So then, what is the ideal top level tax rate (hint: not Denmark's 62% morriss)

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

    Previous
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 14:19:59 43,746 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    How much money should a successful taxpayer have the right to spend himself, and how much should be appropriated by the Government to usefully improve the country in a manner that taxpayer would not do so voluntarily?

    Too high and you remove the incentive to excel, and run the risk of having no successful taxpayers at all.

    Too low and you remove the basis for excellence, and promote a world where inheritence is more important than natural ability or hard work.

    I reckon anything over 50%, where your hard work is more for the benefit of others than yourself, is too big a disincentive. But I've been wrong before.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 14:20:58
    50% my opinion.
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 14:21:05
    Post deleted
  • Psychotext 2 Jan 2013 14:22:17 53,933 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yeah, I'd say 50%... but in reality when you start getting to those levels people just end up spending more of their money finding ways to avoid the tax.
  • disusedgenius 2 Jan 2013 14:22:48 5,272 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    63%!

    Take THAT Denmark!
  • monkman76 2 Jan 2013 14:23:29 4,163 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Thing is, the top tax rates aren't on all your income, only the proportion above the threshold. So if the top rate is 50% it doesn't mean half your income goes to the taxman. Which I'm sure you know, but often seems to be forgotten in these debates.
  • Psychotext 2 Jan 2013 14:24:42 53,933 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Past a certain point it does. Every contract I complete past that cutoff sees me losing 50% (actually more when everything is taken into account) of what I invoice.
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 14:26:55 40,520 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    If a high rate removes the incentive to excel then how come the US economy had so many excelling during the 50s when the top rate was in the 90s? I know why the economy was doing so well but under your logic no one should have been bothering at the top.

    I think a more important question is how many thresholds you have and what the top one kicks in at. If the top threshold is relatively small then a high rate is wrong. Of its high then, well, is taxing earnings over 10 mill at 75% really going to stop people from making thatuch money? If so, the person choosing to make less money is still a fucking retard.
  • mcmonkeyplc 2 Jan 2013 14:27:53 39,435 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    monkman76 wrote:
    Thing is, the top tax rates aren't on all your income, only the proportion above the threshold. So if the top rate is 50% it doesn't mean half your income goes to the taxman. Which I'm sure you know, but often seems to be forgotten in these debates.
    What this man said. It should be 50% of your total income as a maximum. As in it goes up all the way until you are in fact paying 50% of your income as tax. Then anything else you get to keep so you have an incentive do be even more successful :)

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 14:29:01 6,981 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    I reckon anything over 50%, where your hard work is more for the benefit of others than yourself, is too big a disincentive. But I've been wrong before.
    Not wrong on this though.

    Just look at the grand depart of top French talent, not just the big names like Arnault - there's plenty of the French financial industry coming over to the uk as we speak.
  • Murbal 2 Jan 2013 14:29:24 22,074 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20881383

    SUPERTAX
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 14:30:43 43,746 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Actually once you've factored in VAT and the likes of fuel / alcohol / cigarette duties, stamp duty, road tax, national insurance and various other minor taxes, in the UK the balancing point is somewhere around 30k depending on what you buy.

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 14:30:55 02-01-2013

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 14:31:35 43,746 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    I reckon anything over 50%, where your hard work is more for the benefit of others than yourself, is too big a disincentive. But I've been wrong before.
    Not wrong on this though.

    Just look at the grand depart of top French talent, not just the big names like Arnault - there's plenty of the French financial industry coming over to the uk as we speak.
    The richest man in France is now the richest man in Belgium as a result.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 2 Jan 2013 14:33:51 86,904 posts
    Seen 51 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It's important to say at what amount over which you pay that tax rate as well. I'm happy with 50% but to have the cut-off at 35k these days is ridiculous. That's not what the "rich" earn, especially in London.
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 14:34:37 40,520 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Kinda fucking stupid isn't he, as a Fench judge blocked that law. Think of all the money he wasted moving his affairs ANd winding up in Belgium.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 14:37:03 43,746 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Blocked on a technicality, which means Hollande is childishly crowdpleasing, fiscally idiotic and incompetent.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 14:38:56 6,981 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    monkman76 wrote:
    Thing is, the top tax rates aren't on all your income, only the proportion above the threshold. So if the top rate is 50% it doesn't mean half your income goes to the taxman. Which I'm sure you know, but often seems to be forgotten in these debates.
    The other thing that's forgotten is that a high earners base level of outgoing is also much higher than a low earners, to be successful and continue to be you need to be well presented and live a certain lifestyle. This isn't snobbery, it's a necessity. Deals are struck in members clubs, golf courses etc and to be taken seriously by your peers you need to be accepted - which you won't be if you drive a Y reg panda. All these things, of course, are liable to be taxed.
  • disusedgenius 2 Jan 2013 14:40:47 5,272 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    /wipes away tear
  • Stickman 2 Jan 2013 14:42:02 29,664 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    10% up to 15k, 20% up to 25k, 30% up to 50k, 40% up to 1m, 50% 1m+.

    THIS SPACE FOR RENT

  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 14:43:00 6,981 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Yeah yeah, hard done by souls etc. it's easy to mock, but you need to accept that people with lots of money spend lots of money. This is all going back into the system for everyone's benefit, if you drive them out of the country with taxrape, you're going to be losing out.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 14:43:00 43,746 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Stickman wrote:
    10% up to 15k, 20% up to 25k, 30% up to 50k, 40% up to 1m, 50% 1m+.
    So then erm ... minus 1,200 ... carry the 4 ...

    OK!

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RyanDS 2 Jan 2013 14:43:46 9,204 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    monkman76 wrote:
    Thing is, the top tax rates aren't on all your income, only the proportion above the threshold. So if the top rate is 50% it doesn't mean half your income goes to the taxman. Which I'm sure you know, but often seems to be forgotten in these debates.
    The other thing that's forgotten is that a high earners base level of outgoing is also much higher than a low earners, to be successful and continue to be you need to be well presented and live a certain lifestyle. This isn't snobbery, it's a necessity. Deals are struck in members clubs, golf courses etc and to be taken seriously by your peers you need to be accepted - which you won't be if you drive a Y reg panda. All these things, of course, are liable to be taxed.
    All of those things you could run through the corporation tax as work expenditure, so that does not factor into the income tax figure.

    I'd say 66% is a decent limit, but only as part of a graduated taxation program for earnings above 500k or something, below that 50%.
  • sport 2 Jan 2013 14:44:23 12,686 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Stickman wrote:
    10% up to 15k, 20% up to 25k, 30% up to 50k, 40% up to 1m, 50% 1m+.
    That makes a perfect bellend curve.
  • JuanKerr 2 Jan 2013 14:47:22 36,239 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Do high taxes really remove the incentive to excel? I'm really not convinced that they do.

    Not that I'll ever earn enough for it to be an issue, but it certainly doesn't put me off - the chance to actually excel in something is incentive enough, the money is a bonus but not everything.

    Edited by JuanKerr at 14:48:38 02-01-2013
  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 14:47:33 6,981 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    RyanDS wrote:


    All of those things you could run through the corporation tax as work expenditure, so that does not factor into the income tax figure.
    .
    And then you pay BIK tax. It all goes back in one way or another, and there's also the money being paid before going to a company who pays an employees wage, which is taxed etc etc and it all keeps going round.
  • disusedgenius 2 Jan 2013 14:51:29 5,272 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    JuanKerr wrote:
    Do high taxes really remove the incentive to excel? I'm really not convinced that they do.
    I know a few people where it does, actually. They're very strange and boring people, but very much buy into the 'monetary wealth == self-worth' thing. Odd as they started on a career for the love of it, but slowly the desire to accumulate just starts to grind them down.
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 14:51:36
    Depends on what is done with the money and how well. It's not as simple as what percentage.

    75% would be fine is food and fuel were subsidised, as an example.
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 14:53:03 40,520 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Aye, if your wife can't carry around the 60k handbag then no one will invest in your construction biz...
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 14:53:15 43,746 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    JuanKerr wrote:
    Do high taxes really remove the incentive to excel? I'm really not convinced that they do.

    Not that I'll ever earn enough for it to be an issue, but it certainly doesn't put me off - the chance to actually excel in something is incentive enough, the money is a bonus but not everything.
    Perhaps it's easier to say they remove the incentive to excel where you are.

    Say taxes are 25% below 100k and 75% above (for instance). You earn 100k, pay 25k in tax. You have a choice to a) stay in your job, b) work harder for 250k, or c) work harder in another country for 250k, but where the top tax rate is 50%.

    b), where you work harder and move from net earnings of 75k to net earnings of 118k despite your salary more than doubling, is obviously not the one you'll opt for.

    Factor in the fact that the people who pay this top rate of tax are also generally the most mobile, and the Government runs the risk of you leaving, and their tax revenue going from 25k to 0k, which is what we're seeing in France right now.

    Edit: Oh yeah, also factor in that the people this applies to (and thus the potential tax revenue increase for the Government) contribute an irrelevent amount in real terms, and there is literally no benefit to doing it other than punishing people for their success. It's the Blue Shell of tax policies :)

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 14:55:52 02-01-2013

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • mcmonkeyplc 2 Jan 2013 14:54:51 39,435 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    JuanKerr wrote:
    Do high taxes really remove the incentive to excel? I'm really not convinced that they do.

    Not that I'll ever earn enough for it to be an issue, but it certainly doesn't put me off - the chance to actually excel in something is incentive enough, the money is a bonus but not everything.
    It removes the incentive to do it and keep it one country when others can offer you a cheaper rate.

    It doesn't remove the incentive to excel absolutely just it's location :)

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply