Politics 50% Tax Rate?

Do you support the reintroduction of a 50% Tax Rate?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 29.0%
  • No

    Votes: 19 61.3%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 3 9.7%

  • Total voters
    31

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,182
Just a general poll to gauge if people support the 50% tax rate and what peoples opinions are on the matter.
 

Chilly

Balls of steel
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,046
As someone who wouldn't pay it, I'm not sure it's fair for me to vote. I would rather tax loopholes were shut down in favour of income tax rises. People who earn over £150k are not univerally cunts. They are generally fucking skilled at their jobs and probably deserve the salary. They already pay more via tax anyway simply due to their higher income and higher spend on VAT-able stuff. I'd rather see things like dodgy housing tax loopholes (trusts) and shady tax offset schemes get nuked, which are the real problems.
 

Olgaline

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,306
Yes I can support higher taxes on the brittish!
(Scotland excluded, whisky is expensive enough as is)
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
Complete waste of time when you consider how much it will generate in the greater scheme of things. Something to appease the idiot classes and nothing more. If I was in the 150k+ club and they wanted to tax me 50% I would fuck off to another country.

Much more useful and fairer things to tax
 

Aoami

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,223
I'd bring it in as a temporary measure if it was proven to ease a burden in a valuable way, but certainly not as something to rely on in the long term.
 

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,182
Personally I voted no, I don't earn any where near it to be affected but I would prefer governments actually collected the tax they are suppose to rather than raise the tax rate again which to me is probably more to do with populist politics rather than economic reasons.
 

gohan

FH is my second home
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
6,338
I don't think 150k is enough to be classed as rich. I think it should be more like 400k. 75k after tax (or more like 65 after NI stealth tax) is obviously a huge ammount of money, but you could probably have a far less stressful job and earn like 120k and end up with the same take home. Or is it only 50% on the excess of 150k? I.e 0-8k 0% 8-40k 20-25% 40k-150k 40% and 150k+ 50%? If so then someone on 150k won't see any difference anyway and it will only become noticable on people earning 200k plus. (instead of 60k tax it would be like 65k)
 

Chilly

Balls of steel
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,046
Income tax only affects the earnings OVER the threshold. So that 50% tax is 50% on anything above 150 and 40% between 40ish and 150.
 

ECA

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
9,439
I think its fine, it affects very few people.
I think a much more pressing concern are the companies who take advantage of our universal health care and education, road networks, infrastructure etc, and yet pay almost 0% on billion dollar profits.
 

Vae

Resident Freddy
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,181
I'm a higher tax payer but not near that threshold so also won't pay it. I would say that it is yet another case of Labour playing party politics with the latest political football just like they did with the Energy companies and are also trying to do with limiting bonuses at RBS.
Both the institute for fiscal studies and the revenue themselves say will have little affect on the deficit and certainly nowhere near the levels of revenue Labour are claiming it will raise.

It's a case of short-term political gain for long-term harm to the economy just as you're seeing to a much worse extent in France.

With RBS they don't seem to understand that if they limit bonuses to 1x salary rather than 2x like most competitors (which is already a nonsensical risk increasing decision) they are further damaging/destroying a publicly owned asset for political gain as to keep the top talent to make profit RBS with will have to increase base salary even further (thus greater risk) or watch the much reduced talent they have left also walk out the door.

But then I don't really expect much else.
 

Vae

Resident Freddy
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,181
Maybe a bigger topic is how should the tax system be constructed. Imagine you are just come into existence with no idea what position you will rise to in life (the so-called 'Veil of Ignorance') or equally have forgotten everything you know about your position in life. Now design a fair tax system.

What percentage of total tax should the top 1% pay, then the top 10%, then the top 25% etc. Who would you tax and how much to spread the burden.

I would also echo other points above that I think they should act more on closing loopholes where multinationals channel profits into tax havens however that is a difficult subject to tackle without a degree of worldwide agreement.
 

Chilly

Balls of steel
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,046
I reckon there should be no corp tax, no vat and just fund everything from a sliding scale of income tax. no tax incentives for anything, ever.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,842
We call ourselves socialist, it's a farce.

Haven't we got one of the most complex tax systems or something?
 

Chilly

Balls of steel
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,046
We call ourselves socialist, it's a farce.

Haven't we got one of the most complex tax systems or something?
It's complex due to age. We live in one of the oldest and most sophisticated capitalist democracies in history, any rulebook is bound to be long.
 

mr.Blacky

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
596
As someone who wouldn't pay it, I'm not sure it's fair for me to vote. I would rather tax loopholes were shut down in favour of income tax rises.
Indeed closing would be better and even people who profit from it will not loose as much as they might fear.
After all it means spending less on lawyers or accountants.
 

Ch3tan

I aer teh win!!
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,318
Government would raise more tax with a flat rate for all, and closing all loopholes.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Flat rate tax for all. 20% of all earned income, no matter how it's earned. Corporations and individuals alike.

Job Done.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Flat rate tax for all. 20% of all earned income, no matter how it's earned. Corporations and individuals alike.

I'm actually on this, scary as it is for me and Scouse to agree. Yeah i know there's XYZ that would ZYX, but still. You earned a bigger salary? You roll in that green all you want.
 

Ctuchik

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
10,459
Not living in UK i probably shouldn't say anything. But personally i wouldn't deal all that well with a 50% tax, no matter the reasons for it.

If raising taxes by that much is the only solution to whatever problem they are having then they are incompetent and clearly shouldn't be in power.

Massively raised tax is a piss poor short term solution that only produces other problems somewhere else.

I'm actually on this, scary as it is for me and Scouse to agree. Yeah i know there's XYZ that would ZYX, but still. You earned a bigger salary? You roll in that green all you want.

Sure, but the problem is that the rich usually aren't the target for raised taxes, they are more often then not excluded from them because they can always afford to move out of the country (making the government lose what tax income they do pay). "Normal" people usually don't have that option so they just have to deal with it.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
Luckily they aren't in power otherwise we would be worse off than 5 years ago :)
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Sure, but the problem is that the rich usually aren't the target for raised taxes, they are more often then not excluded from them because they can always afford to move out of the country (making the government lose what tax income they do pay). "Normal" people usually don't have that option so they just have to deal with it.

Yeah but that's the current system, different story if taxes were constant and always the same.
 

Exioce

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
922
Flat rate tax for all. 20% of all earned income, no matter how it's earned. Corporations and individuals alike.

Job Done.
As long as there's a basic income to go along with that then I'm fine with it.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
A system of flat rate tax, not the only system of flat rate tax

I proposed minimum living wage along with income of individuals and corporations, and I'd further propose a maximum wealth ceiling. Of say £100m (arbitrary value).

Anything beyond that, you can fuck off. People who are worth more than that tend to love what they do and do it regardless.
 

Athan

Resident Freddy
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,063
And if the super rich really <i>must</i> 'keep score' against each other than let them 'earn' it over said threshold but it automatically goes to some charity pool and/or taxes.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
Everyone should have access to unicorns that shit rainbows too.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom