makes it complex and inefficient?

No so don't suggest this. I do know that we have an overly complex and inefficient tax systems in the UK that serves it's purpose poorly. Google Mirlees Report.

Don't talk rubbish.

Cheers I am not. Nice and polite BTW.

Tax allowances are far more complex, but you aren't arguing for the removal of those are you?

You tell me, you seem to enjoy saying what I am saying and not saying!

[i]Let's do this again. I'm claiming that it's fair to tax the poor at a lower rate than the wealthy. Is this something you disagree with?[/i]
Nope..... But where do you stop hittin-up the [i]Riche[/i].

No. I agree, to a point.