The EU have to decide possible outcomes if there’s an extension .
Will Bozo go full on no deal in their election manifesto , if he doesn’t can he get a big enough majority to dump the DUP and go back to a simple backstop for NI.
If there’s no deal and it ends up a disaster before an election then the Tories could suffer a backlash by voters and in the GE could be ousted with a new government going for a softer Brexit v Remain .
The current proposals are going nowhere unless the DUP veto is dropped and other issues around customs are addressed .
The UK media are obsessed with the numbers to get this unicorn deal over the line .
Leaving aside the question of the UK's prospects after leaving, it is an understatement to say that it is not yet nailed on that we either No Deal or end up with Johnson getting a majority. He could quite possibly lose a GE after we extend. At the moment they are hoping that the Conservatives lose the GE and the UK eventually revokes A50, before or after another referendum, and the prospect of that is not sufficiently distant for them to cave in. That said, they will be following the latest polls with interest.
If Johnson gets a majority after we have an extension without Johnson's deal being agreed, No Deal becomes pretty well certain if a deal is not done, but paradoxically the prospect of No Deal recedes because it forces the EU into a choice between one or the other. I would expect them to be more accommodating than they are being now.
Even if the UK leaves without a deal, the EU won't want to be left without any sort of trade agreement with us for the longer term, and Varadkhar will end up looking like an absolute pillock in the meantime. So more negotiations would be inevitable, and I would again expect the EU be more accommodating at that point.
I agree the EU will be more accommodating to any UK govt that can demonstrate a majority in parliament. They are probably willing to do one last concession but dont want to waste it if it is unlikely to pass in parliament.
I disagree they will be more accommodating post no-deal. Not because they dont want to, but because we would need sign off from 28 national parliaments plus several regional parliaments, not just the heads of state. That will bring into play all sorts of sectional interests with minor politicians looking to make a name for themselves with their own electorates. It will be a quagmire.
On the latter, whilst I agree with the implication that the EU is an utterly dysfunctonal organisation, I think you greatly overstate the consequences in this case. With the actuality rather than the prospect of no deal, the pressure will if anything be greater. States will be falling over themselves to preserve as much of what they have now, faced with the alternative. States within the EU are also be capable of putting a great deal of pressure on any recalcitrant member seen as playing silly buggers, as can the EU bureaucracy. And because they will be trying to preserve the status quo. it's a very different situation to getting agreement to something new, so I don't think there is any real prospects of the likes of the Walloons kicking off.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
I didn't say it's incorrect, I said it's bare. It's a cherry picked statistic without the slightest sense of its wider meaning. If you have huge levels of inequality, of course the highest income and highest wealth individuals will be paying a huge measure of the tax take. That is not a good thing. Better would be for a more even distribution of income and wealth and a concomitant more even distribution of the tax burden. The reasons are threefold: - it reduces the economic-political power of the elites, enhancing democracy - it creates a network effect that cushions against system failure that can come from sectoral collapses within the economy: fewer nodes means higher risk. - it enhances the benefits of consumerist capitalism, which is driven by consumers making free choices with disposable income. That's how the market works. If you condemn 50% of the population into near-subsistence, those people are not sending efficient signals into the market, meaning quality, variety and innovation suffer.
Large inequality is bad for the economy, and cherry picked figures like the 27% are used exclusively to justify the present level of inequality.
Truth is, I don't think the problem even lies at the 1%. I think it's more like the 0.5% or 0.1% level. But in order to make a rational determination on that, you need more than just the single, dumb banner of "27%", which really doesn't help us understand the situation.
Your objectives are not helped by questioning whether the tax system is regressive because of VAT, or calling a valid figure part of the tax dodgers alliance.
I would be in favour of aggressively closing loopholes that help the very rich and also a Warren style billionaire tax.
Personally, I think the Income Tax system is progressive enough but several changes I would like to see are:
- Extending NI to non-earned income, e.g pensions, dividends, interest etc. or better still rolling Income Tax and NI into one, over time. - A wealth tax - The overall tax take to go up by a few % of GDP (say from the current 37% to 40%) to improve public services and reduce borrowing. The NI and wealth tax changes to fund this %GDP increase.
Sky News - Psephologist and Conservative peer Lord Hayward indicates 270-280 seats presently for the Tories.
Also recommends to both Speakers that Dominic Cumming's parliamentary pass be revoked for contempt of parliament.
Has he shown his workings for the 270-280 figure ?
Not that I'm aware. Lord Hayward was asked by Adam Boulton for his assessment. Lord Hayward indicated that his view was a nowcast and the political situation was so fluid as to make any other forecast for a near future general election immensely difficult.
Lord Hayward also indicated that the prospect of Labour as largest party was small and the seat winners were the LibDems and the SNP.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
We'd get close to that by removing the NI upper earings limit and extending NI to unearned income.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
What is the upper rate in France now? They did a hike (now reversed?) which saw a movement of talent under Hollande, I seem to recall.
While you have free movement you can't have a nation with a successful significantly higher tax rate than others in the area.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
You do know that if you earn between £100,000 and £120,000 you paying an effective marginal rate of 62% already in the UK.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
I didn't say it's incorrect, I said it's bare. It's a cherry picked statistic without the slightest sense of its wider meaning. If you have huge levels of inequality, of course the highest income and highest wealth individuals will be paying a huge measure of the tax take. That is not a good thing. Better would be for a more even distribution of income and wealth and a concomitant more even distribution of the tax burden. The reasons are threefold: - it reduces the economic-political power of the elites, enhancing democracy - it creates a network effect that cushions against system failure that can come from sectoral collapses within the economy: fewer nodes means higher risk. - it enhances the benefits of consumerist capitalism, which is driven by consumers making free choices with disposable income. That's how the market works. If you condemn 50% of the population into near-subsistence, those people are not sending efficient signals into the market, meaning quality, variety and innovation suffer.
