h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, I'm sure *someone* has an opinion.. 50% tax for the super-rich? Good/bad?

£150,000 is not "the super-rich".

As has been proven many a time before, increasing the tax rate on high earners reduces the tax take. Utterly pointless, stupid, shows the lack of thought and intelligence of the PM (because who thinks Alistair Darling is capable of, or allowed, independent thought)?

RF

Not at all good. How silly. £150K doesn't even cover some of the w... bankers bonuses.

Can I conclude from this that Reddyfreddy has received a substantial bonus this year?

B

Can I conclude that not everybody pays 50% tax? I do.

But the rich don't, they pay less. They only take 50% here from those who don't earn anything much anyway.

Tax rates in the UK are 0% on earnings up to £6,475; 20% up to £37,400; 40% up to £150,000, and 50% over £150,000.

However, we also have a sneaky little thing called NI, which is levied at 11% of earnings up to about £44,000, and at 1% over that. This leads to the some anomalous situations where people are earning a higher salary but paying less tax.

Is the UK tax system overcomplicated? yes. For this I blame Gordon Brown (rather than 2legs).

RF

I thought the budget was rather incompetent myself. Sure - a 50% tax rate is perfectly reasonable...but not particularly relevant to the current crisis. It should have been done years ago. But what else is there in it of any significance? Efficiency savings in government? Get real!

*On the other hand*...I simply don't see any better ideas coming from the Conservatives. They may well want to tweak various tax bands, simply out of political principle - but do they have any better ideas on the crisis?

Now I'm not a Labour supporter. Any more. (in my country, I have other left-leaning alternatives.) But it does seem to me that Labour, for all their faults, are still the best of a bad lot. Steady as she goes is probably the most sensible course at the moment. (I have no truck with abstaining. As adults, we have to choose between the alternatives on offer...and if you don't like that - quit moaning and form your own party!)

What will really lose them the election is probably NI. The constant complaint is of Brown's (now Darling's) 'stealth taxes'. But this is the bitter legacy of Thatcherism. We *should* be paying more in tax, but nobody dares says so. (Well...the LibDems, maybe, on the days they're feeling particularly bold). Remember 'Labour's Double Whammy'?

As for the 50% tax causing an exodus to Switzerland...Aye, right! There's an element of quite legitimate bluff-calling here. We are *not* talking about Healey's 1970's Supertax!

And evil companies like Google will continue to pay their tax via Ireland anyway. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/20/google-uk-tax-avoidance

Really stick it up.

Make those pips really squeek

Depends on your definition of "super-rich". A quick google shows that once you're earning £44k you're in the top 10% of the earning population, whilst those earning over £150k are the top 1%.

>> Depends on your definition of "super-rich"...whilst those earning over £150k are the top 1% <<

If you're still dependent on a salary, then you're not super-rich. Rich yes; super-rich, no.

RF

The converse isn't true, of course. You can be self-employed and not rich.

It's a meaningless distinction. The point is that one can still pay more in tax and still have a perfectly adequate amount left over.

Well, again, this comes down to definitions. Your definition of "perfectly adequate" is probably different to other people's.

RF

Oh, I reckon I could live well enough on 75 grand.

You have no imagination.

RF

I wouldn't object to paying 50% if I earnt over £150K but I resent paying 51% of what I earn over £40K.

However what I really resent is what they spend it on !

I don't want Trident ~ I don't want to support second homes for people who volunteered to go into their job ~ I don't want to buy flat screen teles for people who earn twice what I do ~ I don't want a war in Iraq ~ I don't want to send aid to countries that have nuclear weapons.

Well fair enough - and I sympathise.

However...this now enters into a slightly separate, constitutional area about how Parliamentary Democracy should work:

- Should we establish and remove governments by voting periodically, or by paying or withdrawing taxes?

- Should we hold (what would amount to) referenda on every issue, or should we grant full executive control to a party for a fixed period?

- Should we have no government whatsoever and allow individuals to choose for themselves what services they want to pay for? (I'll have some healthcare, please, and some police...but I don't think I'll need any nuclear weapons, social work or opera...)

If they had any sense, they'd just bring back 'window tax'.

Or even better - defenestration.

I liked these two Steve Bells:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2009/apr/27/steve-bell-if

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/cartoon/2009/apr/24/50p-tax-rate-gordon-brown

And I shall sneer contemptuously at anyone who doesn't recognise the allusion at the bottom of the second.

Gordon Browne IS NOT KHORNE!!!!!!!!!