It's absolutely proven, Avery. It's in black and white. Whatever about what actually happened we know for a *fact* that the projections of tax revenue were reduced. I know you know this so I am presuming you simply misinterpreted my post.
I was referring to outcomes not projections.
I accept that forecasts would have been revised down following the introduction of a lower rate.
And for contingent benefits, if an attempt was made to measure, there would have to have been a lag,
Neil, it is absurd to rely on a projection (especially a Treasury one) when the numbers are in.
The projection gives us an insight into Osborne's mind - he was willing to lose revenue to cut the rate. We know that because that's what he did when faced with the projections at the time. Even if we could tell anything from the data (and I dont think we can) it is all hindsight that Osborne didnt have at the time.
What he had at the time was his own economic judgement and his belief in the wealth creating powers of lower tax rates. As I say I think on balance he has been vindicated despite the counterbalancing of tax increases elsewhere.
We cannot get to the point where a Chancellor is so bound by the views of the OBR or the Treasury that they cannot make a judgement themselves. I accept that even given the risk that the person that might next be making a judgement might be Ed Balls. Of course if their judgement proves to be wrong they should be held to account. This is what we have elections for. Otherwise what is the point of having politicians at all?
the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.
Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?
There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?
The OBR's view was that a 50% rate raised £100m more - so just rounding error
So worth doing, then.
Not necessarily - the message that Britain is an attractive place to do business is worth a lot but can't be quantified. If only a few multinationals based their HQ here as a result then the tiny cost of the lower tax rate is easily offset.
The marginal rates for the very top remain lower than those for parents earning £50-£60k. Presumably the introduction of the Child Benefit Tax will also trigger an exodus from these shores, due to businesses being concerned that middle-managers will pay too much tax on their earnings?
Middle managers don't make the decisions about where to locate! Sad, but that's the way of the world. (For what it's worth I think the current CB system is bollox. I'd probably limit it to 2 kids and leave it like that. Nice and simple).
Very wise. I have no idea why the government chose this route, which is a bureaucratic nightmare (and costly!) and looks as if it may lead to large amounts of non-payment. I like your idea - just don't apply it retrospectively, or do, but with plenty of notice.
I wouldn't apply it retrospectively... not sure what notice allows you to do. Sell the kids?
A 50% tax sounds about right to me. Us little folk are getting squeezed, seems only fair to me that the rich get a bit of grief too. After all, we are all in it together, ain't we?
The proportion of tax paid by a group is irrelevant it's determined their relative wealth. The rich are getting richer so they can afford to pay more.
Haven;t just about everybody who works also got much richer over the last 40 years? (except the last few, when living standards have undoubtedly fallen back...??)
And yet, according to Fraser Nelson, the bottom 50% have never contributed less to the tax take.
What pisses me off about the assertion (not yours) that the rich can afford to pay more, is that yes of course they can afford more. That doesn't make it right, just or fair to make them do so. An important point which is conveniently forgotten by supposed Champions of Fairness(TM).
Of more concern than the 50% tax rate is what Labour are proposing re when the 40% tax band kicks in and the new 10% band.
Will the former be left where it is, making more of middle Britain higher rate tax payers?
Will the latter be in addition to the increased personal allowances or instead of them, in which case it's a significant tax increase for the poorest?
Has Balls said anything about this? Has anyone asked him? Labour's position on these points will affect far more people than the 50p tax rate.
If I had to guess, I suspect that a lot more people will find themselves paying 40% tax at quite modest incomes and that the poorest will also find themselves paying more tax (Labour have form on this).
That - if the other parties make something of this - could have more of an impact than a lot of very well paid people frothing about paying a bit more tax (on this I'm with SO - it looks unedifying and greedy, however economically asinine or not or politically spiteful a policy it may be).
Neil, it is absurd to rely on a projection (especially a Treasury one) when the numbers are in.
The projection gives us an insight into Osborne's mind - he was willing to lose revenue to cut the rate. We know that because that's what he did when faced with the projections at the time. Even if we could tell anything from the data (and I dont think we can) it is all hindsight that Osborne didnt have at the time.
The secondary benefits are not instant.
An investor thinking of setting up in the UK won't decide to relocate the day after the top income tax rate changes. It is a progressive slow maturing benefit.
Like a bottle of fine claret, it becomes more valuable and drinkable with age.
Of more concern than the 50% tax rate is what Labour are proposing re when the 40% tax band kicks in and the new 10% band.
Will the former be left where it is, making more of middle Britain higher rate tax payers?
Will the latter be in addition to the increased personal allowances or instead of them, in which case it's a significant tax increase for the poorest?
Has Balls said anything about this? Has anyone asked him? Labour's position on these points will affect far more people than the 50p tax rate.
If I had to guess, I suspect that a lot more people will find themselves paying 40% tax at quite modest incomes and that the poorest will also find themselves paying more tax (Labour have form on this).
That - if the other parties make something of this - could have more of an impact than a lot of very well paid people frothing about paying a bit more tax (on this I'm with SO - it looks unedifying and greedy, however economically asinine or not or politically spiteful a policy it may be).
If I was a betting man I'd say Labour will be careful not to be drawn on this...
Currently in Ulster enjoying the Mediterranean climes and cafe lifestyle. I haven't been able to poke you with a stick much as I'm caught up in family things. However I've been enjoying Cameron's sudden conversion to the Brooke recovery programme. What with import substitution last week and red tape this week it can only be a matter of time until he gets round to bank and tax reform. What a shame it's all about 3 years too late.
The Banking Reform Act became law last month. You are moaning about things Osborne has already done.
the 50bp debate shows to me how for labour, dogma is the more important than outcome.
Why oppose a 45p rate if its raising more cash for public services than a 50p rate?
There is no evidence to support the contention that 45p rate raises more money than a 50p rate would. Who is being dogmatic now?
The OBR's view was that a 50% rate raised £100m more - so just rounding error
So worth doing, then.
Not necessarily - the message that Britain is an attractive place to do business is worth a lot but can't be quantified. If only a few multinationals based their HQ here as a result then the tiny cost of the lower tax rate is easily offset.
The marginal rates for the very top remain lower than those for parents earning £50-£60k. Presumably the introduction of the Child Benefit Tax will also trigger an exodus from these shores, due to businesses being concerned that middle-managers will pay too much tax on their earnings?
Middle managers don't make the decisions about where to locate! Sad, but that's the way of the world. (For what it's worth I think the current CB system is bollox. I'd probably limit it to 2 kids and leave it like that. Nice and simple).
Very wise. I have no idea why the government chose this route, which is a bureaucratic nightmare (and costly!) and looks as if it may lead to large amounts of non-payment. I like your idea - just don't apply it retrospectively, or do, but with plenty of notice.
I wouldn't apply it retrospectively... not sure what notice allows you to do. Sell the kids?
PLan for the drop in income I suppose, but you are right. Two kids max applied only prospectively. Simple and easy. Why the government chose the other route is anyone's guess. Seems an expensive and convoluted way of doing it. TGOHF posted an article the other day that said 100,000 parents now face fines (probably through ignorance of the change in policy).
Mr. Anorak, I share that view. The supposition that 'fair' taxes always involving squeezing more from the richest is unreasonable. They already pay more than twice the standard rate.
Just like they were during Osbrowne's omnishambles trying to defend it. That turned out well for them, didn't it?
The PB tories are always wrong. The PB tories never learn.
Morning, Pork.
Evening, Seth O Logue.
I see other posters are finding it as difficult as usual to take your inept out of touch spin remotely seriously, Even your biggest fan Neil seems completely unconvinced. All this pointless stat spinning certainly doesn't look like it will help your prediction of a kipper wipeout at the EU elections, does it?
Of more concern than the 50% tax rate is what Labour are proposing re when the 40% tax band kicks in and the new 10% band.
Will the former be left where it is, making more of middle Britain higher rate tax payers?
Will the latter be in addition to the increased personal allowances or instead of them, in which case it's a significant tax increase for the poorest?
Has Balls said anything about this? Has anyone asked him? Labour's position on these points will affect far more people than the 50p tax rate.
If I had to guess, I suspect that a lot more people will find themselves paying 40% tax at quite modest incomes and that the poorest will also find themselves paying more tax (Labour have form on this).
That - if the other parties make something of this - could have more of an impact than a lot of very well paid people frothing about paying a bit more tax (on this I'm with SO - it looks unedifying and greedy, however economically asinine or not or politically spiteful a policy it may be).
If I was a betting man I'd say Labour will be careful not to be drawn on this...
Well it's the job of other parties to ask the questions repeatedly and make the point that Labour have something to hide if they don't come clean and that this will affect middle and low-income Britain.
I am more concerned about this aspect of Labour's tax policy than the 50p rate (which I'd long ago assumed would happen).
My reading of the Treasury report leads me to different conclusions from those you have reached.
But it cant have led you to a conclusion that was different from " yet he still cut the rate despite knowing it would reduce his projected tax take" because that it is what actually happened.
Not proven, Neil.
Income shifting will have affected both 2012/13 and 2013/14 tax receipts.
Fiscal drag will have increased 150K plus tax payers (but not by a vast amount).
The economic recovery will probably have boosted income per head in this group (an assumption which needs challenging).
Behavioural changes involving tax residency figures need to be analysed.
We won't really have reliable figures until the end of this fiscal year, but I suspect that a number of interest groups will publish in advance.
And all this just address the direct impact on income tax and NI revenues.
We still need someone to test the academic consensus on TIE against the current UK environment.
What is certain though is that the aggregate tax receipt figures and ratios have improved following the lowering of the tax.
What we don't know for sure is why.
But the prima facie evidence is with Osborne on this one. Until proven otherwise he can just rely on the headline stats.
A long-winded reply to say that you have lost this one. As the old adage goes, when you are explaining, you are losing*
*and I say this as someone who is not much of a fan of 50p – the Laffer Curve means that *eventually* it will, probably, raise little, or anything. Yet it is a matter of record that Ozzy had to cut his projection when it was cut to 45p – that is unarguable so whatever you think of the medium-term economic wisdom of the measure, concede the point.
So far, all cars have the Rhino, except Ferrari (Platypus) and Lotus (Tusks). Apparently only a single 'nosepiece' is allowed, and Lotus have been cheeky and gotten around that by having the right hand 'tusk' longer than the left hand one.
It's worth mentioning also that the sidepods provide cooling for different things. The right one, I think, is the engine, whereas the right is the turbo/ERS.
A 50% tax sounds about right to me. Us little folk are getting squeezed, seems only fair to me that the rich get a bit of grief too. After all, we are all in it together, ain't we?
Of more concern than the 50% tax rate is what Labour are proposing re when the 40% tax band kicks in and the new 10% band.
Will the former be left where it is, making more of middle Britain higher rate tax payers?
Will the latter be in addition to the increased personal allowances or instead of them, in which case it's a significant tax increase for the poorest?
Has Balls said anything about this? Has anyone asked him? Labour's position on these points will affect far more people than the 50p tax rate.
If I had to guess, I suspect that a lot more people will find themselves paying 40% tax at quite modest incomes and that the poorest will also find themselves paying more tax (Labour have form on this).
That - if the other parties make something of this - could have more of an impact than a lot of very well paid people frothing about paying a bit more tax (on this I'm with SO - it looks unedifying and greedy, however economically asinine or not or politically spiteful a policy it may be).
If I was a betting man I'd say Labour will be careful not to be drawn on this...
Well it's the job of other parties to ask the questions repeatedly and make the point that Labour have something to hide if they don't come clean and that this will affect middle and low-income Britain.
I am more concerned about this aspect of Labour's tax policy than the 50p rate (which I'd long ago assumed would happen).
I suspect Labour would 'have no plans to reverse' if the coalition made a move in the next few budgets on this.
What they'd do is another matter entirely.
£150k+ers are politically speaking low hanging fruit for Labour - taxing someone more on £50k is another matter entirely
We’ve reached a funny old world in politics. We have two competing economic philosophies:
A person earning £200,000 per year would see his/her annual take home pay decrease from £116,000 to £114,500 were the 50 pence tax rate to be reintroduced. I am afraid that whatever you may believe this does not represent screwing tomorrow.
What does it say about human intelligence, morality and self preservation that a lot of wealthy people cannot see that and instead seek to portray themselves as victims? It's pretty unedifying to be honest.
What it says is that the Labour Party persist in believing that actions don't have consequences - that because you're only taking a little bit more, only regulating a little bit more, only placing a few extra impositions, no-one's behaviour is going to change, and everyone will contribute happily to the Greater Good As Set Out By The Labour Party. Of course it's only a little extra tax, and of course ALL high earners aren't going to leave or stop earning - but enough will that an impact will be felt.
Those advocating this tax fail to realise the large degree to which a lot of high earners can choose how much they work, and how much they earn. They don't have to think of themselves as victims to have an impact - they just have to decide that, given that the government's going to take half of it, on balance, they're not going to bother slogging their guts out for the next few weekends for the benefit of an extra £20k that the government will take half of. It doesn't matter whether they think the extra tax is a worthwhile contribution to society or merely a spite tax; suddenly, the amount of income the country generates is going to drop.
I hardly think it is worth giving up £50K for the sake of £1.5K tax , if SO's numbers are correct. If anybody considered that then you would have to wonder how they got their job in the first place.
The full Survation data from yesterday's 50% tax poll is now out and I've incorporated it into the header broken down by which party supported at GE2010
A 50% tax sounds about right to me. Us little folk are getting squeezed, seems only fair to me that the rich get a bit of grief too. After all, we are all in it together, ain't we?
Even if it doesn't raise anything?
That's the thing, isn't it? It's all politics, as no ones seems to know, do they? As someone said below, 45 or 50% is neither here nor there, its all about how it looks.
So far, all cars have the Rhino, except Ferrari (Platypus) and Lotus (Tusks). Apparently only a single 'nosepiece' is allowed, and Lotus have been cheeky and gotten around that by having the right hand 'tusk' longer than the left hand one.
It's worth mentioning also that the sidepods provide cooling for different things. The right one, I think, is the engine, whereas the right is the turbo/ERS.
There are two right-hand sides? ;-)
ISTR McLaren swapping them over from race to race a few years ago, to suit each track. I think it was one of the years they had asymmetric sidepods. That was how marginal they got the cooling ...
An MP facing allegations of sexual impropriety has effectively been deselected by the Lib Dems ahead of the next election, it emerged today.
Senior party members in the Portsmouth South constituency are to press ahead with a plan to select its candidate for the next election, meaning that Mike Hancock, the sitting member who was suspended from the party last week, will not be able to take part.
@Anorak - "What pisses me off about the assertion (not yours) that the rich can afford to pay more, is that yes of course they can afford more. That doesn't make it right, just or fair to make them do so. An important point which is conveniently forgotten by supposed Champions of Fairness(TM)."
Put it this way, top rate taxpayers can afford it more than average income working families who have lost out on housing benefit and tax credit changes. Let's worry about them for a change
The full Survation data from yesterday's 50% tax poll is now out and I've incorporated it into the header broken down by which party supported at GE2010
Popular with all groups. It seems @TwistedFireStopper may be right – it's very smart politics although it makes almost no difference economically.
Be interesting to see if it shifts VI at all – my guess is it won't make any difference, as nothing much seems to.
By the way I owe this site £50 should the price of brent crude oil be at £50 or below at year End :O). If that happens it is happy days as the price of petrol should be considerably lower !
O/T but follow up from yesterday and the first part of the Scottish ICM poll - second part: huge difference in EU support north vs south of the border (enough to make a small difference to EWNI in the event of a yes and the deduction of the Scots from the UK figures). I'd have put the Scotsman article first but its treatment is perhaps more confusing. And the links to the stats and the Scotsman are in this one. http://wingsoverscotland.com/trouble-with-numbers/#more-48613
'18p and 38p rates would be economically and politically beneficial.'
That would certainly shift some votes,help with the cost of living and put Balls on the spot.
Add in a cut in the benefits cap to £20k and a 5 year freeze on CB cut offs and that would be a decent budget
Interesting. Do you mean bin the CB change? I agree that would be a smart move as the CB Tax is too convoluted – the govt doesn't want 100,000 people fined, it would be a disaster for them.
We’ve reached a funny old world in politics. We have two competing economic philosophies:
A: We will be responsible with the national finances. You may not do as well as you hoped but we will not go bankrupt and you are more likely to have a job. We will support the private sector and push for limited good regulation.
B: Screw tomorrow – let’s PARTAY! We will borrow and spend and damn the consequences. We will support the public sector and our union buddies and regulate the shit out of everything. The shit will not ultimately hit the fan – we promise!
What does it say about human intelligence, morality and self preservation that the B parties of the world do so much better than the A? Some countries have no A party to vote for!
France is becoming Greece. Greece is becoming Argentina. Argentina is becoming Venezuela. Venezuela is becoming Zimbabwe. There is a global overdose of bad governance. Miliband and Balls are promising a confident step down this route. Motherf&^%$ers! 1/3 or more of the British people seem inclined to vote for them! Double mother*&^%)@s.
A person earning £200,000 per year would see his/her annual take home pay decrease from £116,000 to £114,500 were the 50 pence tax rate to be reintroduced. I am afraid that whatever you may believe this does not represent screwing tomorrow.
What does it say about human intelligence, morality and self preservation that a lot of wealthy people cannot see that and instead seek to portray themselves as victims? It's pretty unedifying to be honest.
How has our economy performed since the tax reduction to 45%?
Why would you want to put that at risk and be like France
High tax never ever works despite all the moral arguments for it. Labour have put this policy forward for their own political reasons not for the betterment of the country. They will do anything to get back into power no matter the damage they will do to the country.
Why not increase the tax to 99%, that would be popular, these people clearly do not deserve their own money that they have earned.
Without incentive the economy will not grow. Its a human nature thing.
Speaking as one of "these people" I can safely say that the 50 pence and 45 pence rates have made no difference at all to how hard I work or to our company's plans. Corporation tax is another matter. If Labour puts that up, it would be entirely self-defeating: the Tories are absolutely right to have cut it.
Mr. Jessop, just making sure you were paying attention. The left is turbo/ERS, I think.
A question for you: do all teams have to have them that way around, or can they swap? It would seem pretty odd for every team to have chosen the same orientation for them.
Knowing the FIA, there's probably a rule covering it ...
O/T but follow up from yesterday and the first part of the Scottish ICM poll - second part: huge difference in EU support north vs south of the border (enough to make a small difference to EWNI in the event of a yes and the deduction of the Scots from the UK figures). I'd have put the Scotsman article first but its treatment is perhaps more confusing. And the links to the stats and the Scotsman are in this one. http://wingsoverscotland.com/trouble-with-numbers/#more-48613
The wyf of Bathe reveals that politicians spin poll numbers ? pass him the Pulitzer !
Mr. Jessop, there's no rule that I'm aware of. The turbo and ERS needs a lot of cooling, so I imagine most teams will split that between the sidepods (well, both for one, and engine for the other).
O/T but follow up from yesterday and the first part of the Scottish ICM poll - second part: huge difference in EU support north vs south of the border (enough to make a small difference to EWNI in the event of a yes and the deduction of the Scots from the UK figures). I'd have put the Scotsman article first but its treatment is perhaps more confusing. And the links to the stats and the Scotsman are in this one. http://wingsoverscotland.com/trouble-with-numbers/#more-48613
The wyf of Bathe reveals that politicians spin poll numbers ? pass him the Pulitzer !
I did say it is an opinionated piece - but then so is the original Scotsman piece. And it doesn't change the basic data.
'18p and 38p rates would be economically and politically beneficial.'
That would certainly shift some votes,help with the cost of living and put Balls on the spot.
Add in a cut in the benefits cap to £20k and a 5 year freeze on CB cut offs and that would be a decent budget
Interesting. Do you mean bin the CB change? I agree that would be a smart move as the CB Tax is too convoluted – the govt doesn't want 100,000 people fined, it would be a disaster for them.
No no - simply reduce the limit (or freeze it) until CB is irrelevant then it can be scrapped. Like the 38p dog licence.
Mr. Jessop, there's no rule that I'm aware of. The turbo and ERS needs a lot of cooling, so I imagine most teams will split that between the sidepods (well, both for one, and engine for the other).
Fair enough. I'm really not up to date with the turbo regs, although I remember the turbo days with fondness.
Obviously the 10% rate would start at the current personal allowance.
As for fiscal drag on the40% rate threshold, Osbrone has frozen or reduced this in every budget since 2010 so the Tories can hardly attack This.
If it's that obvious, then doubtless Labour will have no problem saying so and clearly.
It would be very expensive though and based on past form I would not be at all surprised if Labour did not make it start there but increased the tax the poorest pay. It's what they did, after all, when they abolished the 10p rate last time.
That's where the other parties should be concentrating their fire: not "Labour tax the wealth creators/rich [take your pick]" but "Labour tax everyone more".
O/T but follow up from yesterday and the first part of the Scottish ICM poll - second part: huge difference in EU support north vs south of the border (enough to make a small difference to EWNI in the event of a yes and the deduction of the Scots from the UK figures). I'd have put the Scotsman article first but its treatment is perhaps more confusing. And the links to the stats and the Scotsman are in this one. http://wingsoverscotland.com/trouble-with-numbers/#more-48613
The wyf of Bathe reveals that politicians spin poll numbers ? pass him the Pulitzer !
I did say it is an opinionated piece - but then so is the original Scotsman piece. And it doesn't change the basic data.
I can't see any of it having much influence on the referendum result though - what rUK does in Europe later is hardly a hot topic in Scotland ...
Unless you think the dark forces of Brussels will step in to fix the result ?
A long-winded reply to say that you have lost this one. As the old adage goes, when you are explaining, you are losing*
Silly, silly, Little Cub Scout
Brown announced the tax rise one year in advance, a tactic he used to similar good effect when announcing the sale of the UK's gold reserves.
This left high earners plenty of time to arrange their tax affairs to their best advantage, principally by bringing forward income into the 2009/10 tax year and lowering declarations in 2010/11. [Now why would he have done that do you think?]
