ChatterBank0 min ago
Do Labour Think Middle England Are Thick?
71 Answers
Balls seems to think hitting higher rate taxpayers (those over 150K a year so not exactly millionaires) with a punitive tax rate will attract voters.
OK, tax of envy does go down with staunch labour voters, but like the Tories that is not who he is trying to attract.
On both sides the party faithful are there already it is middle England that giveth and taketh and the majority of them are not bought by taxing the, well not very, rich. (Lets remember the real rich will have good accountants and wont pay anyway, you just hit hard working entrepreneurs)
So, is this another Balls up?
http://
OK, tax of envy does go down with staunch labour voters, but like the Tories that is not who he is trying to attract.
On both sides the party faithful are there already it is middle England that giveth and taketh and the majority of them are not bought by taxing the, well not very, rich. (Lets remember the real rich will have good accountants and wont pay anyway, you just hit hard working entrepreneurs)
So, is this another Balls up?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
So given that we all agree that we are talking about the top 1% of earners in the country shall we stop all this silly talk about 'middle income' and 'Middle England'?
So will an attack on *top* earners attract voters?
Well it's not going to lose a lot of votes is it? This is hardly core labour voters.
As for gaining votes - it's not the politics of envy rather the politics of outrage.
People think (whether it's true or not) that top earners are not feeling their living standards erode the way the rest of us are. They feel that we are *not* 'all in it together' and top earners are using loopholes to dodge the law.
I think a lot of people will see this as justice and replacing awhat was there before the Tories came in and gave a tax cut to all their rich supporters.
So I think it costs them nothing politically, is financially pretty neutral and will probably gain them votes
So will an attack on *top* earners attract voters?
Well it's not going to lose a lot of votes is it? This is hardly core labour voters.
As for gaining votes - it's not the politics of envy rather the politics of outrage.
People think (whether it's true or not) that top earners are not feeling their living standards erode the way the rest of us are. They feel that we are *not* 'all in it together' and top earners are using loopholes to dodge the law.
I think a lot of people will see this as justice and replacing awhat was there before the Tories came in and gave a tax cut to all their rich supporters.
So I think it costs them nothing politically, is financially pretty neutral and will probably gain them votes
Having said this I do think some changes need to happen for certain high earning categories like sportsmen who have an expectation of earning pretty high amounts for only a few years.
Perhaps it should be possible to claim back some tax paid in the highest band if your earnings drop over say a 10 or 20 year window
Perhaps it should be possible to claim back some tax paid in the highest band if your earnings drop over say a 10 or 20 year window
Emmie - >150k, you are paying wuite a lot of tax - you have lost the personal allowance for a start - so that is a quick £4000 more when you hit 150 001.
[ not quite it is a sliding scale ]
so that the marginal rate - that it the rate on the last bit, goes up to 62p in the pound.
Politics of envy - I am sorry to see a return to that
and Healey's I will tax them until the pips squeak (and he did)
persuades people that they dont have to do anything to better their lot themselves - all they have to do is tax someone who has more moolah.
[ not quite it is a sliding scale ]
so that the marginal rate - that it the rate on the last bit, goes up to 62p in the pound.
Politics of envy - I am sorry to see a return to that
and Healey's I will tax them until the pips squeak (and he did)
persuades people that they dont have to do anything to better their lot themselves - all they have to do is tax someone who has more moolah.
from wiki
The starting rate of income tax, often known as the 10p rate, was the lowest rate of personal income taxation in the United Kingdom from 1999 to 2008. It was introduced by then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, in his 1999 budget and abolished by him (in his last budget as Chancellor) in 2007.
The starting rate of income tax, often known as the 10p rate, was the lowest rate of personal income taxation in the United Kingdom from 1999 to 2008. It was introduced by then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, in his 1999 budget and abolished by him (in his last budget as Chancellor) in 2007.
“We are talking about hiking the rate on earnings above 150K a year from the current 45% back to 50%, where the Tories cut it from,…. “
Please, LG, could you address the point I raised in the other question still running on this topic. If 40% was sufficient as a top rate for almost all time that Labour were in office from 1997 why is 45% now insufficient?
Also in that question I demonstrated the hugely disproportionate contributions that high earners are making to the nation’s revenue. Why this this disproportionality increase still further?
This new proposal (unfortunately) does not affect me (nor, apparently, 99% of the rest of the working population). That does not mean, Mikey, that I should not be concerned about it. I’d like to see this country develop into a low tax, small government regime. I don’t need the government to spend my money for me when, on many things, I can do it so much better myself. The £150k threshold is the thin end of the wedge. Like that for the 40% tax rate the threshold will gradually decline and more and more people will be sucked into the top rate. It is about time that governments realised that taxes are for spending on essential services. They should not be used as a wealth redistribution scheme because, as any fool knows, you do not make the poor richer by trying to make the rich poorer.
BTW Jake, you’d be hard pressed to emply a butler on £150k. You’d only be left with about £90k and even if you could offset all his costs against tax you’d struggle to run a house that either warranted a servant or had room for one.
Please, LG, could you address the point I raised in the other question still running on this topic. If 40% was sufficient as a top rate for almost all time that Labour were in office from 1997 why is 45% now insufficient?
Also in that question I demonstrated the hugely disproportionate contributions that high earners are making to the nation’s revenue. Why this this disproportionality increase still further?
This new proposal (unfortunately) does not affect me (nor, apparently, 99% of the rest of the working population). That does not mean, Mikey, that I should not be concerned about it. I’d like to see this country develop into a low tax, small government regime. I don’t need the government to spend my money for me when, on many things, I can do it so much better myself. The £150k threshold is the thin end of the wedge. Like that for the 40% tax rate the threshold will gradually decline and more and more people will be sucked into the top rate. It is about time that governments realised that taxes are for spending on essential services. They should not be used as a wealth redistribution scheme because, as any fool knows, you do not make the poor richer by trying to make the rich poorer.
BTW Jake, you’d be hard pressed to emply a butler on £150k. You’d only be left with about £90k and even if you could offset all his costs against tax you’d struggle to run a house that either warranted a servant or had room for one.
Jake, you forget that it will not earn much at all for the country, it certainly wont be enough to cut taxes.
If you squeeze, or are seen to squeeze it sends out a bad signal to the rest of the world as France is finding out.
I mention middle England because they hold the balance of the votes. No, they are not in the income bracket but may well know people who are either as friends or as people they do business with. If the Government takes money from the top1% then they will cut back and it will be middle English (or UK) business that will be affected.
But more to the point, what I was getting at is why do it? It wont attract votes from middle England they will think much deeper than a tax of envy.
If you squeeze, or are seen to squeeze it sends out a bad signal to the rest of the world as France is finding out.
I mention middle England because they hold the balance of the votes. No, they are not in the income bracket but may well know people who are either as friends or as people they do business with. If the Government takes money from the top1% then they will cut back and it will be middle English (or UK) business that will be affected.
But more to the point, what I was getting at is why do it? It wont attract votes from middle England they will think much deeper than a tax of envy.
From the link: //The government said its decision to cut the top income tax rate to 45p had reduced Treasury income by £100m a year ….. But Mr Balls said the latest HMRC figures showed the 50p rate had raised "almost £10bn more in tax" in the three years it was in place…..//
This is all about taxing 1% of taxpayers and if I’m reading it correctly the present government says that a reduction of 5p resulted in a loss to the Treasury of £100m a year, but Labour say that a 5p increase resulted in a revenue increase of over £3 billion a year. There’s an awfully big gap between those two figures. Has anyone here done the sums?
This is all about taxing 1% of taxpayers and if I’m reading it correctly the present government says that a reduction of 5p resulted in a loss to the Treasury of £100m a year, but Labour say that a 5p increase resulted in a revenue increase of over £3 billion a year. There’s an awfully big gap between those two figures. Has anyone here done the sums?
Hi Naomi. You said:-
This is all about taxing 1% of taxpayers and if I’m reading it correctly the present government says that a reduction of 5p resulted in a loss to the Treasury of £100m a year, but Labour say that a 5p increase resulted in a revenue increase of over £3 billion a year. There’s an awfully big gap between those two figures. Has anyone here done the sums?
The correct answer probably lies somewhere in between but is probably much nearer 100 million. I quite like Ed Balls (much better as Education minister than Gove is now), but he's talking, err, nonsense. The £5 billion in 3 years figure is apparently the increased tax taken for all sorts of other reasons, including an increase in the number of high earners
This is all about taxing 1% of taxpayers and if I’m reading it correctly the present government says that a reduction of 5p resulted in a loss to the Treasury of £100m a year, but Labour say that a 5p increase resulted in a revenue increase of over £3 billion a year. There’s an awfully big gap between those two figures. Has anyone here done the sums?
The correct answer probably lies somewhere in between but is probably much nearer 100 million. I quite like Ed Balls (much better as Education minister than Gove is now), but he's talking, err, nonsense. The £5 billion in 3 years figure is apparently the increased tax taken for all sorts of other reasons, including an increase in the number of high earners
naomi, I calculated that 10p on 308k who fall into the bracket the gain would be between £1bln to £3bln - if they could collect on all........An extra 1% increase in GDP through being attractive to inward and new investment would lead to £6-8 bln of incremental tax, hence my proposition to increase the tax allowance at the base and be more equitous to all, also taking into account that the tax take of the 1% having increased from 22 to 27% in the last 5 years.....
// could you address the point I raised in the other question still running on this topic. If 40% was sufficient as a top rate for almost all time that Labour were in office from 1997 why is 45% now insufficient? //
The increase to 50% was introduced in 2009 (but didn't come into effect until April 2010, a month before Labour were rejected at the General Election). The increase was part of measures to raise monies to pay back the huge borrowing the country had to undertake to pay back the bankers (who were too big to fail). The idea was that those that could most absorb a hit on taxes, the very rich, would contribute a bit more to bail out the bankers.
Fast forward 4 years, and...
Is the deficit paid off? - No.
Is it decreasing? - no, we are still borrowing, not paying back.
So should Osborne have reduced tax by 5% to high earners in 2012? - Probably not.
So is restoring the 50% rate for the wealthy 1% so outlandish?
The increase to 50% was introduced in 2009 (but didn't come into effect until April 2010, a month before Labour were rejected at the General Election). The increase was part of measures to raise monies to pay back the huge borrowing the country had to undertake to pay back the bankers (who were too big to fail). The idea was that those that could most absorb a hit on taxes, the very rich, would contribute a bit more to bail out the bankers.
Fast forward 4 years, and...
Is the deficit paid off? - No.
Is it decreasing? - no, we are still borrowing, not paying back.
So should Osborne have reduced tax by 5% to high earners in 2012? - Probably not.
So is restoring the 50% rate for the wealthy 1% so outlandish?
Yes it is because it will go no way to address the problem you describe. (And by the way the deficit was completely out of control even when the monies needed to bail out the banks was removed from the equation. Plenty of numbers available if you don't believe this to be so).
The best way to reduce the deficit and the debt is to spend less money.
The best way to reduce the deficit and the debt is to spend less money.
Gromit - Guardian here: http://
Latest Posts
Body & Soul9 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Food & Drink19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.