Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My view:
    The 5% increase in tax did not lead to a 5% increase in tax revenue, suggesting there was a disincentive effect on 150K+ earners, also it has been suggested that some left the country, taking jobs with them. The amount raised was meager.
    Also allocating wealth to those with the means to distribute capital helps create employment, which we need.
    Your view:?
    EDIT: Lots of figures have be bandying around, mainly from blogs - these figures show conflicting evidence. I suggest that we simply use the official HRMC report which states 1bn raised, a third of the 3bn predicted.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    My view:
    The 5% increase in tax did not lead to a 5% increase in tax revenue, suggesting there was a disincentive effect on 150K+ earners, also it has been suggested that some left the country, taking jobs with them. The amount raised was meager.
    Also allocating wealth to those with the means to distribute capital helps create employment, which we need.
    Your view:?

    It lost HMRC money.

    http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2012/03...ion-in-201011/
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    It lost HMRC money.

    http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2012/03...ion-in-201011/
    Im too busy to read the whole report, but I'm assuming from the conclusion it's arguing that HRMC's research was flawed and more than £1billion was raised? Contrary to your statement that it lost HRMC money, i've just whizzed over it briefly.
    Am i to believe a blog written by someone who is selling a book arguing for progressive tax increases vs HRMC's report?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Laffer Curve demonstrates what you are talking about, another leftist policy that doesnt work.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    Im too busy to read the whole report, but I'm assuming from the conclusion it's arguing that HRMC's research was flawed and more than £1billion was raised? Contrary to your statement that it lost HRMC money, i've just whizzed over it briefly.
    Am i to believe a blog written by someone who is selling a book arguing for progressive tax increases vs HRMC's report?

    No. Labour claimed that the 50% tax rate would pull in significantly more than it did. What it did pull in though was less than the 40% tax rate did.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    No. Labour claimed that the 50% tax rate would pull in significantly more than it did. What it did pull in though was less than the 40% tax rate did.
    well charging 50% tax on anything is ridiculous no matter how much the figure is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, let's just brush those myths out of the water.

    The above is a nice, quite short, article which should deal with all of your queries.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Well, let's just brush those myths out of the water.

    The above is a nice, quite short, article which should deal with all of your queries.
    HRMC published that the tax has raised one third of the predicted amount, suggesting it was unsuccessful. You have linked another blog, someone else linked a blog with completely conflicting evidence suggesting that the tax lost the government money, I'm going to go with HRMC on this one.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    HRMC published that the tax has raised one third of the predicted amount, suggesting it was unsuccessful. You have linked another blog, someone else linked a blog with completely conflicting evidence suggesting that the tax lost the government money, I'm going to go with HRMC on this one.
    Have a look at his funding...

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/about/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    HRMC published that the tax has raised one third of the predicted amount, suggesting it was unsuccessful. You have linked another blog, someone else linked a blog with completely conflicting evidence suggesting that the tax lost the government money, I'm going to go with HRMC on this one.
    If you'll read the article, you'll see that there was a single massive act of tax avoidance, which were the 50p rate to be kept up for longer, would not be repeated.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    If you'll read the article, you'll see that there was a single massive act of tax avoidance, which were the 50p rate to be kept up for longer, would not be repeated.
    Im having serious doubts over the validity of the source http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...-not-ideology/. He seems to be a rather controversial figure. Why can we not instead use HRMC's report?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Have a look at his funding...

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/about/
    Why is their funding relevant? They receive money from people who support their views, otherwise they wouldn't be able to function. That said, they are being transparent about their funding.

    Unlike, for example, the Taxpayers' Alliance.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Why is their funding relevant? They receive money from people who support their views, otherwise they wouldn't be able to function. That said, they are being transparent about their funding.

    Unlike, for example, the Taxpayers' Alliance.
    Does he advise Unite on tax issues?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Why is their funding relevant? They receive money from people who support their views, otherwise they wouldn't be able to function. That said, they are being transparent about their funding.

    Unlike, for example, the Taxpayers' Alliance.
    The point : Funding from lots of left wing organization, suggests that the publications will be swayed to be palatable to the left wing funders such : http://www.tuc.org.uk/. Thus the validity of the source is high questionable. Especially when it conflicts evidence given by high reputable sources such as HRMC.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    Im having serious doubts over the validity of the source http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...-not-ideology/. He seems to be a rather controversial figure. Why can we not instead use HRMC's report?
    He is not a controversial figure, that is an opinion piece written by a man who works for the Adam Smith Institute (a hard-right organisation which does not disclose its sources of funding), writing in the Telegraph (an unashamedly rightwing newspaper). Maybe it has a background which is questionable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    The point : Funding from lots of left wing organization, suggests that the publications will be swayed to be palatable to the left wing funders such : http://www.tuc.org.uk/. Thus the validity of the source is high questionable. Especially when it conflicts evidence given by high reputable sources such as HRMC.
    IT doesn't conflict with the HRMC report, if you read it. And at least he acknowledges who funds him, as opposed to the author of the Telegraph article's organisation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    He is not a controversial figure, that is an opinion piece written by a man who works for the Adam Smith Institute (a hard-right organisation which does not disclose its sources of funding), writing in the Telegraph (an unashamedly rightwing newspaper). Maybe it has a background which is questionable.
    Regardless of the article the point still stands, why is your source more valid than HRMC.
    - It is a blog, written by one individual.
    - The sponsors of the blog suggest obvious bias.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Does he advise Unite on tax issues; like avoiding it?
    Who says Unite avoids tax?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Who says Unite avoids tax?
    Not me, I'll make my previous post clearer He advises them on tax issues, he is funded by them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is that since the Tories were in such a rush to scrap it, the figures are only based on the year after it was introduced. In this year, the amount raised was always going to be lower, as people played around with their figures to ensure as much income as possible fell in the previous financial year with a 40% tax rate. Had the scheme been given a proper amount of time, then it would have come far closer to raising the expected revenue with likely only a very minor disincentive effect.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 14, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.