Osborne moved the tax rate down and also gave advance notice. This had the effect of income being shifted from the 2012/13 tax year to 2013/14. In such income shifts it is often large bonuses which are the most easily moved. The ONS accounts for this year show a clear boost to income related tax receipts in April and May. Thereafter tax receipts were forecast to fall due to the tax cut.
When a tax cut or rise of this nature is made the number of taxpayers at the time of the change remains fairly constant (after allowing for avoidance shifts) and income taxable at the new rate tends in the short term to be consistent with the prior year.
As time passes longer term behavioural responses set in, Taxpayers are attracted or repelled by the new rates and either move in or move out of the tax jurisdiction. Investment decisions influenced by tax rates sometimes take years to implement. Incomes are restructured to adapt to the new rates, e.g. the balance of income realised from capital gains and from income require long term changes. Self Assessed taxpayers for example pay tax on the year prior to PAYE taxpayers.
Simply looking at a 'year one' downrating of tax receipts tells us nothing. At least three years after and a year before of data are needed to reach any meaningful conclusion and that only covers a direct impact on income related taxes.
Further research would be needed into contingent benefits, both quantitative and qualitative. Decision makers in firms relocating in or out of London would need to interviewed to determine the weight attached to tax regimes in the decision making process.
I am not "losing" or "winning" here, LCS. The purpose of debate.is to gather data and inform opinions with a goal of reaching the truth.
I nevertheless award you the "Mrs Joyful Prize for Rafia-work" in recognition of your efforts.
If the 50% tax rate was so 'fair' why did Labour not introduced it before April 2010?
It might look clear red water or mist between Labour and others, but it still smells of taureann waste products. What is the trade off between higher marginal tax rates and economic growth?
O/T but follow up from yesterday and the first part of the Scottish ICM poll - second part: huge difference in EU support north vs south of the border (enough to make a small difference to EWNI in the event of a yes and the deduction of the Scots from the UK figures). I'd have put the Scotsman article first but its treatment is perhaps more confusing. And the links to the stats and the Scotsman are in this one. http://wingsoverscotland.com/trouble-with-numbers/#more-48613
The wyf of Bathe reveals that politicians spin poll numbers ? pass him the Pulitzer !
I did say it is an opinionated piece - but then so is the original Scotsman piece. And it doesn't change the basic data.
I can't see any of it having much influence on the referendum result though - what rUK does in Europe later is hardly a hot topic in Scotland ...
Unless you think the dark forces of Brussels will step in to fix the result ?
No, no Dan Brown stuff, thank you. Much simpler.
The issue is not so much what EWNI does on its own but whether it drags Scotland out of the EU with it willy-nilly. And if more people see that as a disadvantage (or, more precisely, the risk of one) then it will not help the No vote.
The issue is very much being borne in mind up here, and even the Speccy, or at least one of its commentators, thinks so.
Mr. Jessop, indeed. It'll be interesting to see how the teams deal with the new regulations, especially the single set of gear ratios. For this year alone they can make a single change during the season.
Mr Neil picks up the story in the following year: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
So from year one of the 50 pence rate to year two we saw a rise in tax take from top rate payers of just under £7 billion.
Whoever would have thought it?
Given the chance to bring forward bonus, commission etc payments having received a year's notice of the new rate by the Chancellor in 2009, many top rate tax payers did just that. They could not do it in the following years, so they rate jumped up. And when GO gave them a year's notice of the 45 pence rate, they made arrangements to defer payments - which explains the jump from 12/13 to 13/14.
If I did not know otherwise, I would suspect the BBC's Andrew Neil of seeking to pull the wool over people's eyes. But he would not do that, would he?
A long-winded reply to say that you have lost this one. As the old adage goes, when you are explaining, you are losing*
Silly, silly, Little Cub Scout
Brown announced the tax rise one year in advance, a tactic he used to similar good effect when announcing the sale of the UK's gold reserves.
This left high earners plenty of time to arrange their tax affairs to their best advantage, principally by bringing forward income into the 2009/10 tax year and lowering declarations in 2010/11. [Now why would he have done that do you think?]
Osborne moved the tax rate down and also gave advance notice. This had the effect of income being shifted from the 2012/13 tax year to 2013/14. In such income shifts it is often large bonuses which are the most easily moved. The ONS accounts for this year show a clear boost to income related tax receipts in April and May. Thereafter tax receipts were forecast to fall due to the tax cut.
When a tax cut or rise of this nature is made the number of taxpayers at the time of the change remains fairly constant (after allowing for avoidance shifts) and income taxable at the new rate tends in the short term to be consistent with the prior year.
As time passes longer term behavioural responses set in, Taxpayers are attracted or repelled by the new rates and either move in or move out of the tax jurisdiction. Investment decisions influenced by tax rates sometimes take years to implement. Incomes are restructured to adapt to the new rates, e.g. the balance of income realised from capital gains and from income require long term changes. Self Assessed taxpayers for example pay tax on the year prior to PAYE taxpayers.
Simply looking at a 'year one' downrating of tax receipts tells us nothing. At least three years after and a year before of data are needed to reach any meaningful conclusion and that only covers a direct impact on income related taxes.
Further research would be needed into contingent benefits, both quantitative and qualitative. Decision makers in firms relocating in or out of London would need to interviewed to determine the weight attached to tax regimes in the decision making process.
I am not "losing" or "winning" here, LCS. The purpose of debate.is to gather data and inform opinions with a goal of reaching the truth.
I nevertheless award you the "Mrs Joyful Prize for Rafia-work" in recognition of your efforts.
If your goal is the truth I'd venture that you need to recruit a new striker at Conservative Central Office.
'18p and 38p rates would be economically and politically beneficial.'
That would certainly shift some votes,help with the cost of living and put Balls on the spot.
Add in a cut in the benefits cap to £20k and a 5 year freeze on CB cut offs and that would be a decent budget
Interesting. Do you mean bin the CB change? I agree that would be a smart move as the CB Tax is too convoluted – the govt doesn't want 100,000 people fined, it would be a disaster for them.
No no - simply reduce the limit (or freeze it) until CB is irrelevant then it can be scrapped. Like the 38p dog licence.
Changing the threshold is very complicated and expensive to administer. You may as well just scrap it for new applicants rather than try to fiddle with the existing system - that's how the government got in a mess in the first place.
"UKIP has opened an office in Christchurch. The party says it is targeting Dorset, where it expects to win vulnerable seats from the Conservatives and Lib Dems."
Obviously the 10% rate would start at the current personal allowance.
As for fiscal drag on the40% rate threshold, Osbrone has frozen or reduced this in every budget since 2010 so the Tories can hardly attack This.
If it's that obvious, then doubtless Labour will have no problem saying so and clearly.
It would be very expensive though and based on past form I would not be at all surprised if Labour did not make it start there but increased the tax the poorest pay. It's what they did, after all, when they abolished the 10p rate last time.
That's where the other parties should be concentrating their fire: not "Labour tax the wealth creators/rich [take your pick]" but "Labour tax everyone more".
A lot of people actually pay more tax than ever under this government - because of changes to CB and tax credits. The Child Benefit Tax, for example, was introduced under this government and has caused marginal rates of 60-70% for some.
Obviously the 10% rate would start at the current personal allowance.
As for fiscal drag on the40% rate threshold, Osbrone has frozen or reduced this in every budget since 2010 so the Tories can hardly attack This.
If it's that obvious, then doubtless Labour will have no problem saying so and clearly.
It would be very expensive though and based on past form I would not be at all surprised if Labour did not make it start there but increased the tax the poorest pay. It's what they did, after all, when they abolished the 10p rate last time.
That's where the other parties should be concentrating their fire: not "Labour tax the wealth creators/rich [take your pick]" but "Labour tax everyone more".
A lot of people actually pay more tax than ever under this government - because of changes to CB and tax credits. The Child Benefit Tax, for example, was introduced under this government and has caused marginal rates of 60-70% for some.
Mr Neil picks up the story in the following year: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
So from year one of the 50 pence rate to year two we saw a rise in tax take from top rate payers of just under £7 billion.
Whoever would have thought it?
Given the chance to bring forward bonus, commission etc payments having received a year's notice of the new rate by the Chancellor in 2009, many top rate tax payers did just that. They could not do it in the following years, so they rate jumped up. And when GO gave them a year's notice of the 45 pence rate, they made arrangements to defer payments - which explains the jump from 12/13 to 13/14.
If I did not know otherwise, I would suspect the BBC's Andrew Neil of seeking to pull the wool over people's eyes. But he would not do that, would he?
SO
2010-11 will be have been distorted by income shifting. You need to take 2009-10 into account, especially at total income level,.
A further distorting factor will be that 2009-10 will have had some of the most extreme impacts of the recession on top-earners income (financial and professional services account for half the income of this group).
It is not easy to reach quick and reliable conclusions from the headline figures, except that tax revenues have increased under the 45% rate whether by cause or just correlation.
It is not easy to reach quick and reliable conclusions from the headline figures, except that tax revenues have increased under the 45% rate whether by cause or correlation.
It is not easy to reach quick and reliable conclusions from the headline figures, except that tax revenues have increased under the 45% rate whether by cause or correlation.
Or despite it.
You can quick and dirty that, Neil.
Just compare growth rates of taxpayers, income assessed and tax paid in each of the income tax bands.
It will suggest rather than prove, but still worth doing.
"UKIP has opened an office in Christchurch. The party says it is targeting Dorset, where it expects to win vulnerable seats from the Conservatives and Lib Dems."
A fat lot of good that will do them in May . There are only 2 councils where there are elections being fought in May , Purbeck and Weymouth and Portland where UKIP came nowhere near winning any seats last May .
Right, I'm fleeing for the night before I get mugged by the Midlands Misanthropes.
But we expect you back on parade at 9.30 am sharp tomorrow for the GDP figures!
Bloomberg:
Gross domestic product rose 0.7 percent, near the 0.8 percent pace of the previous three months, according to the median of 39 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey.
...
The Office for National Statistics will release the fourth-quarter GDP data, with a breakdown of services, construction and industrial production, at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow in London. Forecasts in the Bloomberg survey range from 0.3 percent by economists at Natixis to 1 percent at Informa Global Markets.
I had gone with 0.7% when asked by SMukesh a couple of weeks or so ago, but subsequent data has pushed me a little down on that prediction. The SWIFTIndex was particularly worrying.
So 0.5% - 0.7% is my guesstimate.
Am really off now before Neil reminds me of whatever it was I said that is getting Pork to claim I predicted a Kipper wipe out in May. Perhaps I need to consult Pork's wiki polling chart to jog my memory?
I am paying tax at an effective rate of 58% thanks to 2 kids child benefits to repay. Since this came in I have stopped working, sacked my two direct reports and moved to Switzerland. So I have a huge amount of sympathy for those earning triple my salary faced with paying 7% less of their income. The poor dears. Would they like me to refer then to the nearest food bank?
Perhaps one of our banking experts can explain why people are lining up to sue RBS for past misdeeds. Can the taxpayers sue the bankers for the return of the bonuses paid to them?
If they've spent them, can we re-introduce slavery for the miscreants?
Whilst on the subject of the 50p rate, might we have a parallel evidence-free discussion here on the proposition that student loans should be abolished on the (equally theoretical) grounds that the extra 9% tax that students pay on top of taxes paid by everyone else must result in no net increase in income to HM Treasury?
I am paying tax at an effective rate of 58% thanks to 2 kids child benefits to repay.
Welcome back Bobajob.
Don't know who Bobajob is. The 58% figure comes from the IFS.
A former (lamented) pposter who used to whinge about child benefit withdrawal and high marginal tax rates. Without stopping to reflect that he earned substantially more than the vast majority of people in the UK.
Whilst on the subject of the 50p rate, might we have a parallel evidence-free discussion here on the proposition that student loans should be abolished on the (equally theoretical) grounds that the extra 9% tax that students pay on top of taxes paid by everyone else must result in no net increase in income to HM Treasury?
And indeed a likely deficit over the not so long term, given the additional admin costs, and the likelihood that a fair proportion of the loans will never be repaid (through low income or emigration, both encouraged by this system). And public money going to subsidise private risk in the form of the likely collapse of the SLC without intervention.
We’ve reached a funny old world in politics. We have two competing economic philosophies:
A person earning £200,000 per year would see his/her annual take home pay decrease from £116,000 to £114,500 were the 50 pence tax rate to be reintroduced. I am afraid that whatever you may believe this does not represent screwing tomorrow.
What does it say about human intelligence, morality and self preservation that a lot of wealthy people cannot see that and instead seek to portray themselves as victims? It's pretty unedifying to be honest.
What it says is that the Labour Party persist in believing that actions don't have consequences - that because you're only taking a little bit more, only regulating a little bit more, only placing a few extra impositions, no-one's behaviour is going to change, and everyone will contribute happily to the Greater Good As Set Out By The Labour Party. Of course it's only a little extra tax, and of course ALL high earners aren't going to leave or stop earning - but enough will that an impact will be felt.
Those advocating this tax fail to realise the large degree to which a lot of high earners can choose how much they work, and how much they earn. They don't have to think of themselves as victims to have an impact - they just have to decide that, given that the government's going to take half of it, on balance, they're not going to bother slogging their guts out for the next few weekends for the benefit of an extra £20k that the government will take half of. It doesn't matter whether they think the extra tax is a worthwhile contribution to society or merely a spite tax; suddenly, the amount of income the country generates is going to drop.
I hardly think it is worth giving up £50K for the sake of £1.5K tax , if SO's numbers are correct. If anybody considered that then you would have to wonder how they got their job in the first place.
But Malcolm - it's not a question of 'giving up' £50k - it's a question of whether you put in the extra work to get the £50k, if you're only going to get to keep half of it. It's not that you give up your entire income, you just don't go the extra mile to earn the extra, once you start losing half of all you earn (slightly more than half, once NI is taken into account). Of course, not everyone will decide not to bother at those rates - but the higher you set the barrier, the fewer people will bother making the extra money.
I am paying tax at an effective rate of 58% thanks to 2 kids child benefits to repay.
Welcome back Bobajob.
Don't know who Bobajob is. The 58% figure comes from the IFS.
A former (lamented) pposter who used to whinge about child benefit withdrawal and high marginal tax rates. Without stopping to reflect that he earned substantially more than the vast majority of people in the UK.
With my salary I am in a very privileged position. I know that. But there is a basic illogic about the Tories position on this. 50% tax for their donors and patrons is the End Of The World. 57% tax for me on a third of their salary is only fair as my wife is a scrounger for taking Child Benefit as her sole income.
