Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17134 Location: Johannesberg, South Africa
vbfg wrote:That's a little closer.
I thank you for answering the rhetorical question aimed at Standee in an entirely non-patronising way after driving all round the houses to avoid the kind of charitable interpretation that most human beings are eminently capable of even though the context was blindingly obvious. It's been a great help.
No it hasn't. Standee still didn't bother to reply to you.
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
The Video Ref wrote:I am still trying to get my head round the whole tax high earners thing.
Did we ever work out exactly what constitutes a high earner, and how much you have to be earning before you fit into this bracket?
We don't have to, HMRC does that for us.
But for what it's worth, I'd leave the tax rates as they currently are, apart from those earning more than £1 million per year. I'd tax them at 55%, rising at 1% increments every three months. Then when we see a downturn in receipts in one 1/4, we will have found the tipping point and we can drop it back 1% and leave it there.
And before the usual suspect(s) chime in with the "envy" allegation, I'm simply proposing we maximise our resources
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Joined: Feb 10 2004 Posts: 16136 Location: Badsville
The Video Ref wrote:I think tax at the higher rate kicks in at around £38,000. It then goes up to 50% if you are earning over £150,000, I think.
Someone earning the former figure in London, whilst trying to support a family, is really not that well off.
think the 40% band starts at 42K or thereabouts.
She got the wiggle hip sway hypno sex ray goin' on in my head She got the flippin' hip slide hypno sex siren in my head She got the wiggle hip sway hypno sex ray light's flashin' red
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
The Video Ref wrote:I think tax at the higher rate kicks in at around £38,000. It then goes up to 50% if you are earning over £150,000, I think.
Someone earning the former figure in London, whilst trying to support a family, is really not that well off.
So, you raise the threshold before becoming eligible for tax, then everyone benefits and you tax the richest more to compensate. Then the lower paid benefit more proportionately, as does the economy because the lower paid will spend any extra insted of sqirreling it away. It's called fairness
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17134 Location: Johannesberg, South Africa
cod'ead wrote:We don't have to, HMRC does that for us.
But for what it's worth, I'd leave the tax rates as they currently are, apart from those earning more than £1 million per year. I'd tax them at 55%, rising at 1% increments every three months. Then when we see a downturn in receipts in one 1/4, we will have found the tipping point and we can drop it back 1% and leave it there.
And before the usual suspect(s) chime in with the "envy" allegation, I'm simply proposing we maximise our resources
The cigarettes, alcohol and petrol taxation model.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 27757 Location: In rocket surgery
Dally wrote:Nobody in the press seems to question the mantra that cutting the 50p tax rate would be good for jobs, so I will.
I couldn't bothered about reading eight pages worth of comment because I'd already heard from a respected economic commentator (the guy from The Times) that there is pretty much no evidence to suggest that cutting the top rate tax band will create jobs.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 138 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