Large inequality is bad for the economy, and cherry picked figures like the 27% are used exclusively to justify the present level of inequality.
Truth is, I don't think the problem even lies at the 1%. I think it's more like the 0.5% or 0.1% level. But in order to make a rational determination on that, you need more than just the single, dumb banner of "27%", which really doesn't help us understand the situation.
Your objectives are not helped by questioning whether the tax system is regressive because of VAT, or calling a valid figure part of the tax dodgers alliance.
I would be in favour of aggressively closing loopholes that help the very rich and also a Warren style billionaire tax.
Personally, I think the Income Tax system is progressive enough but several changes I would like to see are:
- Extending NI to non-earned income, e.g pensions, dividends, interest etc. or better still rolling Income Tax and NI into one, over time. - A wealth tax - The overall tax take to go up by a few % of GDP (say from the current 37% to 40%) to improve public services and reduce borrowing. The NI and wealth tax changes to fund this %GDP increase.
Your suggestions plus inheritance tax being moved to the recipient, lowering pension relief caps and removing the last bit of tax relief/credit for landlords would have me on board. Education (across lifetime not just kids) to get a decent share of the increase to 40%.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
I didn't say it's incorrect, I said it's bare. It's a cherry picked statistic without the slightest sense of its wider meaning. If you have huge levels of inequality, of course the highest income and highest wealth individuals will be paying a huge measure of the tax take. That is not a good thing. Better would be for a more even distribution of income and wealth and a concomitant more even distribution of the tax burden. The reasons are threefold: - it reduces the economic-political power of the elites, enhancing democracy - it creates a network effect that cushions against system failure that can come from sectoral collapses within the economy: fewer nodes means higher risk. - it enhances the benefits of consumerist capitalism, which is driven by consumers making free choices with disposable income. That's how the market works. If you condemn 50% of the population into near-subsistence, those people are not sending efficient signals into the market, meaning quality, variety and innovation suffer.
Large inequality is bad for the economy, and cherry picked figures like the 27% are used exclusively to justify the present level of inequality.
Truth is, I don't think the problem even lies at the 1%. I think it's more like the 0.5% or 0.1% level. But in order to make a rational determination on that, you need more than just the single, dumb banner of "27%", which really doesn't help us understand the situation.
Your objectives are not helped by questioning whether the tax system is regressive because of VAT, or calling a valid figure part of the tax dodgers alliance.
I would be in favour of aggressively closing loopholes that help the very rich and also a Warren style billionaire tax.
Personally, I think the Income Tax system is progressive enough but several changes I would like to see are:
- Extending NI to non-earned income, e.g pensions, dividends, interest etc. or better still rolling Income Tax and NI into one, over time. - A wealth tax - The overall tax take to go up by a few % of GDP (say from the current 37% to 40%) to improve public services and reduce borrowing. The NI and wealth tax changes to fund this %GDP increase.
Merging Income tax and NI desperately needs doing - but politically it's about as popular as sorting social care or planning reform, destined to be forever left in the 'too-difficult' pile.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
What is the upper rate in France now? They did a hike which saw a movement of talent under Hollande, I seem to recall.
While you have free movement you can't have a nation with a successful significantly higher tax rate than others in the area.
Surely migration of the wealthiest 1% is not really checked by the free movement rules or proximity considerations that apply to everyone else?
But anyway I am not sure I buy this 'wealth flight' argument...
If I were a billionaire, I'd probably be financially better off in the US, Monaco, or any one of a number of other places. But frankly, if I were a billionaire I wouldn't give two sh%ts about saving a bit of tax, I'd want to live in the place I love best, which happens to be Dorset, right now.
(Oh, also, most billionaires are lucky not talented imo.)
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
The highest effective marginal tax rates are on the low not high earners when you bring tax credits and benefits into the equation, and they have got higher not lower in the last decade or so. Student loans have effectively also added 9% to the tax rate for a large swathe of the younger half of the working population and will never be paid off for almost all of those taking out loans post Nick Clegg. NI is paid by the low paid but ceases above a moderately high income threshold.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
You do know that if you earn between £100,000 and £120,000 you paying an effective marginal rate of 62% already in the UK.
Only assuming you dont use your pension relief, SEIS, EIS, VCT allowances, which presumably the vast majority of those earners take advantage of?
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
I didn't say it's incorrect, I said it's bare. It's a cherry picked statistic without the slightest sense of its wider meaning. If you have huge levels of inequality, of course the highest income and highest wealth individuals will be paying a huge measure of the tax take. That is not a good thing. Better would be for a more even distribution of income and wealth and a concomitant more even distribution of the tax burden. The reasons are threefold: - it reduces the economic-political power of the elites, enhancing democracy - it creates a network effect that cushions against system failure that can come from sectoral collapses within the economy: fewer nodes means higher risk. - it enhances the benefits of consumerist capitalism, which is driven by consumers making free choices with disposable income. That's how the market works. If you condemn 50% of the population into near-subsistence, those people are not sending efficient signals into the market, meaning quality, variety and innovation suffer.
Large inequality is bad for the economy, and cherry picked figures like the 27% are used exclusively to justify the present level of inequality.
Truth is, I don't think the problem even lies at the 1%. I think it's more like the 0.5% or 0.1% level. But in order to make a rational determination on that, you need more than just the single, dumb banner of "27%", which really doesn't help us understand the situation.
Your objectives are not helped by questioning whether the tax system is regressive because of VAT, or calling a valid figure part of the tax dodgers alliance.
I would be in favour of aggressively closing loopholes that help the very rich and also a Warren style billionaire tax.
Personally, I think the Income Tax system is progressive enough but several changes I would like to see are:
- Extending NI to non-earned income, e.g pensions, dividends, interest etc. or better still rolling Income Tax and NI into one, over time. - A wealth tax - The overall tax take to go up by a few % of GDP (say from the current 37% to 40%) to improve public services and reduce borrowing. The NI and wealth tax changes to fund this %GDP increase.
Merging Income tax and NI desperately needs doing - but politically it's about as popular as sorting social care or planning reform, destined to be forever left in the 'too-difficult' pile.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
To be accurate, the theory of the Laffer curve claims.......
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
Ah great... I take it you have the official proven coordinates for the Laffer curve then. I've been looking for that for some time.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
The fact is the Laffer curve is pseudo-scientific drivel used to provide a veneer of rationalisation for self-serving lobbyists for billionaires. Plug in any number you like provided it is above 0 and below 100.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
The Treasury did a lot of work on income Laffer curves in 2010 and 2011, before reducing the 52% rate to 47% (inc the 2% NI). - and seeing income tax receipts go up as a result.
It turns out that 50% is a hugely symbolic number, that has a lot of people reaching for an accountant's phone number.
Further down the income scale, there's also evidence that the effective 65% rate due to personal allowance withdrawal at 100k income is causing people to avoid that income bracket, either by doing less work or increasing pension contributions. Think doctors, lawyers, pilots etc turning down that extra shift or extra customer, as the marginal gain is so small.
Personal anecdata - in a previous job I stopped working overtime when I hit the 40% bracket, simply decided that it wasn't worth working nights and weekends for the net rate offered.
Agree re personal allowance withdrawal. Use of AVC to pension is the obvious way around it and something we did.
Just to ensure I am not misunderstanding, why do you say 65%. Surely it is 60% or 62% if you include NI. Am I missing something?
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
You do know that if you earn between £100,000 and £120,000 you paying an effective marginal rate of 62% already in the UK.
Only assuming you dont use your pension relief, SEIS, EIS, VCT allowances, which presumably the vast majority of those earners take advantage of?
Mr. Doof, how do cricketers generally fare at SPOTY?
It's not something I know that much about, but some sports seem to have more motivated fanbases than others when it comes to voting.
Four wins: Laker, Steele, Botham and Flintoff.
Stokes really ought to make it five.
The surprise on this list is David Steele. He was good batsman, but not one of the very best in the last 50 years. I guess the Montreal Olympics was not a particularly good year for GB.
Our main medal hope in Montreal was Brendan Foster who had some sort of tummy trouble, and the team's doctor was not a gastroenterologist. Since then, athletes are barely allowed to cross the road without a medium-sized general hospital on standby. I vaguely recall a couple of Olympics ago, the Guardian musing on why the British archery team had a neurosurgeon in tow.
Shades of losing the World Cup in 1970, which may have cost Labour the election that year.
Everton’s keeper Gordon West was scheduled to be backup but his wife refused to let him go. That cost us it.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
Whilst the "Laffer effect" is real, the tipping point is quite variable.
The main issue for the remain side is that there is no way that getting rid of the Conservative government leaves no alternative leader for them. Mr. Corbyn as interim PM is unacceptable to the LibDems as this would cement in voters minds the possibility of him as PM and Labour as the alternative government. Equivalently Labour cannot afford Mr. Corbyn to be sidelined as this would leave voters to question why the LotO is not PM. Whatever people believe regarding the importance of halting Brexit, the fact remains that the real battle in the HoC is for the party that will be the alternative anti-Conservative Party in the next GE. Both of those parties see it as a fight to the death. Neither can afford to back down.
Think this is right. Especially for the LDs. They have a great chance for break through and must surely be focusing on that above all else.
Personal anecdata - in a previous job I stopped working overtime when I hit the 40% bracket, simply decided that it wasn't worth working nights and weekends for the net rate offered.
Without delving into individual specifics, there is also an upside to getting people to think twice about maximising their salary and considering their priavte life a bit more. It can be better for the economy as a whole in the long term to have a few more employees learning the required skills, with less burn-outs and heart attacks for the few with highly specialised skills. And the easiest way for the government to maximise tax revenue is to have a long term healthy economy, rather than looking at the income tax takings over one or two years.
The people who really hate high income tax levels are the employers because they really would like to employ one specialist to work 80 hours a week than find and train two to work 40 hours a week.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
What is the upper rate in France now? They did a hike (now reversed?) which saw a movement of talent under Hollande, I seem to recall.
While you have free movement you can't have a nation with a successful significantly higher tax rate than others in the area.
Under Macron the top income tax rate in France is now 45%, the same as the UK (albeit with a 4% extra rate for incomes over €500 million).
Under Hollande many of the Paris rich fled to London
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
The Laffer curve also shows quite clearly that the lower you put the tax rates, the lower the revenues you get past a certain point.
How do you know that a 63% top rate is above or below that point?
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
What is the upper rate in France now? They did a hike which saw a movement of talent under Hollande, I seem to recall.
While you have free movement you can't have a nation with a successful significantly higher tax rate than others in the area.
Surely migration of the wealthiest 1% is not really checked by the free movement rules or proximity considerations that apply to everyone else?
But anyway I am not sure I buy this 'wealth flight' argument...
If I were a billionaire, I'd probably be financially better off in the US, Monaco, or any one of a number of other places. But frankly, if I were a billionaire I wouldn't give two sh%ts about saving a bit of tax, I'd want to live in the place I love best, which happens to be Dorset, right now.
(Oh, also, most billionaires are lucky not talented imo.)
In the real world, multinationals have offices around the world and executives can often be placed in any number of them. I speak from experience that headhunters use flexibility of location as a key tool to get candidates over the line when selling a role.
And with the SPECTRE hanging over the UK thanks to Labour’s collapse to the extreme left, high earners are relocating to and extending placements in Asia and the Middle East.
What the hell is that live rugby "reenactment" thingy that the ITV prersenters are doing in the fake Japanese dojo? It looks awkward and cringe worthy!
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
What is the upper rate in France now? They did a hike (now reversed?) which saw a movement of talent under Hollande, I seem to recall.
While you have free movement you can't have a nation with a successful significantly higher tax rate than others in the area.
Under Macron the top income tax rate in France is now 45%, the same as the UK (albeit with a 4% extra rate for incomes over €500 million).
Under Hollande many of the Paris rich fled to London
It turns out that 50% is a hugely symbolic number, that has a lot of people reaching for an accountant's phone number.
Further down the income scale, there's also evidence that the effective 65% rate due to personal allowance withdrawal at 100k income is causing people to avoid that income bracket, either by doing less work or increasing pension contributions. Think doctors, lawyers, pilots etc turning down that extra shift or extra customer, as the marginal gain is so small.
Personal anecdata - in a previous job I stopped working overtime when I hit the 40% bracket, simply decided that it wasn't worth working nights and weekends for the net rate offered.
66.66% is also psychologically potent. "One for me two for the pot" sounds excessively altruistic. Hence pitched just below that at 63%.
I take your point about some people therefore turning work down. But in the coming age of AI and a consequently shorter working week and job share this could be a good thing.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
The Laffer curve also shows quite clearly that the lower you put the tax rates, the lower the revenues you get past a certain point.
How do you know that a 63% top rate is above or below that point?
Four reasons.
1: Logic - It is above anyone else so people could move anywhere else to avoid it. 2: Logic - It is above anyone else so they must have also figured out it would be too high. 3: Evidence - Cutting it from 50 increased revenues, demonstrates 50 is too high so 63 would be too high. 4: Evidence - France increasing it was swiftly reversed due to the effect it had on revenues, indicting it was too high for them.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
The fact is the Laffer curve is pseudo-scientific drivel used to provide a veneer of rationalisation for self-serving lobbyists for billionaires. Plug in any number you like provided it is above 0 and below 100.
How does the Laffer curve work in the Nordic countries?
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
Whilst the "Laffer effect" is real, the tipping point is quite variable.
Well said! And sources of this variability are at the international, national, regional, employments sector and personal levels. The effects can only be sensibly measured over a 5+ year time scale, as a lot of people react slowly to tax changes and there are knock on factors as in house prices in the late 80's when suddenly reducing top rate of income tax.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
The fact is the Laffer curve is pseudo-scientific drivel used to provide a veneer of rationalisation for self-serving lobbyists for billionaires. Plug in any number you like provided it is above 0 and below 100.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
The fact is the Laffer curve is pseudo-scientific drivel used to provide a veneer of rationalisation for self-serving lobbyists for billionaires. Plug in any number you like provided it is above 0 and below 100.
How does the Laffer curve work in the Nordic countries?
The climate there is too cold for it to work properly!
All the new spending that Johnson is promising will havr to be paid for. That means taxes going up and/or a lot more borrowing. All within the context of a No Deal Brexit.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
The Treasury did a lot of work on income Laffer curves in 2010 and 2011, before reducing the 52% rate to 47% (inc the 2% NI). - and seeing income tax receipts go up as a result.
It turns out that 50% is a hugely symbolic number, that has a lot of people reaching for an accountant's phone number.
Further down the income scale, there's also evidence that the effective 65% rate due to personal allowance withdrawal at 100k income is causing people to avoid that income bracket, either by doing less work or increasing pension contributions. Think doctors, lawyers, pilots etc turning down that extra shift or extra customer, as the marginal gain is so small.
Personal anecdata - in a previous job I stopped working overtime when I hit the 40% bracket, simply decided that it wasn't worth working nights and weekends for the net rate offered.
Agree re personal allowance withdrawal. Use of AVC to pension is the obvious way around it and something we did.
Just to ensure I am not misunderstanding, why do you say 65%. Surely it is 60% or 62% if you include NI. Am I missing something?
I said 65% because I got the number wrong thinking off the top of my head!
Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.
Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.
I will wait and see. But Johnson has to walk away because he is the one with the deadline.
elp Johnson as he seeks to appeal to the country in a GE.
The EU will not reject it. That is my point.
However, I agree that Johnson will get public support. That seems to be the likeliest outcome. We will No Deal and the Tories will get their majority. And then what? Trade deals with the US and the EU will be off the table, UK citizens and businesses will be less free, the government will be dependent on the goodwill of third parties to keep all kinds of things we currently take for granted functioning in a recognisable way. So what is the plan? Hope that something turns up?
Boris remains PM - that is the entire plan...
It’s a great plan when you consider the alternatives.
I’m not convinced the EU will turn this down - the economic gloom is gathering.
There is no other agency bar Boris in the Uk that can get a deal done and pass it in Parliament - best case election result for the EU is back at these numbers - so negotiate hard and everyone move on would seem to best for both sides.
If Boris wins a majority at an election it's quite plausible Boris could demand a harder Brexit than this. The threat of no deal could be much higher in the next Parliament than this one.
What has been overlooked in all the 2 borders discussion is that in the letter that Boris wrote he stated that this Govts aim is at the end of the transition to have just an FTA with no customs union or regulatory equivalence with the EU.
He wants regulatory equivalence, what he doesn't want is regulatory alignment. 'Canada' rather than 'Norway'
Yep - it is going to really hurt our sevices industries. But not as much as No Deal will, of course.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
The Treasury did a lot of work on income Laffer curves in 2010 and 2011, before reducing the 52% rate to 47% (inc the 2% NI). - and seeing income tax receipts go up as a result.
It turns out that 50% is a hugely symbolic number, that has a lot of people reaching for an accountant's phone number.
Further down the income scale, there's also evidence that the effective 65% rate due to personal allowance withdrawal at 100k income is causing people to avoid that income bracket, either by doing less work or increasing pension contributions. Think doctors, lawyers, pilots etc turning down that extra shift or extra customer, as the marginal gain is so small.
Personal anecdata - in a previous job I stopped working overtime when I hit the 40% bracket, simply decided that it wasn't worth working nights and weekends for the net rate offered.
If you have 3 kids like me, the marginal rate between 50-60K is 67%. 40% tax + losing all child benefit (Around £2700 pa for 3). I put as much as i could into my pension to avoid this while i could.
Earning £60K with 3 kids a mortgage and a wife who did not work at the time does not a fatcat make. If my wife and i had both earned £49999 we would of course have kept all our child benefit as a family, because that makes total sense and isn't at all bonkers. Thanks Mr Osborne.
1st world problems and all that but it seems more unfair than no longer being treated preferentially vs men in pension terms for example...
If Boris wins a majority at an election it's quite plausible Boris could demand a harder Brexit than this. The threat of no deal could be much higher in the next Parliament than this one.
What has been overlooked in all the 2 borders discussion is that in the letter that Boris wrote he stated that this Govts aim is at the end of the transition to have just an FTA with no customs union or regulatory equivalence with the EU.
I'm not sure why that would be a surprise to anyone though, it is exactly what he campaigned for in the referendum!
What would be the point of arguing against EU regulations, leaving the Single Market so we can make our own regulations, then keep them aligned? What would all this have been for?
If we wanted regulatory alignment we may as well have remained in the Single Market.
I see the Laffer curve chimps are out. It's like a secret sign or a dog whistle or something. Speak the word "economics" in a low voice on a still night and soon the moon will be obscured by a thousand wingéd howlers whooping through the night sky. The cherries will be picked, the multidimensionality of economics flattened into a frozen parody of an already oversimplified subject, the attempt at a conversation about detail drowned in a wall of airborne simian screeches, all repeating the same holy word "Laffer! Laffer! Laffer!"
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
What is the upper rate in France now? They did a hike which saw a movement of talent under Hollande, I seem to recall.
While you have free movement you can't have a nation with a successful significantly higher tax rate than others in the area.
Surely migration of the wealthiest 1% is not really checked by the free movement rules or proximity considerations that apply to everyone else?
But anyway I am not sure I buy this 'wealth flight' argument...
If I were a billionaire, I'd probably be financially better off in the US, Monaco, or any one of a number of other places. But frankly, if I were a billionaire I wouldn't give two sh%ts about saving a bit of tax, I'd want to live in the place I love best, which happens to be Dorset, right now.
(Oh, also, most billionaires are lucky not talented imo.)
In the real world, multinationals have offices around the world and executives can often be placed in any number of them. I speak from experience that headhunters use flexibility of location as a key tool to get candidates over the line when selling a role.
And with the SPECTRE hanging over the UK thanks to Labour’s collapse to the extreme left, high earners are relocating to and extending placements in Asia and the Middle East.
Yup, no personal income tax in UAE, and top rate of 22% in Singapore, for non-citizen expatriates in those countries.
UK would be better off making the tax code a lot shorter with fewer allowances, then reducing the rates.
Note that most statistics are based on the top 1% of income tax payers, not top 1% of the population. As around 43% of people do not pay income tax, this makes quite a difference.
To be in the top 1% of income tax payers in the UK (i.e. to be among the 310,000 individuals with the highest income), a taxable income of at least £160,000 is required. £236,000 is required to be in the top 0.5% and nearly £650,000 to be in the top 0.1%. 43% of adults pay no income tax and to be in the top 1% of all adults (or the top 540,000 people), a pre-tax income of at least £120,000 is required.
The top 1% of income tax payers are disproportionately male, middle-aged and London-based. A man aged 45–54 in London could be in the top 1% nationally while still needing a further £550,000 to be in the top 1% for his gender, age and region.
What a bunch of idiots... do they really think this is going to bring more people to their cause or turn people away?
Payrises for firefighters needed. Turns out even the basics, like not dropping the bloody hose, are harder than it looks. I wonder how many ER graduates ever stopped to wonder why fire brigades use teams; maybe they just assumed it was because firefighters are all working class thickos.
I'm sure this must be right because it has graphs and uses the word "regression", then comes to a conclusion I want to be true
If the right vote is split 33-14 and the left vote split 23-24-5 then under FPTP one would normally expect the 33 party to clean up but if the 23-24 is distinctly geographically distributed that can work for the left too.
I'm sure this must be right because it has graphs and uses the word "regression", then comes to a conclusion I want to be true
I don't think it actually tells us anything except that Labour and the Lib Dems will get the votes they get. The end result depends on who much of Leave vote goes to BXP rather than Boris. The greater the number who vote for BXP the more likely the local remain party will win the seat.