You want to know why the polls show so many Tory voters supporting a 50% tax rate? How many Tory voters like me can't believe their party thinks its OK to tax them hard but to insist 7% less tax on £100k more salary is deeply wrong. This disparity of policies is patently absurd and if PB Tories wiped the froth from their mouths and actually thought this one through for a minute they'd understand too.
Taxing me and 640,000 other likely Tory voters at 51%/58%/65%/71% depending on the number of kids, yet defending 45% for the same people who donate hundreds of thousands to party coffers is stupid politics. Out of touch, unfair, for the rich opposed to the middle class - call it what you want. Then you wonder how they failed to win the last election and look set to lose the next one too.
If I did not know otherwise, I would suspect the BBC's Andrew Neil of seeking to pull the wool over people's eyes. But he would not do that, would he?
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to which tax rate Andrew Neil pays ?
The 45% boys have really gone about it the wrong way.
Instead of rich blokes in obviously self-interestd whining what they needed to were some cloth capped workers telling how they were so grateful for businessman X in employing them at his new factory and that he shouldn't get taxed more for fear of him leaving the country and putting them back on the dole.
Labour is the business hating party and benefits loving party. Tories need to keep hammering that message home.
Indeed.
But the problem the Conservatives have is that your average businessman probably thinks this government hates him as well with all the extra taxes and regulations they've imposed.
Not to mention that this government loves paying benefits to its supporters as well from freebies for pensioners to windmill subsidies for landowners.
I'm quite surprised how badly this 50p thing has gone down. This couldn't have been what Labour expected. It was probably a bad idea to let Balls make the announcement. When it's Miliband there's usually enough 'played a blinder' comments amongst lazy media types who want to appear like free thinkers. Balls is just universally disliked and mistrusted, and everyone's happy to take a pop. Poor media management there.
The lowering of the top tax rate and the obscene bankers' bonuses will always be an issue for many.
The simile I've used before about the bankers is with Premiership footballers.
They may be spoilt brats, but footballers get paid on results. If your team loses every game, are relegated three years in a row, and take to carrying a walking stick onto the pitch, the salaries and bonus payments disappear.
The claims that AC Milan or Barcelona are just gagging to poach them would be met with laughter. If they're sh*te, and they've proven themselves sh*te, then payment by results is fair enough.
What the Conservatives should do now is to suggest a 100% tax for all public sector employees, including the BBC and quangos, earning more than the Prime Minister.
It would be enormously popular and would put Labour in the difficult position of having to either defend or betray their public sector fatcat friends.
What the Conservatives should do now is to suggest a 100% tax for all public sector employees, including the BBC and quangos, earnings more than the Prime Minister.
It would be enormously popular and would put Labour in the difficult position of having to either defend or betray their public sector fatcat friends.
And would guarantee the next election for Labour.
Public-sector employees make up a far higher % of the electorate than those on incomes of over £150k.
I am paying tax at an effective rate of 58% thanks to 2 kids child benefits to repay.
Welcome back Bobajob.
Don't know who Bobajob is. The 58% figure comes from the IFS.
A former (lamented) pposter who used to whinge about child benefit withdrawal and high marginal tax rates. Without stopping to reflect that he earned substantially more than the vast majority of people in the UK.
With my salary I am in a very privileged position. I know that. But there is a basic illogic about the Tories position on this. 50% tax for their donors and patrons is the End Of The World. 57% tax for me on a third of their salary is only fair as my wife is a scrounger for taking Child Benefit as her sole income.
You want to know why the polls show so many Tory voters supporting a 50% tax rate? How many Tory voters like me can't believe their party thinks its OK to tax them hard but to insist 7% less tax on £100k more salary is deeply wrong. This disparity of policies is patently absurd and if PB Tories wiped the froth from their mouths and actually thought this one through for a minute they'd understand too.
Taxing me and 640,000 other likely Tory voters at 51%/58%/65%/71% depending on the number of kids, yet defending 45% for the same people who donate hundreds of thousands to party coffers is stupid politics. Out of touch, unfair, for the rich opposed to the middle class - call it what you want. Then you wonder how they failed to win the last election and look set to lose the next one too.
A lot of talk about the 50% income tax rate on this thread, unsurprisingly as that's the topic.
Now, would National Insurance Contributions be levied on that income as well, thus pushing the rate to confiscatory levels?
I am paying tax at an effective rate of 58% thanks to 2 kids child benefits to repay.
Welcome back Bobajob.
IIRC RP has mentioned he lives in the Stockton area while I think Bobajob was in London, in particular the Ealing Acton constituency.
Really? The constituency is Ealing Central and Acton now and obviously was in 2010.
Must have been some time ago .......
I couldn't be bothered to type Ealing CENTAL AND Acton. It is effectively the same as the Ealing Acton constituency of the 1980s.
But as I remember Bobajob fulminated about tactically voting LibDem there because he thought they were more likely to beat the Conservatives and then saw the LibDems come third and enter government with them.
Balls has achieved something today though: garnering the combined support of the two silliest political pundits in British journalism. I refer, of course, to Owen Jones and Peter 'Ming Campbell will prove lethal to the Tories' Oborne.
I'm quite surprised how badly this 50p thing has gone down. This couldn't have been what Labour expected.
You're right, but for completely the opposite reasons. This has gone far better than they could have expected. A parade of big business tycoons whining that they might have to pay more, threatening to sack people in retaliation. Cameron and Osborne defending a large tax cut for their friends and patrons.
No wonder the poll shows even a majority of Tory voters supporting it. When the governments voters support by a large margoin your policy, its proof that your policy has gone down "badly"....
What the Conservatives should do now is to suggest a 100% tax for all public sector employees, including the BBC and quangos, earnings more than the Prime Minister.
It would be enormously popular and would put Labour in the difficult position of having to either defend or betray their public sector fatcat friends.
And would guarantee the next election for Labour.
Public-sector employees make up a far higher % of the electorate than those on incomes of over £150k.
I said public sector employees, including the BBC and quangos, earning more than the Prime Minister.
I didn't say every public sector employee.
I would expect that the number earning more than Cameron would be small, but would have a disproportionate effect on Labour psychologically.
I am paying tax at an effective rate of 58% thanks to 2 kids child benefits to repay.
Welcome back Bobajob.
Don't know who Bobajob is. The 58% figure comes from the IFS.
A former (lamented) pposter who used to whinge about child benefit withdrawal and high marginal tax rates. Without stopping to reflect that he earned substantially more than the vast majority of people in the UK.
With my salary I am in a very privileged position. I know that. But there is a basic illogic about the Tories position on this. 50% tax for their donors and patrons is the End Of The World. 57% tax for me on a third of their salary is only fair as my wife is a scrounger for taking Child Benefit as her sole income.
You want to know why the polls show so many Tory voters supporting a 50% tax rate? How many Tory voters like me can't believe their party thinks its OK to tax them hard but to insist 7% less tax on £100k more salary is deeply wrong. This disparity of policies is patently absurd and if PB Tories wiped the froth from their mouths and actually thought this one through for a minute they'd understand too.
Taxing me and 640,000 other likely Tory voters at 51%/58%/65%/71% depending on the number of kids, yet defending 45% for the same people who donate hundreds of thousands to party coffers is stupid politics. Out of touch, unfair, for the rich opposed to the middle class - call it what you want. Then you wonder how they failed to win the last election and look set to lose the next one too.
A lot of talk about the 50% income tax rate on this thread, unsurprisingly as that's the topic.
Now, would National Insurance Contributions be levied on that income as well, thus pushing the rate to confiscatory levels?
"UKIP has opened an office in Christchurch. The party says it is targeting Dorset, where it expects to win vulnerable seats from the Conservatives and Lib Dems."
A fat lot of good that will do them in May . There are only 2 councils where there are elections being fought in May , Purbeck and Weymouth and Portland where UKIP came nowhere near winning any seats last May .
UKIP didn't have candidates in those wards last May.
I am paying tax at an effective rate of 58% thanks to 2 kids child benefits to repay.
Welcome back Bobajob.
Don't know who Bobajob is. The 58% figure comes from the IFS.
A former (lamented) pposter who used to whinge about child benefit withdrawal and high marginal tax rates. Without stopping to reflect that he earned substantially more than the vast majority of people in the UK.
With my salary I am in a very privileged position. I know that. But there is a basic illogic about the Tories position on this. 50% tax for their donors and patrons is the End Of The World. 57% tax for me on a third of their salary is only fair as my wife is a scrounger for taking Child Benefit as her sole income.
You want to know why the polls show so many Tory voters supporting a 50% tax rate? How many Tory voters like me can't believe their party thinks its OK to tax them hard but to insist 7% less tax on £100k more salary is deeply wrong. This disparity of policies is patently absurd and if PB Tories wiped the froth from their mouths and actually thought this one through for a minute they'd understand too.
Taxing me and 640,000 other likely Tory voters at 51%/58%/65%/71% depending on the number of kids, yet defending 45% for the same people who donate hundreds of thousands to party coffers is stupid politics. Out of touch, unfair, for the rich opposed to the middle class - call it what you want. Then you wonder how they failed to win the last election and look set to lose the next one too.
A lot of talk about the 50% income tax rate on this thread, unsurprisingly as that's the topic.
Now, would National Insurance Contributions be levied on that income as well, thus pushing the rate to confiscatory levels?
"UKIP has opened an office in Christchurch. The party says it is targeting Dorset, where it expects to win vulnerable seats from the Conservatives and Lib Dems."
A fat lot of good that will do them in May . There are only 2 councils where there are elections being fought in May , Purbeck and Weymouth and Portland where UKIP came nowhere near winning any seats last May .
UKIP didn't have candidates in those wards last May.
A parade of big business tycoons whining that they might have to pay more, threatening to sack people in retaliation.
Be honest (I won't tell anyone), you'd have been far happier if those same businessmen had come out praising Mr Balls to the rafters. But crumbs of comfort and all that. I get it.
"UKIP has opened an office in Christchurch. The party says it is targeting Dorset, where it expects to win vulnerable seats from the Conservatives and Lib Dems."
A fat lot of good that will do them in May . There are only 2 councils where there are elections being fought in May , Purbeck and Weymouth and Portland where UKIP came nowhere near winning any seats last May .
UKIP didn't have candidates in those wards last May.
Yes they did , they contested 5 out of 6 of the Purbeck wards best a poor second in Swanage and 3 of the Weymouth and Portland wards . Their best area in Dorset was in East Dorset where they won their only seat on Dorset CC but there are no elections this year .
Comments
I accept that forecasts would have been revised down following the introduction of a lower rate.
And for contingent benefits, if an attempt was made to measure, there would have to have been a lag,
We cannot get to the point where a Chancellor is so bound by the views of the OBR or the Treasury that they cannot make a judgement themselves. I accept that even given the risk that the person that might next be making a judgement might be Ed Balls. Of course if their judgement proves to be wrong they should be held to account. This is what we have elections for. Otherwise what is the point of having politicians at all?
Will the former be left where it is, making more of middle Britain higher rate tax payers?
Will the latter be in addition to the increased personal allowances or instead of them, in which case it's a significant tax increase for the poorest?
Has Balls said anything about this? Has anyone asked him? Labour's position on these points will affect far more people than the 50p tax rate.
If I had to guess, I suspect that a lot more people will find themselves paying 40% tax at quite modest incomes and that the poorest will also find themselves paying more tax (Labour have form on this).
That - if the other parties make something of this - could have more of an impact than a lot of very well paid people frothing about paying a bit more tax (on this I'm with SO - it looks unedifying and greedy, however economically asinine or not or politically spiteful a policy it may be).
An investor thinking of setting up in the UK won't decide to relocate the day after the top income tax rate changes. It is a progressive slow maturing benefit.
Like a bottle of fine claret, it becomes more valuable and drinkable with age.
18p and 38p rates would be economically and politically beneficial.
Mr. Anorak, I share that view. The supposition that 'fair' taxes always involving squeezing more from the richest is unreasonable. They already pay more than twice the standard rate.
I see other posters are finding it as difficult as usual to take your inept out of touch spin remotely seriously, Even your biggest fan Neil seems completely unconvinced. All this pointless stat spinning certainly doesn't look like it will help your prediction of a kipper wipeout at the EU elections, does it?
I am more concerned about this aspect of Labour's tax policy than the 50p rate (which I'd long ago assumed would happen).
*and I say this as someone who is not much of a fan of 50p – the Laffer Curve means that *eventually* it will, probably, raise little, or anything. Yet it is a matter of record that Ozzy had to cut his projection when it was cut to 45p – that is unarguable so whatever you think of the medium-term economic wisdom of the measure, concede the point.
http://www.espn.co.uk/tororosso/motorsport/story/142967.html
So far, all cars have the Rhino, except Ferrari (Platypus) and Lotus (Tusks). Apparently only a single 'nosepiece' is allowed, and Lotus have been cheeky and gotten around that by having the right hand 'tusk' longer than the left hand one.
It's worth mentioning also that the sidepods provide cooling for different things. The right one, I think, is the engine, whereas the right is the turbo/ERS.
What they'd do is another matter entirely.
£150k+ers are politically speaking low hanging fruit for Labour - taxing someone more on £50k is another matter entirely
As for fiscal drag on the40% rate threshold, Osbrone has frozen or reduced this in every budget since 2010 so the Tories can hardly attack This.
'18p and 38p rates would be economically and politically beneficial.'
That would certainly shift some votes,help with the cost of living and put Balls on the spot.
ISTR McLaren swapping them over from race to race a few years ago, to suit each track. I think it was one of the years they had asymmetric sidepods. That was how marginal they got the cooling ...
Put it this way, top rate taxpayers can afford it more than average income working families who have lost out on housing benefit and tax credit changes. Let's worry about them for a change
Be interesting to see if it shifts VI at all – my guess is it won't make any difference, as nothing much seems to.
@Sun_Politics: Blow for @edballsmp as 50p tax rate criticised by IFS: http://t.co/JU9du1oZpv
http://wingsoverscotland.com/trouble-with-numbers/#more-48613
Should definitely include in the next budget,no point in leaving a strong economy for Labour to trash.
Knowing the FIA, there's probably a rule covering it ...
Whilst trying to discover this, I came across the following document that may be of interest. It shows how the 2009 McLaren changed over the course of the year.
http://www.f1-forecast.com/pdf/McLaren MP4-24 - 2009 Updates.pdf
So much development that is used for one race only. Such a waste ...
It would be very expensive though and based on past form I would not be at all surprised if Labour did not make it start there but increased the tax the poorest pay. It's what they did, after all, when they abolished the 10p rate last time.
That's where the other parties should be concentrating their fire: not "Labour tax the wealth creators/rich [take your pick]" but "Labour tax everyone more".
Unless you think the dark forces of Brussels will step in to fix the result ?
