Low taxes

[sandGroundZero]

The tax rates that you are referring to are marginal tax rates, this is the tax rate that only applies to income over the top threshold. This is not the rate of tax that people actually pay.
You have a progressive tax system, in which earned income is divided into tax brackets, and differing tax rates are applied as income rises. You need to calculate the effective tax rate, which is the rate that is actually payable. To do this you have to add up all of the taxes payable in each tax bracket. Take this total and calculate it as a percentage of your total income. This is the tax rate that you are actually paying.
If you have unearned income, dividends/investment etc., this may be subject to a surtax which will increase the marginal tax rate. I know this happened during Wilson's 1974 term, resulting in a 98% marginal tax rate, but I don't know if this was the case in 1966. For some reason I think that the marginal tax rate in 1966 was 95%. What year did you leave school?

Peak income tax coincided with the 1939-45 conflict and subsequently, the debts incurred. It has been asserted that the Bank of England effectively connived with tax evasion from that period. Was there ever a time when the nominal tax rate equalled the effective tax rate of very wealthy individuals and corporate entities; I wonder?

[local]

We who pay tax above what we take out are already overtaxed, net contributors.

If you are a net recipient then you always want someone else's money so you vote Labour or a similarly minded party.

The rather obvious point that you need the net contributors as they pay for you is lost on many people.

At the moment taxes are high under a pseudo-right-wing government, which it ain't.

Fuel taxes are crazily high and affect the poor disproportionately, in many rural areas you have no choice for your transport.

Hands up those going 10 miles on their bikes today for some shopping?

Alcohol already has high taxes and again affect the poor most.

Consumption taxes hit the ones at the bottom.

The government has cottoned on to the fairest way out of the poverty trap, higher wages and they keep edging up the minimum wage.

Yes, it could always be higher quicker but we have to take the employers with us and quick big rises would lead to high unemployment.

[sandGroundZero]

We who pay tax above what we take out are already overtaxed, net contributors. | If you are a net recipient then you always want someone else's money so you vote Labour or a similarly minded party. | The rather obvious point that you need the net contributors as they pay for you is lost on many people.

The politics of self-righteousness?

At the moment taxes are high under a pseudo-right-wing government, which it ain't.

That's BREXIT for you. Take the lead from a self-absorbed serial liar and then make him Prime Minister.
GOOD ON YOU!
Seriously detrimental to the country.

Fuel taxes are crazily high and affect the poor disproportionately, in many rural areas you have no choice for your transport. | Hands up those going 10 miles on their bikes today for some shopping? | Alcohol already has high taxes and again affect the poor most. | Consumption taxes hit the ones at the bottom.
The government has cottoned on to the fairest way out of the poverty trap, higher wages and they keep edging up the minimum wage.
Yes, it could always be higher quicker but we have to take the employers with us and quick big rises would lead to high unemployment.

Typical local. Throw in a few non-sequiturs to confuse the issue.

.

[bensherman]

Underneath all this is the flawed idea that higher taxes discourage entrepreneurs.
If they were paying 90% maybe, but they aren't and nobody is proposing that.
Why do we tolerate politicians who make such infantile commitments to operating with such a constraint?

[Hamble]

[QUOTE=bensherman;6795999]Underneath all this is the flawed idea that higher taxes discourage entrepreneurs.

Can you post a link which supports your theory?
I can only find the opposite.

[The PNP]

Underneath all this is the flawed idea that higher taxes discourage entrepreneurs.
If they were paying 90% maybe, but they aren't and nobody is proposing that.

Imo, the disincentive to earn, doen't jump from zero to massive above a particular percentage. Rather, it will manifest itself very subtly at first, having a more noticeable impact, the higher the tax rate becomes...At the extreme, if you were to tax at a rate of 100%, nobody would work except for a rare few doing it as a hobby.

[donkey22]

[QUOTE=Hamble;6796005]

Underneath all this is the flawed idea that higher taxes discourage entrepreneurs.

Can you post a link which supports your theory?
I can only find the opposite.

‘Higher taxes on the rich won’t suffocate innovation’.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/580642/

[silver fox]

I wasn't suggesting a sky-high rate of tax be brought back. Just pointing out an extreme example of how taxation can be a disincentive to hard work/wealth-creation and if not applied in moderation, can damage economies.

Personally, if I was Chancellor I'd explore all avenues of raising funds, not just income tax. E.g. with the #Climate Crisis in mind, I'd consider raising the tax level on fossil-fuels, in particular petrol and diesel. If doing so reduced non-essential car usage, then so much the better.

Then there's alcohol, which is way too cheap anyway imo. I'd rake in the £billions, from a series of swingeing increases in 'booze tax'.

What a surprise that you favour fuel taxes, OK put wood used as fuel in the same bracket and I'll go with you.

[Hamble]

[QUOTE=donkey22;6796017]

‘Higher taxes on the rich won’t suffocate innovation’.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/580642/

This was your statement.

[QUOTE=bensherman;6795999]Underneath all this is the flawed idea that higher taxes discourage entrepreneurs.

Can you post a link pertinent to the UK?

[donkey22]

[QUOTE=Hamble;6796054][QUOTE=donkey22;6796017]

This was your statement.

Underneath all this is the flawed idea that higher taxes discourage entrepreneurs.

Can you post a link pertinent to the UK?

Why? The basic principles of taxation/capitalism/greed are all globally universal. You asked for a link to a non area specific theory, I provided it.

[local]

The politics of self-righteousness?

That's BREXIT for you. Take the lead from a self-absorbed serial liar and then make him Prime Minister.
GOOD ON YOU!
Seriously detrimental to the country.

Typical local. Throw in a few [I]non-sequiturs[/I] to confuse the issue.

.

it does not follow, no of course it doesn't.

[bensherman]

[QUOTE=Hamble;6796054][QUOTE=donkey22;6796017]

This was your statement.

Underneath all this is the flawed idea that higher taxes discourage entrepreneurs.

Can you post a link pertinent to the UK?

The substantiation I provided was from 22 years consulting with a range of big and other growing, companies.

I participated frequently in their strategy and planning. I do not recall ONCE rates of personal or corporate taxation being factors.

Of course, if you ask someone paying higher rate tax , would he like to pay less, he will say yes. Claiming it discourages growth is a more respectable justification than "I'd like more money".

It is very simply the case that modest rises in the top rate would fund the social care and healthcare programmes.

[The PNP]

It is very simply the case that modest rises in the top rate would fund the social care and healthcare programmes.

Not sure it would tbh, as there will be relatively few taxpayers in the top-rate bracket. Whereas, a rise of half any proposed amount across every tax-band, would bring in far more dough - unpopular amongst the electorate at large as it undoubtedly would be.

[bensherman]

Evidence that there is little substance to the argument that increasing taxes reduces growth.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...le_samwick.pdf
Trump's tax cuts for the rich did not have that effect.
But in fact when I started this thread I referred to Sunak's desire for tax CUTS - so going in the opposite direction. In the current situation a highly irresponsible idea.

[local]

[QUOTE=bensherman;6796091][QUOTE=Hamble;6796054]

This was your statement.



The substantiation I provided was from 22 years consulting with a range of big and other growing, companies.

I participated frequently in their strategy and planning. I do not recall ONCE rates of personal or corporate taxation being factors.

Of course, if you ask someone paying higher rate tax , would he like to pay less, he will say yes. Claiming it discourages growth is a more respectable justification than "I'd like more money".

It is very simply the case that modest rises in the top rate would fund the social care and healthcare programmes.

Hmm participated is an interesting choice of word,

but the reality is companies and individuals avoid basing themselves in high tax areas.

98 of the FTSE have operations to avoid tax.

Quite a few Southport "residents" are based in the I.O.M.

Worldwide from Amazon down, $3.4 billion in tax on its income so far this decade despite achieving revenues of $960.5 billion and profits of $26.8 billion.



I have never known any genuinely rich person or company that didn't plan their tax affairs to reduce it, or more accurately paid someone else to.