The UK Tax System Is "Punishing Success"

6th February 2014

Why doesn't everybody get taxed the same percentage - that way the rich pay the most, it is fair and it is as simple as can be, therefore cheaper to administer?

Can anybody argue against that?


Forcing Britain’s highest earners to foot a greater share of the nation’s tax bill is putting the Government’s long-term finances at risk, a leading economic think tank has warned.


The Institute for Fiscal Studies raised concerns about the state’s growing reliance on tax revenue from a small number of high earners.


“Lumping more taxes on the rich” is not a sustainable long-term strategy, the IFS suggested, as it warned that the ability and willingness of high earners to pay more tax could eventually run out. The think tank’s warning coincides with a heated debate in Westminster about the tax burden being placed on those with the largest incomes, with Conservative MPs warning against “soaking the rich” to fund services for the rest.


Official figures show that 300,000 people earning more than £150,000 a year now pay almost 30 per cent of all income tax — and 7.5 per cent of all tax revenue.


This places the stability of the public finances under threat because high earners whose taxes prop up the state could opt to emigrate, find ways of reducing their tax bills, or simply suffer declines in their fortunes, the IFS said. Government spending plans have become “very sensitive” to changes in the behaviour and status of a group that includes bankers and business executives and owners, as well as senior public employees including some NHS doctors.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10620555/UK-tax-system-is-punishing-success-says-Institute-for-Fiscal-Studies.html

The IFS criticised Coalition moves to shrink the tax base further by lifting the personal allowance to £10,000, at a cost of £10 billion a year.

The Liberal Democrats plan to raise it higher, to £12,500, costing a further £12 billion a year.

The policy is an poorly targeted and expensive way of making the poorest better off and the money would be better spent by increasing the personal allowance on National Insurance contributions, or by allowing people on benefits to keep more of their own money when they start work, the think tank said.

Labour’s plans to reintroduce a 10p tax rate would be even less well targeted at the poorest and would make the tax system more complicated, it claimed. “It is hard to find a coherent economic rationale for it,” the IFS said.



Jealousy?

Look folks, the workers are utterly fed up with you going to the shops in your pyjamas.

NO, you can not have any more of our hard-earned cash!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10620555/UK-tax-system-is-punishing-success-says-Institute-for-Fiscal-Studies.html

Note comrade Bru et al less than 1% of taxpayers pay over 30% of income tax.

These are the ones that you want to drive out with egregious taxes. I have absolutely no doubt this will not make an ounce of difference. Ed Balls tax policy isn't about bringing in more money its about spite.

What a shame that we shall all be taxed to death when you drive out the rich. I shall gain some cold comfort knowing the free loaders will have a harder time.

Andy the unthinking left are not concerned with the welfare of the economy only kneejerk policies to satisfy their collective spite and envy reflexes.

Time and time again I have posted stuff to show the correlation between punitive taxes and reduced revenue and tax flight.

We have bang up t date knowledge of the French leaving in droves who are now paying taxes n the UK.

The so called caring lefties like Sassy suggest we get rid of them as fast as possible along with our own because they can't stand the thought of others having more than them, close to them.

I truly believe the British are masochist because I can see labour actually being given a chance to finish off the economy.

The think tank Tax Research UK has
said that "Institute for Fiscal Studies is a
body that persistently recommends tax
increases that benefit the wealthiest in
society at cost to those who make their
living from work and the poorest in
society".
Richard Murphy has also, in The
Guardian, described the IFS as having "a
bias towards the neoliberal view that
suggests that labour should be heavily
taxed whilst capital is left virtually tax
free". He added: "Whatever the motive,
the IFS's claim to be unbiased appears to me shaky."

Its the figures Andy. My point has been we rely so heavily on so few. Ignore the narrative look at the figures

I want them to pay taxes a roughly half they earn which was the case for decades under the Tories.

50% of x rather than 75% of 0 which is most?

Let me substitute £3 million for x to help you.

If only 25% of the small number of high earners wave goodbye have you any idea how the impacts upon the rest of us?

Do you care?


Why do you think the rich fled from France?

Why do you think they wont from the UK when they did in the 70s.

If you can explain you may convert me.

I suggest you don't care the act of raising taxes to egregious levels is an act of unthinking vandalism to give you a buzz.

What they fail to take into account is the huge subsidy they get by not having to pay a living wage to their workers, and the state making up the difference in working tax benefit. When they pay their workers enough that the state doesn't have to pay benefit and the subsidy they receive in this way is reduced, thus leaving more money in the budget, is the only time to even consider this. And then only consider.

Oh for fuck sake can you not understand that less than 1% of the workforce pay over 30% of the total tax take!

The same 1% that are the most likely and most able to disappear if the likes of you spiteful envious Socialist implement egregious taxation policies like those of Francois Hollande.

Not one of you has acknowledge that what has happened in France is directly attributable to the policies you want to foist upon this country.

I believe it has been demonstrated contemporaneously in France and from lessons in this country under Labour on the 70s that the high earners don't stay.

QED you still want us all to be poorer and most of all you wish to hurt these you purport to care for to feed your desire to be spiteful.

The true nasty party I the one that wishes to implement a taxtain system it KNOWS will cause major damage to the economy.

Yep we should stop subsidising the bloated slobbering fat cats at the top, scrap tax credits and MAKE employers pay a realistic living wage. That way MY taxes wont be wasted putting even more fat on drinkys ass...

100% spot on, then the government wouldn't have to fork out in benefits for those in work, and those in work would be able to pay tax. At the moment, the companies are subsidised to the rafters by people being paid so little that they have to have tax credit payments, which in effect make up their wages. So employers should be paying enough that tax credits were not necessary.

I see ignore the key facts and they go away is your answer.

Do you want to raise income or raise taxes to punitive levels?

Truly I find it so frustrating. Just because you think taxation above certain income levels is morally right it should therefore be done and that those who are high earners should stay doesnt mean they will.

Are you denying what is happening in France. If so why, explain please

No I want to raise income...so MAKE employers pay living wages....and phase out the subsidy to their fat cat earnings....If they paid an honest wage, perhaps the woulkdnt have to worry about such a high tax bill

I want an honest wage for honest work....trouble is drinky, you being nothing but a NHS pen pusher, you wouldnt know what "work" is...I doubt you have ever done a stroke of work in your life...

Clarkson wrote:Andy the unthinking left are not concerned with the welfare of the economy only kneejerk policies to satisfy their collective spite and envy reflexes.

Time and time again I have posted stuff to show the correlation between punitive taxes and reduced revenue and tax flight.

We have bang up t date knowledge of the French leaving in droves who are now paying taxes n the UK.

The so called caring lefties like Sassy suggest we get rid of them as fast as possible along with our own because they can't stand the thought of others having more than them, close to them.

I truly believe the British are masochist because I can see labour actually being given a chance to finish off the economy.

...ffs Drinky, you really have some obsessive hang-ups man!!!  


...entertaining though! :D 

grumpy old git wrote:I want an honest wage for honest work....trouble is drinky, you being nothing but a NHS pen pusher, you wouldnt know what "work" is...I doubt you have ever done a stroke of work in your life...

Almost missed this wonderful misrepresentation of the facts. I left the Public sector in my early 40s and have worked in the private sector until retirement. In tha past I worked in both in my earlier career.

You are right though I saw many in the public sector with the work ethic of a scouser on dope.

Let me say that from starting from the bottom I made enough money to retire early. I didn't do that sat on my arse.

My wife is also a Rwer who has worked in both sectors and she works horrible hours. She is extremely intelligent very industrious and from a very poor background. She is of exactly the same opinion as me about tax. Moreover she is a high earner and has stated that if Labour do this she will either move country and carry on working hard or downshift and reduce her salary.

Either of those options are fine with me. I'm retired and would love to see more of her.  Truly mate I don't get your obsession with trying to hurt the rich. They can't be hurt and as you fire the weapon they dodge and the bullet hits the innocents.

The innocents are those on all incomes above £10K.

If you cou;d hurt the rich it would make some sense. I just don't get it doing when you know you cant!

The UK Tax System Is "Punishing Success"

What a load of rubbish. The IFS said nothing of the sort. Try reading it.

Irn Bru wrote: The UK Tax System Is "Punishing Success"

What a load of rubbish. The IFS said nothing of the sort. Try reading it.

The usual then   

Joy Division wrote:

Irn Bru wrote: The UK Tax System Is "Punishing Success"

What a load of rubbish. The IFS said nothing of the sort. Try reading it.

The usual then   

Indeed JD - the usual.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."

-- Adam Smith, the father of free-market capitalism

@clarkson

Sassy does have a vaild point
if the lower paid workers earn more and can then pay a share towards the tax costs, there would not be the need to taxe the higher paid workers as heavily.

It does seem the system has gotten out of sorts, so now you have too many people not earning enough to pay any tax putting too great a burden on those that do pay tax creating a downward spiral.

Nail - Head! And meanwhile rich companies are being subsidised, which makes them richer still, at the expense of the country.

clarkson cant see the vicious irony of it all...

HE supports below subsistence wages to the "slobs" as he views anyone beneath him...
and greatfully supports the fat cat bosses who hoover up vast amounts of everyones tax in subsidising those miserable wages... the rich MAY pay more tax...but they get it back in bucket loads.

IF they were MADE to pay a living wage, this would have two nice effects
the working folk would have more cash and thus pay more taxes
the fat cats would have a bit less to suck up like the leeches they are...so they would pay less tax... :D :D 

result...everyone should be happy  

That would be too much like common sense.

Excuse me when did I say I support below subsistence wages. I don't recall debating the minimum wage with you.

That isn't the point Iput to you is I too difficult to answer Victor?

If you know you cant hurt the rich only those who earn less by trying to why do it I asked. Answer that its an easy question.

Sassy wrote:That would be too much like common sense.

Common sense! You are the one suggesting we keep obsolete jobs to appease the union. You are the one who defends Labours treachery over the vote. You are the one who proposes raising taxes that will ensure tax flight as you have just seen in France etc etc.

Common sense my arse.

I keep on asking a simple question I'll ask it you. If you raise taxes you cant stop the rich leaving who already pay 30%+ of the tax take. QED everyone will be worse off. Is that common sense?

Clarkson wrote:Excuse me when did I say I support below subsistence wages. I don't recall debating the minimum wage with you.

That isn't the point Iput to you is I too difficult to answer Victor?

If you know you cant hurt the rich only those who earn less by trying to why do it I asked. Answer that its an easy question.

and if YOU remember...i actually agreed with you on taxation....we mustnt upset the traitors must we...

The topic so nice, the RWers posted it twice! Merged.

You did understand the logic of the Laffa curve and the law of diminishing returns as you move into areas of punitive taxation but of late you have appeared to join the Fuck it brigade tax them any way.

I apologise if that isn't so. The bloody irony is I do not object on public spending on worthy causes just wasteful ones. If taxes had to rise to pay for elderly care and all other cuts had been made you wouldn't hear a peep from me.

If we implement Frances policies Elderly care will get cut to ribbons because you can be sure the civil service jobs will be protected by the mandarins.

Meanwhile the lefties will be revolting senselessly forgetting it was they who drove out the wealth

Tax the rich 55% and the mega rich 65%  

The Laffer curve has some theoretical validity, but unfortunately it's been inextricably linked by the right to trickle-down economics, and history has shown that the money doesn't trickle down.

grumpy old git wrote:I want an honest wage for honest work....trouble is drinky, you being nothing but a NHS pen pusher, you wouldnt know what "work" is...I doubt you have ever done a stroke of work in your life...

You sound like my Hubby Grumpy, he reckons my job can't be described as "work"   

soft hands, weak arms and a dodgy back.....

A day on site when I'm busy would cripple drinky  

he'd have more blisters, splinters and aches and pains than you could imagine


wait till you have to move, then set ....on your own.....two gate posts each 8" square 10 feet long made of english oak about 200lbs weight each.......

That will make yer eyes pop....

first you got to dig hole 12" square and 3 feet deep
THEN you get post into hole....hint ,,,you get ONE chance....

then you got to mix concrete..pour it in and make sure its all level...and going to stay there till everything sets.....

Thats half a days work for me drinky....THEN...I hang the gate I have made...which probably weighs the same if not more.... a 12 foot estate gate in oak.....

Oh and i will have forged the hinge straps, and other iron work by hand

Ben_Reilly wrote:The Laffer curve has some theoretical validity, but unfortunately it's been inextricably linked by the right to trickle-down economics, and history has shown that the money doesn't trickle down.

There was a report recently that demonstrably showed the worlds lot had improved for many immeasurably. Indeed that report when I find it was so emphatic that some lefty Professor realising it was emphatic jumped in and said it was all to do with the Chinese communist system making it better for the Chinese people.

It was only about two or three weeks ago I'll look for t.

That said its really bloody simple. Less than 1% of people pay in excess of 30% of income tax. Lose a third of them and you have to spread that 10% loss amongst the non high earners. Lose another third its disastrous cuts on a huge scale and high taxes for the rest.

This isn't a theoretical model it just happened in France when Hollande went to 75% tax. They are here now paying taxes to he UK govt

This isn't theoretical here when Labour went for 80% and 98%.

This wasn't theoretical when Thatcher gradually moved the high rate down in stages to 40% plus NI income soared.

This wasn't theoretical when Labour moved the rate to 50% plus NU avoidance measures went into overdrive.

I rest my case comrades.

Clarkson wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:The Laffer curve has some theoretical validity, but unfortunately it's been inextricably linked by the right to trickle-down economics, and history has shown that the money doesn't trickle down.

There was a report recently that demonstrably showed the worlds lot had improved for many immeasurably. Indeed that report when I find it was so emphatic that some lefty Professor realising it was emphatic jumped in and said it was all to do with the Chinese communist system making it better for the Chinese people.

It was only about two or three weeks ago I'll look for t.

That said its really bloody simple. Less than 1% of people pay in excess of 30% of income tax. Lose a third of them and you have to spread that 10% loss amongst the non high earners. Lose another third its disastrous cuts on a huge scale and high taxes for the rest.

This isn't a theoretical model it just happened in France when Hollande went to 75% tax. They are here now paying taxes to he UK govt

This isn't theoretical here when Labour went for 80% and 98%.

This wasn't theoretical when Thatcher gradually moved the high rate down in stages to 40% plus NI income soared.

This wasn't theoretical when Labour moved the rate to 50% plus NU avoidance measures went into overdrive.

I rest my case comrades.

You misunderstood what I said. I'm not denying that at a certain point, taxes become punitive and lower productivity. I'm saying that the use of this in policy has always been in conjunction with the "trickle-down theory" of economics that if you cut taxes on the wealthy, they'll spend the money they save in taxes on hiring people, investing, etc. The evidence is to the contrary -- they just hoard their tax savings.

What I am saying Ben is that the hateful lefties on here even faced with the facts that punitive taxes drive the rich out will do it anyway. They will destroy an economy for a momentary buzz. That is real hate IMO. It hurts everyone including themselves. I saw a paper from a Psychiatrist about why Left wingers self harm I didn't understand it. I still don't

The politics of hate aren't in the sole ownership of the far right.

Clarkson wrote:What I am saying Ben is that the hateful lefties on here even faced with the facts that punitive taxes drive the rich out will do it anyway. They will destroy an economy for a momentary buzz. That is real hate IMO. It hurts everyone including themselves. I saw a paper from a Psychiatrist about why Left wingers self harm I didn't understand it. I still don't

The politics of hate aren't in the sole ownership of the far right.

I think you're making an awful lot of assumptions about the left -- but I've seen that you're the type of person who makes an awful lot of assumptions PERIOD without backing them up.

Really I think my friend I can say with a degree of certainty the cap fits you s well.

Is it an assumption that Labour introduced the punitive rates or did it actally happen.

Actually it did. Did they know it would cause tax fight. Yes they introduced exchange controls Figure that.

Was it meant to raise income or pander to the envy crowd well look at what happened.

Now fast forward to now, We have demonstrable proof from France it causes tax flight. With the benefits of hindsight Labour say it still wants to do it.

What is their motive?

Assumption I think not. Get those blinkers of comrade.

I know its your forum but you've got a cheek.

Clarkson wrote:Really I think my friend I can say with a degree of certainty the cap fits you s well.

Is it an assumption that Labour introduced the punitive rates or did it actally happen.

Actually it did. Did they know it would cause tax fight. Yes they introduced exchange controls Figure that.

Was it meant to raise income or pander to the envy crowd well look at what happened.

Now fast forward to now, We have demonstrable proof from France it causes tax flight. With the benefits of hindsight Labour say it still wants to do it.

What is their motive?

Assumption I think not. Get those blinkers of comrade.

I know its your forum but you've got a cheek.

..the super rich should be paying taxes which reflect their incomes Drinky, and that rate should never dip below 50%, but as I said ...65% would be better   

The IFS report never said that the UK tax system was punishing success.
In fact it was rightly pointing out that Osborne's recovery could crash and burn for a whole host of reasons.

And if the 50% tax rate didn't have the highly paid scampering off elsewhere in 2010 why would they do so if the rate was put back up again in 2015?

I think total taxation should never exceed 50%
Anything above that is punitive

But I also Believe in 'better than just living' income as the minimum wage
and Social security at 'just liveable' income.

Question  
what is the company tax rates like in the UK? why don't they just register as a company and transfer a fair chunk of the wealth into that? the company tax rate here is flat 32% so over a certain income, your better off leaving the wealth in the company

Basically 20% for smaller companies and 30% for larger Veya with some exceptions

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/corp.htm

Except it isn't 50% its 63% Bru as you well know. That's ALL BUT 2/3RDS. ITS TOO MUCH!

We have the rich tax exile inbound your solution is to send them packing. Idiotic financial vandalism to appease the envious spiteful comrades.

Why should the govt have 2/3rds of someones income how do you justify that.

Clarkson wrote:Except it isn't 50% its 63% Bru as you well know. That's ALL BUT 2/3RDS. ITS TOO MUCH!

We have the rich tax exile inbound your solution is to send them packing. Idiotic financial vandalism to appease the envious spiteful comrades.

Why should the govt have 2/3rds of someones income how do you justify that.

Is it 63 percent of total income?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Clarkson wrote:Except it isn't 50% its 63% Bru as you well know. That's ALL BUT 2/3RDS. ITS TOO MUCH!

We have the rich tax exile inbound your solution is to send them packing. Idiotic financial vandalism to appease the envious spiteful comrades.

Why should the govt have 2/3rds of someones income how do you justify that.

Is it 63 percent of total income?

The tax paid by the top earners is 7.5% of the total tax taken. Of course if everyone paid what the government expects them to pay then the rate would be lower for everyone and that includes Drinky who has admitted in the past to paying cash-in-hand for work done on his home

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Clarkson wrote:Except it isn't 50% its 63% Bru as you well know. That's ALL BUT 2/3RDS. ITS TOO MUCH!

We have the rich tax exile inbound your solution is to send them packing. Idiotic financial vandalism to appease the envious spiteful comrades.

Why should the govt have 2/3rds of someones income how do you justify that.

Is it 63 percent of total income?

No Ben, as has been pointed out to Drinky over and over again.

PAYE tax rates, thresholds and codes


Figures to use 2013-14

PAYE tax threshold


£182 per week
£787 per month
£9,440 per year

Basic tax rate


20% on annual earnings above the PAYE tax threshold and up to £32,010

Higher tax rate


40% on annual earnings from £32,011 to £150,000

Additional tax rate


45% on annual earnings above £150,000

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/payerti/forms-updates/rates-thresholds.htm#1

So why does Clarkson keep acting like it's 63 percent of all earnings if you're rich? Is he that unconcerned with the truth?

EXCEPT...you have to add 11% NI to those

PLUS above a certain level you loose the "tax threshold" as well I understand...correct me if I'm wrong