So then, what is the ideal top level tax rate (hint: not Denmark's 62% morriss) Page 2

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 14:55:01 8,316 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Aye, if your wife can't carry around the 60k handbag then no one will invest in your construction biz...
    If you don't buy that 60k handbag then there's no one with any of that money to employ your construction biz.
  • JuanKerr 2 Jan 2013 14:55:19 36,445 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    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.
    That's a shame. I know a fair few people who I'd say excel in what they do and they all still seem to do it for the love of it. Must be a shame lose that and just become fixated on cash.
  • mcmonkeyplc 2 Jan 2013 14:55:42 39,569 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I'll just stop posting and let Leo B say it all in big words now. :p

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • warlockuk 2 Jan 2013 14:55:55 19,223 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I still think sliding scale taxes are a bit wrong. If you earn ten times what someone in burger king earns you should pay (ignoring the allowance) ten times the tax at a flat rate. But because your pie is bigger they want an even greedier piece of the pie... So while most people's pie looks like Pacman the high-earners pies look like pac-man mid death sequence... albeit very large ones.

    Whole concept of punishing 'em for earning a lot of money (when they're paying more money because of percentages anyway) just seems immoral to me.

    If they made it a little fairer then fewer of these rich cunts would be hiring teams of people to hide their cash off-shore and dodge tax altogether.

    I'm a grumpy bastard.

  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 14:55:57
    The top earners have left, what is now the average earnings and the total tax revenue per year in France?
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 14:56:31
    I think that financial reward is an incentive to excel, but that doesn't necessarily mean if you remove that reward you therefore completely remove all incentive.

    I've seen this with workplace bonuses vanishing over the last few years. You still basically want to do as well as you can, but you don't have that same goal that you're really driving for.
  • JuanKerr 2 Jan 2013 14:57:45 36,445 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    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 :)
    Yes, that is slightly different.

    Judging by the actions of F1 drivers and the like, it seems even the UK tax system is grossly unfair :)
  • Fake_Blood 2 Jan 2013 14:58:20 4,454 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    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.
    Do you live in North Korea?
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 14:58:51
    warlockuk wrote:
    I still think sliding scale taxes are a bit wrong. If you earn ten times what someone in burger king earns you should pay (ignoring the allowance) ten times the tax at a flat rate. But because your pie is bigger they want an even greedier piece of the pie.
    But the sliding-scale is there for the sake of the poor people, not to punish the rich people. If it was a meaningful percentage across the board, that would absolutely fuck the poor (20% of 10 an hour will hurt much more than 20% of 100 an hour).
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 15:00:17 41,267 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    Aye, if your wife can't carry around the 60k handbag then no one will invest in your construction biz...
    If you don't buy that 60k handbag then there's no one with any of that money to employ your construction biz.
    Eh? That makes no sense. Unless you're trying to say people only invest individually and with their liquid capital. Better tell LB, his industry is in for a nasty shock once word filters up that hey aren't needed anymore.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 15:00:27 44,957 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    If I was super rich, I'd love to say I'd stay in England and pay my share.

    But I'm not, but more importantly also I don't know that I would, which would make me a bit of a hypocrit if I started criticising them from the standpoint that I'll never have to worry about that. That's a Daily mail trick :)

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • JuanKerr 2 Jan 2013 15:00:56 36,445 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    warlockuk is Robin Hood. Rich = bad, poor = good.
  • Fake_Blood 2 Jan 2013 15:01:33 4,454 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Yeah I was thinking about Robin Hood too.
  • Stickman 2 Jan 2013 15:02:33 29,664 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    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!
    Hey, I'm just the ideas man. You can work out the nuts and bolts.

    THIS SPACE FOR RENT

  • El_MUERkO 2 Jan 2013 15:03:24 17,149 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I'd like a massive reform of the whole tax code to simplify, make fairer and remove all the loopholes. A top rate of 35% on income and, 30% on investments that absolutely everyone paid would keep wealth in the country and take in far more tax than currently generated.

    I'd also like to see the abolition of estate, inheritance and gift (between family members) taxes to allow people to help their children without being double taxed.

    The top rate being 45 or 50 or 62 percent is exactly the kind of argument the rich and their accounts want politicians and the public to have. Who cares what the top rate is when you're not paying it.

    Edited by El_MUERkO at 15:04:45 02-01-2013
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 15:04:32
    Fake_Blood wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    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.
    Do you live in North Korea?
    High tax doesn't mean a dictatorship. I hope that wasn't your point.
  • Fake_Blood 2 Jan 2013 15:05:34 4,454 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Whatever, I'll see you inline when we get our food stamps.
  • Feanor 2 Jan 2013 15:07:16 14,185 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Which country has the most efficient tax system? Surely there's been some studies done.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 15:07:27 44,957 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    El_MUERkO wrote:
    Who cares what the top rate is when you're not paying it.
    Those who aspire to earn that much one day?

    Otherwise you're first paragraph is immediately undercut by your second paragraph, and most of the current tax loopholes remain I'm afraid.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 15:07:39 8,316 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    Aye, if your wife can't carry around the 60k handbag then no one will invest in your construction biz...
    If you don't buy that 60k handbag then there's no one with any of that money to employ your construction biz.
    Eh? That makes no sense. Unless you're trying to say people only invest individually and with their liquid capital. Better tell LB, his industry is in for a nasty shock once word filters up that hey aren't needed anymore.
    No, I'm saying that without money being spent in large numbers within a country, then there's not enough in the cycle to be spread amongst the population and no demand for industry any more because people can't afford it.
  • Fake_Blood 2 Jan 2013 15:08:18 4,454 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Feanor wrote:
    Which country has the most efficient tax system? Surely there's been some studies done.
    Monaco.
  • RyanDS 2 Jan 2013 15:08:46 9,857 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    El_MUERkO wrote:
    I'd like a massive reform of the whole tax code to simplify, make fairer and remove all the loopholes. A top rate of 35% on income and, 30% on investments that absolutely everyone paid would keep wealth in the country and take in far more tax than currently generated.

    I'd also like to see the abolition of estate, inheritance and gift (between family members) with taxes.

    The top rate being 45 or 50 or 62 percent is exactly the kind of argument the rich and their accounts want politicians and the public to have. Who cares what the top rate is when you're not paying it.
    Inheritance tax is possibly the most important existing tax to ensure redistribution of wealth.

    Without it the inevitable result in the long term is simply a consolodation of land with families to the detriment of society as a whole.

    You can however argue about the thresholds of the tax (which I agree are too low) but the tax itself it brilliant. It was hugely important in getting lhuge land estates away from the gentry and back onto the market in the late 19th century.
  • warlockuk 2 Jan 2013 15:10:47 19,223 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    warlockuk wrote:
    I still think sliding scale taxes are a bit wrong. If you earn ten times what someone in burger king earns you should pay (ignoring the allowance) ten times the tax at a flat rate. But because your pie is bigger they want an even greedier piece of the pie.
    But the sliding-scale is there for the sake of the poor people, not to punish the rich people. If it was a meaningful percentage across the board, that would absolutely fuck the poor (20% of 10 an hour will hurt much more than 20% of 100 an hour).
    Yes. But the thing is... They already pay 20% of whatever (after allowance)

    ...if they're paying the 22.5% on 100k, they're paying 22,500 per year in tax. If they earn more, say 200k, they're paying 45,000 tax. The same tax as 10 people earning 20k. The more they earn the more they pay. To tell 'em "Actually, for earning 200,000 we want 75,000" - thus paying the tax of 17 people instead of 10 people just seems greedy.

    Yeah, they can afford to take the hit - but considering they're already paying the tax of ten men... shouldn't that be enough?
    JuanKerr wrote:
    warlockuk is Robin Hood. Rich = bad, poor = good.
    No, what I'm saying is that the richer you pay the more you'd pay anyway, but taking the absolute piss means people are going to send their cash elsewhere. Look at all the contractors who go through umbrella companies or set themselves up as a business just to save themselves getting violated on tax.

    I'm a grumpy bastard.

  • nickthegun 2 Jan 2013 15:11:15 61,325 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Unless you die suddenly, inheritance tax is laughably easy to avoid if you get the right advice.

    Again, its one of those taxes where the only people who pay it are the ones who cant afford to avoid it.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 15:12:02
    Fake_Blood wrote:
    Whatever, I'll see you inline when we get our food stamps.
    Subsidies don't mean food stamps. Food stamps don't equal a dictatorship or communism anyway.
  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 15:13:14 8,316 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Do we really want to redistribute wealth any more though? I don't think things should just be handed from one to the other in this day an age, where you can become wealthy in other ways or with a good idea. Aren't something like 80% of the worlds millionaires self made?
  • warlockuk 2 Jan 2013 15:13:46 19,223 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    RyanDS wrote:
    Inheritance tax is possibly the most important existing tax to ensure redistribution of wealth.

    Without it the inevitable result in the long term is simply a consolodation of land with families to the detriment of society as a whole.

    You can however argue about the thresholds of the tax (which I agree are too low) but the tax itself it brilliant. It was hugely important in getting lhuge land estates away from the gentry and back onto the market in the late 19th century.
    That's a bit of a shit way of looking at it. You pay tax when you earn, pay tax when you spend or save and then when you die they want tax again on the money you've already paid tax on at least twice.

    Not everyone inheriting land is sitting around in ruffled shirts smoking opium... a lot of the time people who get left houses end up having to sell them because they can't afford the tax. It's a bit shit to be left something that you can't afford to keep.

    I'm a grumpy bastard.

  • RyanDS 2 Jan 2013 15:14:40 9,857 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    Fake_Blood wrote:
    Whatever, I'll see you inline when we get our food stamps.
    Subsidies don't mean food stamps. Food stamps don't equal a dictatorship or communism anyway.
    Quite.

    Just look at trains as an example of where subsidies can hugely impact the economy etc.

    Britain 1,860
    France 990
    Germany 944
    Spain 788
    Italy 444
    Passenger Focus, averages for journeys of 11 to 25 miles annually
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 15:15:08 44,957 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Inheritence tax is a good tax set way too low and with no consideration for differing locations IMO.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RyanDS 2 Jan 2013 15:16:48 9,857 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Inheritence tax is a good tax set way too low and with no consideration for differing locations IMO.
    The point I was trying to make, but made much more succintly than I could.
  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

Log in or register to reply