Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Ed Balls 'wants To Expand 50P Tax Rate' To Double The Number Of Earners Hit


Recommended Posts

Why doesn't it ?

You're assuming that there is a fixed supply of £100,000 jobs which are allocated to a fixed supply of £100,000 workers by some sort of lottery, the remainder being unemployed. This simply isn't an accurate description of the real world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just as long as you realise Labour need your money more than you do.

This is so 1970s! Then you had the feeling there was just no point putting yourself out, working hard, building up a business to make decent money - as you simply found yourself with the government as your 50/50 partner in everything you did.

Massive debt followed by inflation and tax rises.

New Labour, Old Labour - always seems to end up the same.

I'm no fan of the Tories - on the contrary in fact - but Labour are supremely dependable.

A Labour Party administration = economy destroyed. Thus has it always been so.

It comes down to this ... they are all useless. It seems we only have two choices - Labour or Conservative. WHY IS THAT? Are people really so unimaginative that they can't conceive of anything else?

Why do the Labour and Conservatives seem to enjoy a divine right to run this country? Stuff them - they have done nothing but make a mess of things for nearly a hundred years.

Nothing has changed - the majority sweat and toil and those that govern us live like kings.

Absolutely spot on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At 20% it isn't. At 50% it probably is. At 75% it certainly is.

We seem to be going from 50% to 75% rather than from 50% to 20%.

Nope not even there.

Bandits don't let you democratically choose your "bandit rate".

They don't let you move, at will, out of the "bandit area" to seek other areas with more favourable "bandit rates".

And most importantly....... bandits spend the proceeds on themselves...... governments, rightly or wrongly, efficiently or inefficiently, cleverly or stupidly, spend all of it on services the people of the country requested that THEY supply.

You're assuming that there is a fixed supply of £100,000 jobs which are allocated to a fixed supply of £100,000 workers by some sort of lottery, the remainder being unemployed. This simply isn't an accurate description of the real world.

I am assuming nothing of the sort.

What I am assuming is that the people in those £100k jobs are doing important work,

If they are, and they stop dointg 20% of it (by taking 4 day weeks as someone suggested) that work will CONTINUE to require someone completing it.

For every 5 "100k+ workers" who cut down to 4 days a week........ that leaves 5 days of 100k work that needs to be done. Assuming that 5 days of work does need to be done........ they will create one new 100k+ a week role that will need to be filled in order to GET it done.

Simple as that.

To say anything else.......... is to implicitly say that either

A) Those guys are only really knocking out 4 days work in the current state, so them having 1 day off a week would leave no work undone

OR

B) Someone else will fill that role for them (perhaps their PA) at a lot less than 100k a year.

None of this requires any fixed supply/demand for 100k jobs. Maybe that year the economy doubles the amount of 100k jobs that need filling. But they'd need to double it AND add the 1 job to replace the 4 day a weekers. Maybe that year the econbomy halves the number of 100k jobs. But they'd need to halve it AND add the 1 job to replace the 4 day a weekers.

Regardless of the economies ups and downs......IF these people are doing 5 days work for 5 days pay....... and 5 of them cut down to 4 days a week..... their company will have to replace those hours by hiring a new 100k guy.

There can be more....or fewer........ or the same..... it ONLY assumes that they are currently doing 5 days work for 5 days pay, and that 20% of that will need replacement.

Simples.

Yours,

TGP

Link to post
Share on other sites

£1.13 billion.. when we have a £200 billion pound deficit. I support this tax, as it seems most people who make this income are on the government payroll or in government protected monopolies.. but its almost like why even bother.

+1

it's pointless tinkering (from a financial pov). The only way we can get out of this mess is to raise VAT or basic rate tax.

tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 Spot on there a few thousand 100k plus jobs in the sponging public sector,

There are about 60,000 doctors in the country. That's hardly "a few thousand".

And there are possibly 10,000 head teachers on this sort of salary as well.

tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm heartily sick of the amount of tax I have to pay.

We need some sort of brutal benefits cull.

The NHS is a waste of time, I can't think of anybody worth speaking of who even uses it except for accident and emergency.

We should also jettison Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland because they're subsidised ridiculously.

And don't even get me started on why we pay billions sending kids to do university degrees in media studies or history. If they want an education they should bloody well pay for it, then they might study something that gives them a commercial return.

Think before you type, is the lesson here. What an absurd caricature of letter to the daily hate.

Makes me wonder if you're pulling our legs, ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

And most importantly....... bandits spend the proceeds on themselves...... governments, rightly or wrongly, efficiently or inefficiently, cleverly or stupidly, spend all of it on services the people of the country requested that THEY supply.

I can think of many service that the majority of people paying taxes in the UK have never requested. Translated benefit leaflets, community support officers, government advertising, and hundreds of other things. Most of these things are done by government departments and civil servants justifying their existence, without any clear mandate from anyone to actually do these things.

Many benefits would be cut if the average person could have a say. However no political party in power wants to this, as it is likely to reduce the vote that they will receive, from the people on these benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of many service that the majority of people paying taxes in the UK have never requested. Translated benefit leaflets, community support officers, government advertising, and hundreds of other things. Most of these things are done by government departments and civil servants justifying their existence, without any clear mandate from anyone to actually do these things.

+1

I would add 'quangos' in there too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of many service that the majority of people paying taxes in the UK have never requested. Translated benefit leaflets, community support officers, government advertising, and hundreds of other things. Most of these things are done by government departments and civil servants justifying their existence, without any clear mandate from anyone to actually do these things.

Well the answer to this is twofold.

First, you don't give them a shopping list and say "that and only that".

Generally the voting public give general guidelines and expect them to work within those........

Maybe no-one requested translated benefits leaflets......... but they DID request fair and universal access to benefits for all eligible people and the govt. decided to get there by translating leaflets.

Maybe they didn't request government advertising......... but they DID request that they be kept informed about services the govt. is providing for them, or for the govt. to "reduce costs in the health service", and the govt. decided to to both through advertising.

You provide the general requirements.......... they provide the specifics to do their best to meet those requirements.

Secondly, If you don't like what they did on the basis of their broad statement of intent, vote for the other lot.

However, the fact that they provide "Stop Smoking" advertising campaigns does NOT make them bandits, as Injin would have it. Whether you agree or not they are attempting to deliver what they think you want with that spend. They are not (expenses scandals not withstanding) taking all your money and spending it on hookers and booze (as I imagine most bandits do).

When was the last time someone mugged you in an alleyway and spent the proceeds on an advertising campaign to attempt to improve your health/cut your medical costs ?

Many benefits would be cut if the average person could have a say. However no political party in power wants to this, as it is likely to reduce the vote that they will receive, from the people on these benefits.

Really ? The tory party is going to lose benefit scrounger votes are they ? What benefit scrounger votes ?

Regardless of what you think of Labour...........The Tories don't do this because the "tax paying" voter wouldn't vote for them if they did so. They'd be perceived as the "nasty party" all over again. If there is a reason they are not promising this, it's losing those votes....... not the scroungers who wouldn't vote for them in a million years (if they vote at all).

The reason you don't have a choice here is not because tories are afraid of losing the "long term dole-monster" vote.......... it's because it's a vote loser even amongst tax payers.

If it was a vote winner amongst taxpayers they'd certianly do it, because the "downside" to them of losing long-term benefits voters is next to nil.

Yours,

TGP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris Johnson made my day ...

''Being an even-tempered fellow, and given that we have already put up with so much nonsense from the Labour Government, I find there are very few ministerial pronouncements that make me wild with anger. We have learnt to be phlegmatic about the mistakes of a government that has banned 4,300 courses of human conduct, plunged this country into the deepest recession in memory, and so skewed the economy that 70 per cent of the Newcastle workforce is in the pay of the state. But there are times when a minister says something so maddening, so death-defyingly stupid, that I am glad not to be in the same room in case I should reach out, grab his tie, and end what is left of my political career with one almighty head-butt.

Such were my feelings on reading Mr Ed Balls on the subject of teaching Latin in schools. Speaking on the radio, Spheroids dismissed the idea that Latin could inspire or motivate pupils. Head teachers often took him to see the benefits of dance, or technology, or sport, said this intergalactic ass, and continued: "No one has ever taken me to a Latin lesson to make the same point. Very few parents are pushing for it, very few pupils want to study it."

Spheroids indeed !! :lol:

Edited by moneyfornothing
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Soak the rich, red meat to the jealous Labour types, blah, blah, whatever.

In the real world if you want to help the most people, especially the worst off, do the following :-

- Raise the minimum wage

- Raise the initial tax threshold and reintroduce a 10% band so people get to keep more of what they earn.

- Cut out of work benefit payments, combined with the above this will reduce the "benefits trap".

- Cap work permits.

- Cap mortgages

Ripping the odd £1 or £2 billion from bankers etc then pissing it away on a bunch of diversity cluster-coordinator outreach inconclusivity officers, and assorted non-jobs, makes no difference in the real world Ed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed Balls 'wants To Expand 50P Tax Rate' To Double The Number Of Earners Hit

One point worth making is that Labour are packing their safe seats with union activists and a sharp learch to the left seems likely post election.

To me this is Ed B0llocks making his pitch for the leadership post election.

Edited by Goat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like other posters here, I suspect this 50p rate is largely designed to cut high public sector salaries, without having to go to the trouble of fighting the unions on wage cuts or freezes.

It makes so much sense to do it this way, and unions simply can not ideologically fight the idea of "taxing the rich", which is how this tax policy has been sold to the public.

This is an attack on public sector largesse and high civil service salaries by the back door. And I suspect that it will largely only be public sector high earners who will pay this tax anyway -- as I would imagine many private sector earners on these kinds of incomes have business fronts and/or function as "contractors" for tax purposes, or their packages are made up of benefits in kind (such as private health, school fees etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites

One point worth making is that Labour are packing their safe seats with union activists and a sharp learch to the left seems likely post election.

To me this is Ed B0llocks making his pitch for the leadership post election.

Ah I see. So Labour's grand plan is to destroy the economy AND THEN destroy it even more via a sharp lurch to the left? huh.gifblink.gifunsure.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Like other posters here, I suspect this 50p rate is largely designed to cut high public sector salaries, without having to go to the trouble of fighting the unions on wage cuts or freezes.

It makes so much sense to do it this way, and unions simply can not ideologically fight the idea of "taxing the rich", which is how this tax policy has been sold to the public.

Those public workers affected will simply demand an immediate pay rise in order to offset their contribution to "social justice".

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was on £120k pa i'd be sorely tempted to work 4 days a week to avoid this tax and have more time off.

I wouldn't.. I presume you can off-set it against pension contributions.

Earn £120k, put £20k into your pension.

Then if you have any sense you'll retire early and leave for another (lower tax) country with nice beaches and a warm climate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't.. I presume you can off-set it against pension contributions.

Earn £120k, put £20k into your pension.

Then if you have any sense you'll retire early and leave for another (lower tax) country with nice beaches and a warm climate.

See....... now thats EMINENTLY more sensible.

And, again, all the more jobs for everyone else when they DO retire early.

Yours,

TGP

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason you don't have a choice here is not because tories are afraid of losing the "long term dole-monster" vote.......... it's because it's a vote loser even amongst tax payers.

If it was a vote winner amongst taxpayers they'd certianly do it, because the "downside" to them of losing long-term benefits voters is next to nil.

Yours,

TGP

This is your opinion, but it is not backed up by facts. There is another thread ont his forum today that shows a very strong correlation between labour seats and benefit dependency. It does not matter how many people don't vote, but those who do. And it is almost certain that more people on benefits will vote in areas of high benefit dependency compared with were it is low.

The tories are trying to get the votes from people in these labour areas who are sick of labour, but don't consider themselves rich. At the moment all political parties are trying to make the "rich" pay for the huge debt. However most rich have had nothing to do with it, and neither have the middle class or poor. The governments have simply spent money they have not got, without any mandate to do so. Labour were elected on the basis of sticking to their "golden rules" They blew these out of the water without the consent of the public and now expect everyone to pay for these debts. The only way to even try and justify it is by claiming the rich who made a killing will pay the debts. However the tax that could be collected from them is so small compared to the national debt, it can never work. They will simply slowly include ever more people in the hig tax net, until everyone is in it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Labour wins the election and Balls ousts Brown in a coup - so we get what most people would agree is the most odious politician in the country as Prime Minister.

Boy, I'd dance with glee if that happened .... as it would make the thing this country needs more than anything else actually happen - political change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

The governments have simply spent money they have not got, without any mandate to do so. Labour were elected on the basis of sticking to their "golden rules" They blew these out of the water without the consent of the public and now expect everyone to pay for these debts. The only way to even try and justify it is by claiming the rich who made a killing will pay the debts. However the tax that could be collected from them is so small compared to the national debt, it can never work. They will simply slowly include ever more people in the hig tax net, until everyone is in it

That's exactly it, a 50% fig leaf is simply pre-justification for the impending 30% basic rate, that's where the vast bulk of the revenue needed can only originate. 50% just keeps the existing differentials in place, that's all, in revenue terms it's an irrelevance, a sideshow to make the plebs feel better.

Edited by sillybear2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope not even there.

Bandits don't let you democratically choose your "bandit rate".

They don't let you move, at will, out of the "bandit area" to seek other areas with more favourable "bandit rates".

And most importantly....... bandits spend the proceeds on themselves...... governments, rightly or wrongly, efficiently or inefficiently, cleverly or stupidly, spend all of it on services the people of the country requested that THEY supply.

I am assuming nothing of the sort.

What I am assuming is that the people in those £100k jobs are doing important work,

If they are, and they stop dointg 20% of it (by taking 4 day weeks as someone suggested) that work will CONTINUE to require someone completing it.

For every 5 "100k+ workers" who cut down to 4 days a week........ that leaves 5 days of 100k work that needs to be done. Assuming that 5 days of work does need to be done........ they will create one new 100k+ a week role that will need to be filled in order to GET it done.

Simple as that.

To say anything else.......... is to implicitly say that either

A) Those guys are only really knocking out 4 days work in the current state, so them having 1 day off a week would leave no work undone

OR

cool.gif Someone else will fill that role for them (perhaps their PA) at a lot less than 100k a year.

None of this requires any fixed supply/demand for 100k jobs. Maybe that year the economy doubles the amount of 100k jobs that need filling. But they'd need to double it AND add the 1 job to replace the 4 day a weekers. Maybe that year the econbomy halves the number of 100k jobs. But they'd need to halve it AND add the 1 job to replace the 4 day a weekers.

Regardless of the economies ups and downs......IF these people are doing 5 days work for 5 days pay....... and 5 of them cut down to 4 days a week..... their company will have to replace those hours by hiring a new 100k guy.

There can be more....or fewer........ or the same..... it ONLY assumes that they are currently doing 5 days work for 5 days pay, and that 20% of that will need replacement.

Simples.

Yours,

TGP

TGP, this doesn't work in the private sector for the following reasons.

1. People by and large are paid what they're worth in the private sector in the higher levels. There is no reason for a company to pay someone £150k if they don't need to (which is different from the public sector - and I know this because I worked in the public sector).

2. Because of 1 above, it follows that if someone earns less than £150k in the private sector it is because they are not as valuable to the employer as the person earning up to £150k. I.e. the more valubale you are, the more you earn in the private sector.

3. The value of a person is not only how much they know and/or how much they do and/or how well qualified they are, but can also be how many contacts they have, how big their network is and how many important client names their 'black book' has in it that their employer can leverage for sales - this is particularly true at the highler levels for people earning over £150k - i.e. you want to retain someone and pay them a lot of money IF THEY CAN MAKE EVEN MORE MONEY FOR YOU via their contacts/network.

4. The person being paid less will probably not have such a developed network and cannot generate as many sales, THEREFORE simply letting the lower paid person work that extra day that the higher paid person didn't work would leave UK industry much worse off due to the probable loss of sales, expertise and experience that the employer would lose if they only had the higher paid person for 4 days rather than 5 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 442 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.