Supertax is back.
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/b...
Gist is: 50% tax rate for people earning more than £150,000.
So. This will affect very, very few people. It will raise almost NO money. But the people it does affect are some of the most able and, crucially, most mobile people we have. Which means they can live elsewhere.
And when this was tried before - THEY DID!
To quote BSG: All this has happened before and all this will happen again.
What this signals to me? The end of Labour Rule. The similarity to past events has not escaped the press, either... Given that it's amazing Darling has done it. He must know he's fecked.
Gist is: 50% tax rate for people earning more than £150,000.
So. This will affect very, very few people. It will raise almost NO money. But the people it does affect are some of the most able and, crucially, most mobile people we have. Which means they can live elsewhere.
And when this was tried before - THEY DID!
To quote BSG: All this has happened before and all this will happen again.
What this signals to me? The end of Labour Rule. The similarity to past events has not escaped the press, either... Given that it's amazing Darling has done it. He must know he's fecked.
Don said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/b...
Gist is: 50% tax rate for people earning more than £150,000.
So. This will affect very, very few people. It will raise almost NO money. But the people it does affect are some of the most able and, crucially, most mobile people we have. Which means they can live elsewhere.
And when this was tried before - THEY DID!
To quote BSG: All this has happened before and all this will happen again.
What this signals to me? The end of Labour Rule. The similarity to past events has not escaped the press, either... Given that it's amazing Darling has done it. He must know he's fecked.
It will certainly be interesting. Sat down at dinner last night and the topic of conversation amongst everyone around the table was that we didn't need to be in London, most already had basic roots outside of the UK and most would be quite happy to move out for a 5 year stretch elsewhere.Gist is: 50% tax rate for people earning more than £150,000.
So. This will affect very, very few people. It will raise almost NO money. But the people it does affect are some of the most able and, crucially, most mobile people we have. Which means they can live elsewhere.
And when this was tried before - THEY DID!
To quote BSG: All this has happened before and all this will happen again.
What this signals to me? The end of Labour Rule. The similarity to past events has not escaped the press, either... Given that it's amazing Darling has done it. He must know he's fecked.
What was decided was to wait until the various loop holes become apparent as the majority of people clearing excess of £250k a year are not actually paying tax on a decent chunck of that.
The reality is that I doubt it will raise much money at all as some people will wind down income, others will leave and many will use loop holes.
The only thing we did agree on was that the US was the only place worth going to.
Horse_Apple said:
Don said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/b...
Gist is: 50% tax rate for people earning more than £150,000.
So. This will affect very, very few people. It will raise almost NO money. But the people it does affect are some of the most able and, crucially, most mobile people we have. Which means they can live elsewhere.
And when this was tried before - THEY DID!
To quote BSG: All this has happened before and all this will happen again.
What this signals to me? The end of Labour Rule. The similarity to past events has not escaped the press, either... Given that it's amazing Darling has done it. He must know he's fecked.
It will certainly be interesting. Sat down at dinner last night and the topic of conversation amongst everyone around the table was that we didn't need to be in London, most already had basic roots outside of the UK and most would be quite happy to move out for a 5 year stretch elsewhere.Gist is: 50% tax rate for people earning more than £150,000.
So. This will affect very, very few people. It will raise almost NO money. But the people it does affect are some of the most able and, crucially, most mobile people we have. Which means they can live elsewhere.
And when this was tried before - THEY DID!
To quote BSG: All this has happened before and all this will happen again.
What this signals to me? The end of Labour Rule. The similarity to past events has not escaped the press, either... Given that it's amazing Darling has done it. He must know he's fecked.
What was decided was to wait until the various loop holes become apparent as the majority of people clearing excess of £250k a year are not actually paying tax on a decent chunck of that.
The reality is that I doubt it will raise much money at all as some people will wind down income, others will leave and many will use loop holes.
The only thing we did agree on was that the US was the only place worth going to.
Why would you want to move to the US?
The US are about to go through what the UK went through in 1997. Read this book before you rush off and emigrate: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Welcome-Obamaland-Seen-Fut...
As for the new supertax, it just sends out the wrong message to the world that the UK is going backwards. Everyone knows that when Nigel Lawson reduced the higher rate rax from 60% to 40%, revenues went up. Why penalise enterprise and hard work?
As for the new supertax, it just sends out the wrong message to the world that the UK is going backwards. Everyone knows that when Nigel Lawson reduced the higher rate rax from 60% to 40%, revenues went up. Why penalise enterprise and hard work?
They are playing to the cheap seats, and trying turn whatever they can in this motherload of s
te to their advantage, so rather than be pilloried throughout the news, they get some respite, as they or there left leaning journo types at the beeb, can make the tories squirm a bit, with are you going to repeal it, its a bear trap, if the tories say we will, labour can say ah look britain they are only interested in the rich, you'll be wanting us to look out for you, or if the tories say no we'll have to keep it as any revenue is needed right now, then it splits the tories.
Its almost clever, so long as, the thick end of the electorate, a significant election swinging group, don't think to ask why do they feel the need to do it. Plus did you notice I haven't mention the enormity of the black hole we're in. Precisely, its a device to move us off their criminal negligence.
I'll be honest I didn't vote the last 2 general elections, rarely in local or european for a variety of reasons, lack of difference between the two parties I suppose, but more apathy I'm sure. However, and I think this is the same for a lot of people, who may not entirely understand the economics of it ll, but we are sure motivated to vote now, as this is too big not to effect every part of our day to day lives, whether it is job security, getting a mortgage even the exchange rate going on holiday, etc. I'm going to vote in the next elections, and by that I mean May (I think locals). And if I'm just a normal person, then the like minded souls are going to be out in force. Labour are going to be wiped out.
I think people can see (and do hope it is not or show) Cameron is genuinely really angry. We could with someone who really cares, and passion. As both Blair and Brown are just calculating machines. I only wish Cameron would make Vince Cable chancellor, as even though he doesn't pretend to have all the answers, he doesn't pretend to have all the answers (if you see what mean) and at least he was the only party that suggested somethings they would start by cutting, ID cards, NHS database, Trident nuclear replacement. Oh I know, but somethings you'd like to do and somethings you can't do without, like SkyHD or Food on the table, and we haven't pot to piss in, this one is borrowed.
te to their advantage, so rather than be pilloried throughout the news, they get some respite, as they or there left leaning journo types at the beeb, can make the tories squirm a bit, with are you going to repeal it, its a bear trap, if the tories say we will, labour can say ah look britain they are only interested in the rich, you'll be wanting us to look out for you, or if the tories say no we'll have to keep it as any revenue is needed right now, then it splits the tories.Its almost clever, so long as, the thick end of the electorate, a significant election swinging group, don't think to ask why do they feel the need to do it. Plus did you notice I haven't mention the enormity of the black hole we're in. Precisely, its a device to move us off their criminal negligence.
I'll be honest I didn't vote the last 2 general elections, rarely in local or european for a variety of reasons, lack of difference between the two parties I suppose, but more apathy I'm sure. However, and I think this is the same for a lot of people, who may not entirely understand the economics of it ll, but we are sure motivated to vote now, as this is too big not to effect every part of our day to day lives, whether it is job security, getting a mortgage even the exchange rate going on holiday, etc. I'm going to vote in the next elections, and by that I mean May (I think locals). And if I'm just a normal person, then the like minded souls are going to be out in force. Labour are going to be wiped out.
I think people can see (and do hope it is not or show) Cameron is genuinely really angry. We could with someone who really cares, and passion. As both Blair and Brown are just calculating machines. I only wish Cameron would make Vince Cable chancellor, as even though he doesn't pretend to have all the answers, he doesn't pretend to have all the answers (if you see what mean) and at least he was the only party that suggested somethings they would start by cutting, ID cards, NHS database, Trident nuclear replacement. Oh I know, but somethings you'd like to do and somethings you can't do without, like SkyHD or Food on the table, and we haven't pot to piss in, this one is borrowed.
