Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should the highest rate of income tax be raised to 50% Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedManc)
    that looks like us figures. most factories in the uk have shut
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst.../#6991851a763d
    No its uk figures
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    that looks unrealistic. Most factories have shut down. Where I live, there used to be 20 factories, there is only one left
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedManc)
    that looks unrealistic. Most factories have shut down. Where I live, there used to be 20 factories, there is only one left
    Deny the facts all you like!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Thanks to labour leaving inflation high , interest rates had to be raised , many inefficent industries were shut. Govrnment debt fell and then unemployment fell after the peak in 83. Evethough labour weren't in power, the damage was done in 79 ( their last year , thanks to keynesian economics so it was them who left it in double digits.) Thatcher raised interest rates so unemployment increased a bit and then gradually felll. It was labour who caused this and you have to be an idiot not to see this!
    Labour did monetarism 1976-1979 because the IMF made them. The car crash full bore Thatcherite economy 1979-1981 was more of a culmination of what had gone before than a change.

    Like Osborne after her, two or three years in, Thatcher was very unpopular, the country economically depressed, and she had to mollify her austerity and wrecking as quickly as possible. In both cases they needed a quick and dirty fix and so chose to pump up the "property" "market" and start up a jingoistic foreign war, luckily voted down in Cameron's case.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedManc)
    that looks unrealistic. Most factories have shut down. Where I live, there used to be 20 factories, there is only one left
    Probably we consolidated factories and automated processes. So that means less factories and even fewer jobs although output might have gone up. Also it depends how output is measured and whether it is re-invested either by management via retained earnings or by government via taxes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Double digit inflation and double digit unemployment also occurred , you fail to show the errors of the labour government and Keynesian economics at that time.


    Oh yes the 1970's were great for the poor even though over 10% of them were unemployed ad inflation was sky high!
    Sorry, are you incapable of reading your own graph? Unemployment didn't hit 10% in the post-WW2 era until 1980. Even when Thatcher managed to get it a bit more under control towards the end of her term, it was still sky-high by pre-Thatcher standards.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    No
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedManc)
    The income tax rate for top earners are too low in my opinion. At one point during the 1970's, the top rate of income tax was 97%.
    it's like you don't even see the rich as individuals with rights
    discriminating against somebody on the basis of their race = racism, for example
    discriminating against somebody on the basis of their earnings = "a good thing" to you?
    I don't understand how one is good and one is bad
    we could all be racists to have more "white solidarity" or something, or cohesion. that's kind of a fact. but when we have this militant "class" solidarity, that's somehow completely the opposite thing morally? explain this ****. do people have individuals rights or is everything all about consequences?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    it's like you don't even see the rich as individuals with rights
    discriminating against somebody on the basis of their race = racism, for example
    discriminating against somebody on the basis of their earnings = "a good thing" to you?
    I don't understand how one is good and one is bad
    we could all be racists to have more "white solidarity" or something, or cohesion. that's kind of a fact. but when we have this militant "class" solidarity, that's somehow completely the opposite thing morally? explain this ****. do people have individuals rights or is everything all about consequences?
    50% isn't that bad when you earn £150,000
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedManc)
    50% isn't that bad when you earn £150,000
    so you're talking about consequences
    that's not about rights
    do people have universal rights to keep what they earn?
    what makes rich people's money "less earned" than poor people's money?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    so you're talking about consequences
    that's not about rights
    do people have universal rights to keep what they earn?
    what makes rich people's money "less earned" than poor people's money?
    if you have too much money on your hands, you should give it to the poor.
    • Offline

      20
      (Original post by Friar Chris)
      She said a good use.


      :troll:
      Lol ****
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by RedManc)
      if you have too much money on your hands, you should give it to the poor.
      define "too much"? and how do you define it?
      and again, "should" =/= "must".
      you "shouldn't insult people" =/= "freedom of speech shouldn't exist"
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      Loopholes should be closed first, then the upper limit on National Insurance closed, which would be just as effective.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by sleepysnooze)
      do people have universal rights to keep what they earn?
      what makes rich people's money "less earned" than poor people's money?
      No they do not have the right to keep all what they earn evidently.

      What makes rich people's money more earned than that of a prole?
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
      No they do not have the right to keep all what they earn evidently.

      What makes rich people's money more earned than that of a prole?
      the benchmark of "earn" is acquiring something through consent, surely?
      i.e. a poor person consents a contract and their wages from that contract stem from this consent
      a business man who pays the worker for their work, and then gets a profit from that worker, is getting that profit via a contract that is created via agreement (consent)

      so long as the two people consent, then what they get out of their dealings are "earned". there's a difference between "work" and "earn"; the worker here might be "working harder" physically, but the business person "earned" the money via their skills at being a manager which might be less work comparatively but only because they're more able to do that job than the worker is. literally anybody can do the worker's work, but not literally anybody can do the business owner's work. to establish your own business is risky, and the skills required to run it up to success aren't the same level of skills just for, say, being a low level grunt to that business. so the extent of "earning" and the extent of "working" are not a significant feature here - there's no difference in consent. it's all consent based. if we're free and rational beings, our consent = our freedom and self-determination.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      45% is high enough imo. I feel the 40% rate is too high for higher rate taxpayers. I think introducing a new tax band starting from 75/80k to 150k could be a good idea. This would allow those earning up to 75k to be taxed less and feels a bit more fair. In order to compensate, perhaps begin to reduce the personal allowance at a higher figure (say 115k instead of 100k).

      For example (Just using a rough idea of what the bands are)

      Basic rate stays at 20%. (£0 - £33000)
      Higher rate 35%. (£33001 - £75000)
      New tax band 40% (£75001 - £150000)
      Additional rate stays at 45%. (£150001 +)

      Personal Allowance started to be reduced after earning £115000.


      I haven't done the maths but I imagine adjusting some of the figures, this would be more fair on those earning over approx 30k, but aren't quite close to 100k so aren't necessarily really well off, but still gives people incentives to work hard towards jobs paying over 30k. (Even if there is low chance of hitting a six figure salary).
      • Political Ambassador
      Online

      21
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by cBay)
      Lol with regards to the chart, I've explained to you before why higher levels of inequality leads to the richest paying a higher perecentage of the total tax share, regardless of what the tax rates are.. it's pretty simple mathematics.
      And when there isn't higher levels of income inequality?

      (Original post by RedManc)
      that looks like us figures. most factories in the uk have shut
      So have the US factories, which kinda breaks your hypothesis
      • Political Ambassador
      Online

      21
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by sleepysnooze)
      so you're talking about consequences
      that's not about rights
      do people have universal rights to keep what they earn?
      what makes rich people's money "less earned" than poor people's money?
      hur de hur, isn't it obvious, it cuz they have more of it, duh.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by RedManc)
      if you have too much money on your hands, you should give it to the poor.
      Interesting concept.

      So, i take it you only spend your money on things you need as opposed to things you merely want?

      As a percentage how much of your income do you give to the poor each week?
     
     
     
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. 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.

  4. 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.