A long-winded reply to say that you have lost this one. As the old adage goes, when you are explaining, you are losing*
Silly, silly, Little Cub Scout
Brown announced the tax rise one year in advance, a tactic he used to similar good effect when announcing the sale of the UK's gold reserves.
This left high earners plenty of time to arrange their tax affairs to their best advantage, principally by bringing forward income into the 2009/10 tax year and lowering declarations in 2010/11. [Now why would he have done that do you think?]
Osborne moved the tax rate down and also gave advance notice. This had the effect of income being shifted from the 2012/13 tax year to 2013/14. In such income shifts it is often large bonuses which are the most easily moved. The ONS accounts for this year show a clear boost to income related tax receipts in April and May. Thereafter tax receipts were forecast to fall due to the tax cut.
When a tax cut or rise of this nature is made the number of taxpayers at the time of the change remains fairly constant (after allowing for avoidance shifts) and income taxable at the new rate tends in the short term to be consistent with the prior year.
As time passes longer term behavioural responses set in, Taxpayers are attracted or repelled by the new rates and either move in or move out of the tax jurisdiction. Investment decisions influenced by tax rates sometimes take years to implement. Incomes are restructured to adapt to the new rates, e.g. the balance of income realised from capital gains and from income require long term changes. Self Assessed taxpayers for example pay tax on the year prior to PAYE taxpayers.
Simply looking at a 'year one' downrating of tax receipts tells us nothing. At least three years after and a year before of data are needed to reach any meaningful conclusion and that only covers a direct impact on income related taxes.
Further research would be needed into contingent benefits, both quantitative and qualitative. Decision makers in firms relocating in or out of London would need to interviewed to determine the weight attached to tax regimes in the decision making process.
I am not "losing" or "winning" here, LCS. The purpose of debate.is to gather data and inform opinions with a goal of reaching the truth.
I nevertheless award you the "Mrs Joyful Prize for Rafia-work" in recognition of your efforts.
It might look clear red water or mist between Labour and others, but it still smells of taureann waste products. What is the trade off between higher marginal tax rates and economic growth?
Jenkins isn't impressed,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/27/50p-income-tax-rate-ed-balls?CMP=twt_gu
And neither is the IFS.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066
The issue is not so much what EWNI does on its own but whether it drags Scotland out of the EU with it willy-nilly. And if more people see that as a disadvantage (or, more precisely, the risk of one) then it will not help the No vote.
The issue is very much being borne in mind up here, and even the Speccy, or at least one of its commentators, thinks so.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/europe-will-affect-the-scots-referendum-but-not-in-the-way-everyone-expects/
... 50p tax payers paid £34.5 billion in income tax in 2010–11 on an income of £86.5 billion.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066
Mr Neil picks up the story in the following year: 2011/12: £41.3bn (50% rate); 12/13: £41.6bn (50%); 13/14: £49.36bn (45% top rate).
So from year one of the 50 pence rate to year two we saw a rise in tax take from top rate payers of just under £7 billion.
Whoever would have thought it?
Given the chance to bring forward bonus, commission etc payments having received a year's notice of the new rate by the Chancellor in 2009, many top rate tax payers did just that. They could not do it in the following years, so they rate jumped up. And when GO gave them a year's notice of the 45 pence rate, they made arrangements to defer payments - which explains the jump from 12/13 to 13/14.
If I did not know otherwise, I would suspect the BBC's Andrew Neil of seeking to pull the wool over people's eyes. But he would not do that, would he?
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/districts/christchurch/10965099._/
2010-11 will be have been distorted by income shifting. You need to take 2009-10 into account, especially at total income level,.
A further distorting factor will be that 2009-10 will have had some of the most extreme impacts of the recession on top-earners income (financial and professional services account for half the income of this group).
It is not easy to reach quick and reliable conclusions from the headline figures, except that tax revenues have increased under the 45% rate whether by cause or just correlation.
Just compare growth rates of taxpayers, income assessed and tax paid in each of the income tax bands.
It will suggest rather than prove, but still worth doing.
Gross domestic product rose 0.7 percent, near the 0.8 percent pace of the previous three months, according to the median of 39 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey.
...
The Office for National Statistics will release the fourth-quarter GDP data, with a breakdown of services, construction and industrial production, at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow in London. Forecasts in the Bloomberg survey range from 0.3 percent by economists at Natixis to 1 percent at Informa Global Markets.
I had gone with 0.7% when asked by SMukesh a couple of weeks or so ago, but subsequent data has pushed me a little down on that prediction. The SWIFTIndex was particularly worrying.
So 0.5% - 0.7% is my guesstimate.
Am really off now before Neil reminds me of whatever it was I said that is getting Pork to claim I predicted a Kipper wipe out in May. Perhaps I need to consult Pork's wiki polling chart to jog my memory?
If they've spent them, can we re-introduce slavery for the miscreants?
I was interested in your accusation that I make up my mind before entering a discussion.
Do you make the same charge against Avery ?
You want to know why the polls show so many Tory voters supporting a 50% tax rate? How many Tory voters like me can't believe their party thinks its OK to tax them hard but to insist 7% less tax on £100k more salary is deeply wrong. This disparity of policies is patently absurd and if PB Tories wiped the froth from their mouths and actually thought this one through for a minute they'd understand too.
Taxing me and 640,000 other likely Tory voters at 51%/58%/65%/71% depending on the number of kids, yet defending 45% for the same people who donate hundreds of thousands to party coffers is stupid politics. Out of touch, unfair, for the rich opposed to the middle class - call it what you want. Then you wonder how they failed to win the last election and look set to lose the next one too.
The 45% boys have really gone about it the wrong way.
Instead of rich blokes in obviously self-interestd whining what they needed to were some cloth capped workers telling how they were so grateful for businessman X in employing them at his new factory and that he shouldn't get taxed more for fear of him leaving the country and putting them back on the dole.
But the problem the Conservatives have is that your average businessman probably thinks this government hates him as well with all the extra taxes and regulations they've imposed.
Not to mention that this government loves paying benefits to its supporters as well from freebies for pensioners to windmill subsidies for landowners.
@GdnPolitics: Thinktank dismisses Ed Balls's claims that 50p tax rate will help cut deficit http://t.co/CRQ8GDJcaf
Must have been some time ago .......
The lowering of the top tax rate and the obscene bankers' bonuses will always be an issue for many.
The simile I've used before about the bankers is with Premiership footballers.
They may be spoilt brats, but footballers get paid on results. If your team loses every game, are relegated three years in a row, and take to carrying a walking stick onto the pitch, the salaries and bonus payments disappear.
The claims that AC Milan or Barcelona are just gagging to poach them would be met with laughter. If they're sh*te, and they've proven themselves sh*te, then payment by results is fair enough.
It would be enormously popular and would put Labour in the difficult position of having to either defend or betray their public sector fatcat friends.
Public-sector employees make up a far higher % of the electorate than those on incomes of over £150k.
Now, would National Insurance Contributions be levied on that income as well, thus pushing the rate to confiscatory levels?
But as I remember Bobajob fulminated about tactically voting LibDem there because he thought they were more likely to beat the Conservatives and then saw the LibDems come third and enter government with them.
No wonder the poll shows even a majority of Tory voters supporting it. When the governments voters support by a large margoin your policy, its proof that your policy has gone down "badly"....
I didn't say every public sector employee.
I would expect that the number earning more than Cameron would be small, but would have a disproportionate effect on Labour psychologically.
http://www.dorsetforyou.com/409108
Improving on zero shouldn't be too difficult.