Don said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/b...
Gist is: 50% tax rate for people earning more than £150,000.
So. This will affect very, very few people. It will raise almost NO money. But the people it does affect are some of the most able and, crucially, most mobile people we have. Which means they can live elsewhere.
And when this was tried before - THEY DID!
To quote BSG: All this has happened before and all this will happen again.
What this signals to me? The end of Labour Rule. The similarity to past events has not escaped the press, either... Given that it's amazing Darling has done it. He must know he's fecked.
I think the marginal rate at some points is worse than that. For example between 100k and ~110kGist is: 50% tax rate for people earning more than £150,000.
So. This will affect very, very few people. It will raise almost NO money. But the people it does affect are some of the most able and, crucially, most mobile people we have. Which means they can live elsewhere.
And when this was tried before - THEY DID!
To quote BSG: All this has happened before and all this will happen again.
What this signals to me? The end of Labour Rule. The similarity to past events has not escaped the press, either... Given that it's amazing Darling has done it. He must know he's fecked.
EdJ said:
The US are about to go through what the UK went through in 1997. Read this book before you rush off and emigrate: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Welcome-Obamaland-Seen-Fut...
As for the new supertax, it just sends out the wrong message to the world that the UK is going backwards. Everyone knows that when Nigel Lawson reduced the higher rate rax from 60% to 40%, revenues went up. Why penalise enterprise and hard work?
Three reasons:As for the new supertax, it just sends out the wrong message to the world that the UK is going backwards. Everyone knows that when Nigel Lawson reduced the higher rate rax from 60% to 40%, revenues went up. Why penalise enterprise and hard work?
1. to the average voter, £150k is such a large amount that they cannot imagine themselves or their children ever being affected by it and at six figures it is sufficiently close in their minds to the 12 figures of the deficit that it seems like it must make a big difference.
2. The unions will love it.
3. It makes things difficult for the Tories who know it will raise no money and will drive people away, but who cannot pledge to scrap it because to do so would gift Labour the line that the Tories are out to cut taxes for the rich at the expense of the rest who will swallow the line (see 1).
Oh, and there's a fourth reason: Brown loves it because he is an English-hating, old-fashioned socialist.
EdJ said:
Why penalise enterprise and hard work?
This is my biggest gripe about this tax increase.Labour are quite happy to say the bigger earners can contribute more, yet they fail to look at the reasons why these people earn more. It's usually because they work for it!!
So Labour, who have championed 'Free Money for the Lazy, non workers' have decided that they will take this hard earned money off the hard workers so that the slackers can feel like they are getting something!
No, unfortunately I'm not in that higher tax bracket........not even close :'(.......but I justthink its an example of Labour taking moeny of hard-workers because they have lost al their own.
'School Bully stealing lunch money' springs to mind.
It would be easy enough for the Tories to scrap it if they had the balls. They don't. They don't even have the balls to come up with one or two credible ways that they would save some money. Scrapping ID cards would be a start, £44.3bn devolved spending for Scotland and Wales would be even more help, and benefit spending could be cut significantly.
I think the problem is people don't realise just how fked Britain is as a country. The spending plans announced yesterday might well not even be possible if the bond markets don't believe the governments optimistic growth forecast, so don't want to buy their bonds. In this case there's a real chance that the government will sooner or later be simply unable to pay people. It happened to Russia, and there's no reason it can't happen here.
I think the problem is people don't realise just how f
ked Britain is as a country. The spending plans announced yesterday might well not even be possible if the bond markets don't believe the governments optimistic growth forecast, so don't want to buy their bonds. In this case there's a real chance that the government will sooner or later be simply unable to pay people. It happened to Russia, and there's no reason it can't happen here.Bing o said:
AJS- said:
It happened to Russia, and there's no reason it can't happen here.
I don't think a lot of people believe this, based purely on the principle that that type of thing can't happen in the UK.Sadly they are about to be proved wrong.
