[Dalek1099]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
While the OBR and HMRC are saying around 100 million. Does it worry you that your estimate, based on no demonstrated evidence, statistical modelling or research, formulated within a day of hearing about the issue might just be slightly less valid than that of two large organisations involved almost entirely with economics and tax who have actually spent time and done research on the issue?

labour are claiming otherwise and that its too big of a risk.

[Craig_D]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
finally someone understands the truth and i have estimated a 2.8 billion loss.

The OBR agreed that the top rate being at 50p was damaging the economy, so the Treasury lowered it and taken extra money from the rich elsewhere (higher stamp duty, anti-avoidance), enough to make up the difference 5 times over.

[Craig_D]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
labour are claiming otherwise and that its too big of a risk.

They're the opposition, they're desperate for votes and are paid to disagree with everything the government does, if they can think of anything. Miliband would complain about Cameron's sock colour if he thought he'd get more votes from it.

The truth is that if Labour were in power you'd notice very little different from the current situation. Even more obvious when they let things like this slip:

It is now inevitable that public sector pay restraint will have to continue through this parliament. Labour cannot duck that reality and won't. There is no way we should be arguing for higher pay when the choice is between higher pay and bringing unemployment down.
I know there will be some people in the trade union movement and the Labour party who will think of course Labour has got to oppose that pay restraint in 2014 and 2015. That is something we cannot do, should not do and will not do.

My starting point is, I am afraid, we are going to have keep all these cuts. There is a big squeeze happening on budgets across the piece. The squeeze on defence spending, for instance, is £15bn by 2015. We are going to have to start from that being the baseline. At this stage, we can make no commitments to reverse any of that, on spending or on tax. So I am being absolutely clear about that.

- Ed Balls, Jan 2012.

You can write off the idea of benefits going up or tuition fees being lowered under a Labour government, it wouldn't happen.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
labour are claiming otherwise and that its too big of a risk.

That is playing politics, which is of course what an opposition is supposed to do.

If it doesn't work, it can be reversed next year so any risk represents a single year's tax loss. The risk is, for example nowhere near as great as those involved in say, entering into a single major government IT contract or the purchase of a single major weapons system.

It is very noticeable that people only apply the precautionary principle to things they don't want to happen.

The potential benefits strongly outweigh the risk.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
labour are claiming otherwise and that its too big of a risk.

Given the economic record of the Labour party, and their vested interest in the failure of this idea, I doubt that their opinion is to be trusted, when independent bodies like HMRC and the OBR disagree. After all, this is a party whose most celebrated economic mind of the last 25 years couldn't grasp 'buy low, sell high', believed that global economic crises were exclusively due to the conservative party and helped double our national debt during the boom years. Frankly, I don't see why anyone would trust Labour on the Economy.

Oh, and to give a sense of perspective, 3bn would be less than a quarter of what Labour wasted on the disaster that was the NHS national programme for IT, which never even worked and had to be scrapped.

[Ocassus]

Well this thread is fun. OP, other people have given many reasoned arguments for me, but I will say that your 'estimate' is based on absolutely zero reasoning.

Please kindly put a bucket on your head and bang it with a spoon for five minutes.

[de_monies]

You do know the richest in the country pay 60% of our tax. If you earning means that you don't pay the 40% tax rate or above, you are actually in benefit of the tax payer