Note that most statistics are based on the top 1% of income tax payers, not top 1% of the population. As around 43% of people do not pay income tax, this makes quite a difference.
To be in the top 1% of income tax payers in the UK (i.e. to be among the 310,000 individuals with the highest income), a taxable income of at least £160,000 is required. £236,000 is required to be in the top 0.5% and nearly £650,000 to be in the top 0.1%. 43% of adults pay no income tax and to be in the top 1% of all adults (or the top 540,000 people), a pre-tax income of at least £120,000 is required.
The top 1% of income tax payers are disproportionately male, middle-aged and London-based. A man aged 45–54 in London could be in the top 1% nationally while still needing a further £550,000 to be in the top 1% for his gender, age and region.
You can also be sitting on millions in cash and not have a job, so not liable for income tax.
I see the Laffer curve chimps are out. It's like a secret sign or a dog whistle or something. Speak the word "economics" in a low voice on a still night and soon the moon will be obscured by a thousand wingéd howlers whooping through the night sky. The cherries will be picked, the multidimensionality of economics flattened into a frozen parody of an already oversimplified subject, the attempt at a conversation about detail drowned in a wall of airborne simian screeches, all repeating the same holy word "Laffer! Laffer! Laffer!"
Most of the discussion on this thread is about cliff-edge marginal rates and not absolute values.
Mr. That, if they're taking the same approach as they did when the obnoxious oafs blocked routes into hospitals then the police just won't be bothering enforcing that pesky law.
Note that most statistics are based on the top 1% of income tax payers, not top 1% of the population. As around 43% of people do not pay income tax, this makes quite a difference.
To be in the top 1% of income tax payers in the UK (i.e. to be among the 310,000 individuals with the highest income), a taxable income of at least £160,000 is required. £236,000 is required to be in the top 0.5% and nearly £650,000 to be in the top 0.1%. 43% of adults pay no income tax and to be in the top 1% of all adults (or the top 540,000 people), a pre-tax income of at least £120,000 is required.
The top 1% of income tax payers are disproportionately male, middle-aged and London-based. A man aged 45–54 in London could be in the top 1% nationally while still needing a further £550,000 to be in the top 1% for his gender, age and region.
Suggests footballers make up as much as 2-3% of the top 0.1% of earners. They have much to thank Jimmy Hill for!
Note that most statistics are based on the top 1% of income tax payers, not top 1% of the population. As around 43% of people do not pay income tax, this makes quite a difference.
To be in the top 1% of income tax payers in the UK (i.e. to be among the 310,000 individuals with the highest income), a taxable income of at least £160,000 is required. £236,000 is required to be in the top 0.5% and nearly £650,000 to be in the top 0.1%. 43% of adults pay no income tax and to be in the top 1% of all adults (or the top 540,000 people), a pre-tax income of at least £120,000 is required.
The top 1% of income tax payers are disproportionately male, middle-aged and London-based. A man aged 45–54 in London could be in the top 1% nationally while still needing a further £550,000 to be in the top 1% for his gender, age and region.
You can also be sitting on millions in cash and not have a job, so not liable for income tax.
If Boris wins a majority at an election it's quite plausible Boris could demand a harder Brexit than this. The threat of no deal could be much higher in the next Parliament than this one.
What has been overlooked in all the 2 borders discussion is that in the letter that Boris wrote he stated that this Govts aim is at the end of the transition to have just an FTA with no customs union or regulatory equivalence with the EU.
I'm not sure why that would be a surprise to anyone though, it is exactly what he campaigned for in the referendum!
What would be the point of arguing against EU regulations, leaving the Single Market so we can make our own regulations, then keep them aligned? What would all this have been for?
If we wanted regulatory alignment we may as well have remained in the Single Market.
I struggle to understand the mentality of people who decide where to live based on minimising their tax bill. The rich should be grateful that they have the opportunity to contribute more to their country and their community as a result of their material good fortune rather than begrudge it. Personally I would gladly pay more in tax in order to have better functioning public services and a more adequate social safety net.
Also where are the police and security services? That could be anyone/anything.
So could anything. During the Diana years, the tabloids would print paparazzi photos of blurry figures in the middle distance, screaming that the camera could have been a rifle. Sure, the protesters could have been terrorists but equally the people taking the pictures might have been wielding kitchen knives.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Being the money launderers of the world is not the only way to fund the government sector. It is bad for our long-term international reputation. It is bad for governance when a single sector can call the regulatory tune of an entire society. And it is probably bad for capitalism: the financial sector sucks in so many resources (including human) that it undermines efficient allocation, and creates huge systemic risks.
The UK urgently needs definancialisation, although clearly it would be better to pursue it as a long-term strategy than to unleash the cretinous chaos of Tory Brexit or Milne-Murray-Corbynism. It's one of a number of structural issues (residential property as a store of value, lack of regional government, adversarial politics, adversarial industrial relations, etc.) that have been ducked by government after government.
But apparently you'd rather be a white-collar gangster state with a few crumbs for the 65 million servants.
Of the 11 pollsters currently operating in the UK, only 4 of them have reported in the last two weeks: YouGov, Opinium, Survation, ComRes. The 7 that haven't done so are Ipsos Mori, Kantar, Deltapoll, Panelbase, BMG, Hanbury Reseach, ICM.
I'm expecting an avalanche of polls in the next day or two, now that the conference season is over. Will there be a Boris Bounce or a Swinson Swing?
In all the excitement last night, counting up the number of Labour MPs following Boris into lobby to deliver his brexit, did we miss the fact all of them were qualifying their support “only if EU agree” “only if extension bypassed and no deal certain” ?
I see the Laffer curve chimps are out. It's like a secret sign or a dog whistle or something. Speak the word "economics" in a low voice on a still night and soon the moon will be obscured by a thousand wingéd howlers whooping through the night sky. The cherries will be picked, the multidimensionality of economics flattened into a frozen parody of an already oversimplified subject, the attempt at a conversation about detail drowned in a wall of airborne simian screeches, all repeating the same holy word "Laffer! Laffer! Laffer!"
Things are so bad that tediously repetitive Laffer tropes are a welcome relief from tediously repetitive B***** tropes. Even a round of 'how fcuking marvellous was Maggie, eh?' might might be preferable.
We are appealing to the WTO to see if they can help us in this situation re tariffs. Surely this is not the same WTO whose rules we intend to ignore when it comes to tariff-setting as a result of our policy in NI?
In all the excitement last night, counting up the number of Labour MPs following Boris into lobby to deliver his brexit, did we miss the fact all of them were qualifying their support “only if EU agree” “only if extension bypassed and no deal certain” ?
There can be no deal if the EU do not agree. But if the EU do agree there can be no deal because the ERG will not agree. Labour MPs can say what they like. They know there will never be a meaningful vote.
I struggle to understand the mentality of people who decide where to live based on minimising their tax bill. The rich should be grateful that they have the opportunity to contribute more to their country and their community as a result of their material good fortune rather than begrudge it. Personally I would gladly pay more in tax in order to have better functioning public services and a more adequate social safety net.
You aren't alone in that view. It's quite a cultural thing. Lots of people in Scandinavia are happy with their income tax rates and, indeed, happy in general. Someone posted a good video yesterday about the excesses of liberalism, which was challenging to me as a liberal but gave me a few anchor points as to why that makes sense. This idea that maximising personal income or even maximising the efficiency of a tax system are the holiest of outcomes is highly suspect. It may be a dominant narrative of our culture, but it really doesn't transpose to all human cultures. It's just the grinding self-assured certainty of the orthodoxy that is baffling to me. Too many people on here have quite certain views and have clearly never stopped to examine them or notice that there are people who disagree and who are also quite rational about it. Those same people are fond of -- rightly -- pointing out the cult like nature of Corbyn supporters, without actually noticing that they are in exactly the same kind of situation. Bizarre.
If Boris wins a majority at an election it's quite plausible Boris could demand a harder Brexit than this. The threat of no deal could be much higher in the next Parliament than this one.
What has been overlooked in all the 2 borders discussion is that in the letter that Boris wrote he stated that this Govts aim is at the end of the transition to have just an FTA with no customs union or regulatory equivalence with the EU.
I'm not sure why that would be a surprise to anyone though, it is exactly what he campaigned for in the referendum!
What would be the point of arguing against EU regulations, leaving the Single Market so we can make our own regulations, then keep them aligned? What would all this have been for?
If we wanted regulatory alignment we may as well have remained in the Single Market.
Johnson also said that Brexit would have no impact on the current status of the Irish border. He has no accepted he was wrong about that.
I see the Laffer curve chimps are out. It's like a secret sign or a dog whistle or something. Speak the word "economics" in a low voice on a still night and soon the moon will be obscured by a thousand wingéd howlers whooping through the night sky. The cherries will be picked, the multidimensionality of economics flattened into a frozen parody of an already oversimplified subject, the attempt at a conversation about detail drowned in a wall of airborne simian screeches, all repeating the same holy word "Laffer! Laffer! Laffer!"
Things are so bad that even tediously repetitive Laffer tropes are a welcome relief from tediously repetitive B***** tropes. Even a round of 'how fcuking marvellous was Maggie, eh?' might might be preferable.
Haha, ok, I'll leave you to enjoy/endure the wingéd monkeys whilst I take cover for a while. I think I might be slightly allergic..
In all the excitement last night, counting up the number of Labour MPs following Boris into lobby to deliver his brexit, did we miss the fact all of them were qualifying their support “only if EU agree” “only if extension bypassed and no deal certain” ?
There can be no deal if the EU do not agree. But if the EU do agree there can be no deal because the ERG will not agree. Labour MPs can say what they like. They know there will never be a meaningful vote.
The ERG have already said that they will back this deal if the EU agree, plus Boris can and will remove the whip from and deselect anyone who votes down the deal.
Isn't is more the case that US is UKs closest ally (I actually don't think it's true but that's the spin) while the Presidents and Prime Ministers themselves come and go the friendship between the two nations endures?
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
The fact is the Laffer curve is pseudo-scientific drivel used to provide a veneer of rationalisation for self-serving lobbyists for billionaires. Plug in any number you like provided it is above 0 and below 100.
How does the Laffer curve work in the Nordic countries?
The climate there is too cold for it to work properly!
Comments
Will Bozo go full on no deal in their election manifesto , if he doesn’t can he get a big enough majority to dump the DUP and go back to a simple backstop for NI.
If there’s no deal and it ends up a disaster before an election then the Tories could suffer a backlash by voters and in the GE could be ousted with a new government going for a softer Brexit v Remain .
The current proposals are going nowhere unless the DUP veto is dropped and other issues around customs are addressed .
The UK media are obsessed with the numbers to get this unicorn deal over the line .
- Extending NI to non-earned income, e.g pensions, dividends, interest etc. or better still rolling Income Tax and NI into one, over time.
- A wealth tax
- The overall tax take to go up by a few % of GDP (say from the current 37% to 40%) to improve public services and reduce borrowing. The NI and wealth tax changes to fund this %GDP increase.
Lord Hayward also indicated that the prospect of Labour as largest party was small and the seat winners were the LibDems and the SNP.
Con + DUP + UKIP versus pretty much everyone else. I think everyone else is 1.95.
That's seat totals, incidentally, not votes.
While you have free movement you can't have a nation with a successful significantly higher tax rate than others in the area.
But anyway I am not sure I buy this 'wealth flight' argument...
If I were a billionaire, I'd probably be financially better off in the US, Monaco, or any one of a number of other places. But frankly, if I were a billionaire I wouldn't give two sh%ts about saving a bit of tax, I'd want to live in the place I love best, which happens to be Dorset, right now.
(Oh, also, most billionaires are lucky not talented imo.)
I got confused between Faragian political vehicles.
Ah great... I take it you have the official proven coordinates for the Laffer curve then. I've been looking for that for some time.
Could you post a copy, thx
https://equitablegrowth.org/determining-optimal-u-s-tax-rate-higher-earners/
The fact is the Laffer curve is pseudo-scientific drivel used to provide a veneer of rationalisation for self-serving lobbyists for billionaires. Plug in any number you like provided it is above 0 and below 100.
Just to ensure I am not misunderstanding, why do you say 65%. Surely it is 60% or 62% if you include NI. Am I missing something?
The people who really hate high income tax levels are the employers because they really would like to employ one specialist to work 80 hours a week than find and train two to work 40 hours a week.
Under Hollande many of the Paris rich fled to London
How do you know that a 63% top rate is above or below that point?
And with the SPECTRE hanging over the UK thanks to Labour’s collapse to the extreme left, high earners are relocating to and extending placements in Asia and the Middle East.
I take your point about some people therefore turning work down. But in the coming age of AI and a consequently shorter working week and job share this could be a good thing.
1: Logic - It is above anyone else so people could move anywhere else to avoid it.
2: Logic - It is above anyone else so they must have also figured out it would be too high.
3: Evidence - Cutting it from 50 increased revenues, demonstrates 50 is too high so 63 would be too high.
4: Evidence - France increasing it was swiftly reversed due to the effect it had on revenues, indicting it was too high for them.
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1179696720021770240
Earning £60K with 3 kids a mortgage and a wife who did not work at the time does not a fatcat make. If my wife and i had both earned £49999 we would of course have kept all our child benefit as a family, because that makes total sense and isn't at all bonkers. Thanks Mr Osborne.
1st world problems and all that but it seems more unfair than no longer being treated preferentially vs men in pension terms for example...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf5TEqCM-t0
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1179382200812343296
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1179391067331944448
What would be the point of arguing against EU regulations, leaving the Single Market so we can make our own regulations, then keep them aligned? What would all this have been for?
If we wanted regulatory alignment we may as well have remained in the Single Market.
The cherries will be picked, the multidimensionality of economics flattened into a frozen parody of an already oversimplified subject, the attempt at a conversation about detail drowned in a wall of airborne simian screeches, all repeating the same holy word "Laffer! Laffer! Laffer!"
UK would be better off making the tax code a lot shorter with fewer allowances, then reducing the rates.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/BN253-Characteristics-and-Incomes-Of-The-Top-1%.pdf
Note that most statistics are based on the top 1% of income tax payers, not top 1% of the population. As around 43% of people do not pay income tax, this makes quite a difference.
To be in the top 1% of income tax payers in the UK (i.e. to be among the 310,000 individuals with the highest income), a taxable income of at least £160,000 is required. £236,000 is required to be in the top 0.5% and nearly £650,000 to be in the top 0.1%. 43% of adults pay no income tax and to be in the top 1% of all adults (or the top 540,000 people), a pre-tax income of at least £120,000 is required.
The top 1% of income tax payers are disproportionately male, middle-aged and London-based. A man aged 45–54 in London could be in the top 1% nationally while still needing a further £550,000 to be in the top 1% for his gender, age and region.
Where on earth did they get the fire engine from though?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/10/02/europe-defenceless-against-economic-crisis-will-force-no-deal/
surprisingly cheap too, might trade in my car and beat the traffic jams!
The UK urgently needs definancialisation, although clearly it would be better to pursue it as a long-term strategy than to unleash the cretinous chaos of Tory Brexit or Milne-Murray-Corbynism. It's one of a number of structural issues (residential property as a store of value, lack of regional government, adversarial politics, adversarial industrial relations, etc.) that have been ducked by government after government.
But apparently you'd rather be a white-collar gangster state with a few crumbs for the 65 million servants.
"Before Trump will allow himself to be chased from the temple, he’ll bring it down."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/opinion/trump-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1179447233592397826?s=21
If they get to keep it will ever have to do a days work again. I might run myself
Someone posted a good video yesterday about the excesses of liberalism, which was challenging to me as a liberal but gave me a few anchor points as to why that makes sense. This idea that maximising personal income or even maximising the efficiency of a tax system are the holiest of outcomes is highly suspect. It may be a dominant narrative of our culture, but it really doesn't transpose to all human cultures.
It's just the grinding self-assured certainty of the orthodoxy that is baffling to me. Too many people on here have quite certain views and have clearly never stopped to examine them or notice that there are people who disagree and who are also quite rational about it. Those same people are fond of -- rightly -- pointing out the cult like nature of Corbyn supporters, without actually noticing that they are in exactly the same kind of situation. Bizarre.
Athough on that performance, it would be the rebels facing extinction.