NoelWatson said:
Don't worry, there is plenty of money to go round. I refer you to the earnings numbers yesterday where public sector wages are still increasing at 3.7% YOY. Of course, we have the small problem of paying for this, as private sector wages are falling.
But we'll just sell some more gilts, that will cover it surely?I fail to see a downside to that.....
:irony:
NoelWatson said:
Horse_Apple said:
What was decided was to wait until the various loop holes become apparent as the majority of people clearing excess of £250k a year are not actually paying tax on a decent chunck of that.
Are there still loopholes if you are a permanent employee?Zod said:
EdJ said:
The US are about to go through what the UK went through in 1997. Read this book before you rush off and emigrate: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Welcome-Obamaland-Seen-Fut...
As for the new supertax, it just sends out the wrong message to the world that the UK is going backwards. Everyone knows that when Nigel Lawson reduced the higher rate rax from 60% to 40%, revenues went up. Why penalise enterprise and hard work?
Three reasons:As for the new supertax, it just sends out the wrong message to the world that the UK is going backwards. Everyone knows that when Nigel Lawson reduced the higher rate rax from 60% to 40%, revenues went up. Why penalise enterprise and hard work?
1. to the average voter, £150k is such a large amount that they cannot imagine themselves or their children ever being affected by it and at six figures it is sufficiently close in their minds to the 12 figures of the deficit that it seems like it must make a big difference.
2. The unions will love it.
3. It makes things difficult for the Tories who know it will raise no money and will drive people away, but who cannot pledge to scrap it because to do so would gift Labour the line that the Tories are out to cut taxes for the rich at the expense of the rest who will swallow the line (see 1).
Oh, and there's a fourth reason: Brown loves it because he is an English-hating, old-fashioned socialist.
Completely agree. And yes, it's quite clever for those reasons. Question is, what should the Tories do about it. I just had a quick look on Wiki to see what the Tories did in 1979:Wiki said:
Margaret Thatcher, who favoured indirect taxation reduced personal income tax rates during the 1980s. In the first budget after her election victory in 1979, the top-rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%. The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets - to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988. The top-rate of income tax was cut to 40% in the 1988 budget."
So the tax rates were reduced soon after taking office. I'd be interested to know how this reduction in the upper and lower rate of tax impacted overall tax revenue? From what I understand, it actually increased it due to less tax avoidance - could be wrong?? - so if true, Cameron's lot should just go for it. BigJonMcQuimm said:
Horse_Apple said:
Don said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/b...
Gist is: 50% tax rate for people earning more than £150,000.
So. This will affect very, very few people. It will raise almost NO money. But the people it does affect are some of the most able and, crucially, most mobile people we have. Which means they can live elsewhere.
And when this was tried before - THEY DID!
To quote BSG: All this has happened before and all this will happen again.
What this signals to me? The end of Labour Rule. The similarity to past events has not escaped the press, either... Given that it's amazing Darling has done it. He must know he's fecked.
It will certainly be interesting. Sat down at dinner last night and the topic of conversation amongst everyone around the table was that we didn't need to be in London, most already had basic roots outside of the UK and most would be quite happy to move out for a 5 year stretch elsewhere.Gist is: 50% tax rate for people earning more than £150,000.
So. This will affect very, very few people. It will raise almost NO money. But the people it does affect are some of the most able and, crucially, most mobile people we have. Which means they can live elsewhere.
And when this was tried before - THEY DID!
To quote BSG: All this has happened before and all this will happen again.
What this signals to me? The end of Labour Rule. The similarity to past events has not escaped the press, either... Given that it's amazing Darling has done it. He must know he's fecked.
What was decided was to wait until the various loop holes become apparent as the majority of people clearing excess of £250k a year are not actually paying tax on a decent chunck of that.
The reality is that I doubt it will raise much money at all as some people will wind down income, others will leave and many will use loop holes.
The only thing we did agree on was that the US was the only place worth going to.
Why would you want to move to the US?
Middle East is awful.
Europe is well, Europe
US is a good place to go and pick a fight for 5 years
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff