No, in a real world, there will always be wealthy people who have done well, no matter what you may hope. What this point reinforces is only that the narrative that Labour keep pushing that "the rich" dont pay tax is about as false as the suggestion that only the top 5% will pay more under Labour. Pure b0llocks, all of it.
There is an economic principle called the laffer curve that relates to the tax rate vs the total tax take that suggests that there is a sweet spot for the tax rate that maximises the tax take because when the rate increases above this point the highest earners, who because of their wealth are more mobile, will leave to reduce their exposure. It has been tested and proved and the only thing that economists argue about is what that sweet spot is, but it makes perfect sense that it exists. The problem with socialism is that it is a laudable theory but it takes no account that a country's population is made up of human beings and human beings by nature will protect their own interests. Labour never understand that increasing the tax rate for political reasons, because 'bash the rich' plays well with their audience, never increases the tax take by the levels they budget for. Make no mistake, when the levels go too high, people will leave and this list of freebies will have to be thrown in the bin because the money won't be there. Again.
This is why the leader 'debates are not fit for purpose....it doesn't allow close and intense scrutiny. Neal exposes the weaknesses and lack of command of the figures forensically. Jeremy Corbyn, like Nicola Sturgeon last night was exposed ( although I thought she coped with it slightly better)...Johnson and Jo Swinson will be at least equally exposed. The top and bottom of it is that politicians of all parties make their policies to appeal to the electorate and spin them to suit their argument...which is understandable...however if they haven't got their figures right or aren't in full command of the arguments in regard to prior statements they're in deep trouble.
Comrade, comrade, comrade, comrade, comrade, comrade, comrade, comrade, comrade, comrade. That's how many times you've repeated it in one thread. Dense.
FWIW, I earn very close to 80k a year. I'd be happy to pay a bit more into the system to help those less fortunate. Post-December 12. It's happening.... REAL CHANGE. FOR THE MANY.
Yeah the rough sleepers are having a whale of a time off your taxes. You sick ******. Check this scrounger out. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/l...UPEozyNI1-NioTbS1qJPBJl1uo3gr2Cp9K4g83q4igdqo
Yes people look to protect their own BUT you are more able to do that if you have the help of those around you. Hence socialism isnt necessarily an evil word. And lets be right, the Labour manifesto this time is nowhere near true socialism.
Is it any wonder why this country is becoming a cold, heartless place when you’ve got opinions like these? Comments like the one I’ve quoted don’t even make me angry anymore it just makes me feel sad that given the opportunity to pay a little bit more and help out those who are worse off, they’d turn away and basically say “f*ck em” Shame on anyone with this selfish attitude.
And if you ask yourself why.... Probably because all those mega rich folk, set up wierd company structures. Pay themself a really low salary, but huge amounts in shares instead. Tax avoidance for the rich.
Please tell me more, cos I have to pay my tax bill this month and it ain’t a small amount, the days of paying out through dividends are largely gone as the Tories have reduced it gradually. The only ones that might get away with it is very large outfits with lots of shell companies.
It's probably his voluntary work that has made the powers that be decide to cut his benefits. Happened to a friend of mine. They asked him in his interview if he could make a cup of tea. They basically said if you can make a cup of tea you can work in a cafe and stopped his benefits. He was born with a cleft pallet and hunchback and needs a walking frame. He is now a manic depressive on anti depressants and had to go to Sheffield to have his case reviewed. I did like the post. However, it is annoying walking into a Wetherspoon for a brekky and seeing those that do abuse the system.
Its not hard to find examples of footballers doing similar. Whilst the Government are aware it happens, I am not aware that it has been wiped out. But of course, you will already be aware of this https://www.gov.uk/guidance/disguis...utual-share-ownership-agreements-spotlight-53
Undoubtedly, this will be the case for some... however, its been common practice for a very long time that a company director and shareholder takes their income through dividend. The benefits for the company being that it saves tax that can be reinvested, retained for any bumps in the road, can assist towards more employees, share more reward or go towards investment and capital acquisition. That tax saving can assist tax generation in other ways and encourages the movement of money, rather than holding it which harms economies. I've known plenty of very small business owners who have had a really bad year or several and earned well below the equivalent of a minimum wage just to ensure short term survival. Of all the policies in the Labour manifesto, the one that looks most fundamentally anti business and completely out of touch with business owners, commerce and small and microbusinesses in particular, is applying an income tax rate of tax on dividends. By all means, clamp down on the big business tax dodging and offshoring of income through erroneous management charges. But don't attack people who are working 20 hour days, have huge pressures of employing and managing people and sacrificing themselves to protect their business' and employees' future in the most volatile and uncertain of times. I suspect this manifesto would encourage the reverse relocation of French financiers back to Paris. Many banks relocated to London when France hiked up the top rate of income tax. I suspect investment would be impacted and I suspect small businesses with just 1-5 employees may well consider whether they can reduce the number of people, even if it meant downscaling operations. I've no issue with the concept of a slightly higher tax level, nor with stopping fraud and evasion of tax. I've no issue with having safety nets and assistance for the needy and those looking to progress and improve themselves. But the sentiment among many small business owners I've spoken with is that this manifesto is anti business and the rhetoric to any business feels extremely hostile, inferring all business owners are shysters and cheats. If Labour were to come to power under this leadership (still not going to happen unassisted) and we left the EU, it would cause massive damage to the economy. The intent in some parts is noble. The mechanisms for aiming to deliver, naïve at best.
I don't disagree. And personally i agree with the alignment of tax on dividends to that of income tax. It should however have a progressive tax just like income tax. (Yeah ok, it's off the top of my head and I might not have thought about it in detail) Having different levels of tax on dividends to that of income tax promotes the use of such vehicle's to reduce tax. I may not fully understand it all, and my thoughts may have negative impacts elsewhere, but using it as means of avoiding tax is wrong. Especially when you are earning hundreds of thousands (Which was my original point)
As was mentioned by another poster, the Tories increased a lower level rate of dividend tax, when there was none before (some time back I recall there being a relief on the first earnings of profit, but that was wiped out a long time ago). So if you declare a dividend (which is an extraction of profit, can't be done if the company has no retained profit) you pay corporation tax on that as a business. You then pay your dividend tax through your personal tax return or on account. So the benefit now is largely gone. If you add a dividend tax at full rate on top of the corporation tax (which labour also want to increase) you're paying either 21 or 26% corporation tax on the company profit.... then another 20% if its a basic rate dividend. So if you're a company director who earns under the upper rate of income tax (and I'd suggest that's probably more common than people exceeding the £80k labour are suggesting as where the tax increases come), you could get hit for in effect a 41% tax on basic income. Obviously that means dividends at lower level are dead and small businesses will have a huge amount of tax burden, on top of increased regulatory burden, on top of seismic business uncertainty. If that makes sense to someone, I'd love them to explain it to me.
The problem, as I suspect you know is that the tax rate is multi-layered, so that the marginal rates of taxation lower down the income scale have a bearing on the impact of the marginal rates at the higher end. The thresholds are also relevant, so that the 'tax rate' is not a simple thing. The effect also may not take sufficient account of the many and ingenious way in which higher earners avoid paying tax. That is before we even get to the paradox of the rich needing more money as an incentive, while the poorer should have more taken away from them. So I don't think I'd be putting too much store by your 'Laffer Effect'! In the real world, we have for decades had cycles of taxation and spending which differ with the various administrations but which overall aren't usually all that divergent across the longer timescale, no matter what the Tories or Labour may say. Using absolutist language to describe what are probably small differences detracts from a more measured analysis of the main parties' policies.
