..to want to say to those who are whinging about the 50% tax rate

[vic77en]

..that they should fuck the fuck off?

At a time when lots of people are really struggling with high inflation, 20% VAT, high unemployment, lack of living wage etc etc.

If you're earning above the 50% threshold you are well off and can afford it.

I used to earn enough to pay 40% tax (this was before the 50% rate came in and I was nowhere near the 50% threshold) and did not begrudge paying this. If NI and VAT were factored in, over 50% of my income went in taxes. I still had high disposable income.

Rather than giving their views airtime, there should be a massive PR exercise on the benefits to all of us of living in a civil society where there is an economic safety net, NHS, free education (for under 18's at least still...)

AIBU or not?

Also, not taxing non-doms is a moot point, as these people are super-international- Monaco, London or Singapore- it's all the same when you've got a private jet at your disposal 24/7. It's better that they live in the UK and splash the cash than not live in the UK

But posy - read Grovel's post. Companies are moving. That's not a one off. It's extremely difficult to produce figures because it's not been counted yet, but the anecdotal evidence is worrying.

TheBride, all the tax schemes I have seen have involved UK domiciles, usually company directors. Agree, not easy when you are an employee and yes indeed all those bakers paid their full tax liability (and spent generously in their local enconomies!)

'If you've ever worked for the public sector or with public money '

not my experience at all (NHS and later HMRC VAT experience)

We had to be reminded of that daily; similarly the charity sector I ended up in.

The private secrot seemed to think every penny they amde was 'robbed' from thm thiugh (OK so boss I am thinking of was a prat)

I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference to services, if this 50pc rate is dropped. Not at all. It will definitely make a difference within the economy if it stays.

Peachy - that's interesting - my experience is the polar opposite and I was (and continue to be) revolted by it.

You only have to look at MPs, at council leaders, council chief executives, at spending on empire-building departments and dream-crap projects. These people don't give a shit that the money they're spending on "expenses" comes from people a vast amount poorer than they are.

I'm sooo old, create, that I remember the 90% tax rate for higher earners.

Higher rate tax payers will continue to re-negotiate their contracts/perks and employ tax accountants to reduce their tax liability, no matter what the top tax rate is.

It's been proven, here and in the US, over the last 20-30 years, that the 'trickle-down' effect of putting even more money into the pockets of the wealthy doesn't work. Lower tax has resulted in wider pay differentials.

My biggest personal bugbear about it is that my friends keep running off to warmer climates and more favourable tax regimes. I could be losing three in one fell swoop if a particular desk moves to Dubai.

So that's 3 cleaning ladies who lose their jobs, 3 gardeners also. The oven clean man loses 3 customers as do 3 decorators...it goes on. The local swanky boutique loses 3 good customers, Waitrose is down 2.5-3k pm. Two independent schools lose 5 kids one state school loses 2 immensely bright children.

I'd rather see people encouraged to spend money here than overseas.

Companies/individuals never move only because of tax, but it is a big factor If you're earning £500k a year, how many years you have to work before you can comfortably retire is hugely dependent on whether you decide to live in Stockholm, London, Hong Kong or Dubai (in that order). In London, you keep c. £300k, in HK you keep £425k, in Dubai you keep £500k,

Wealthy people are just more international than non-wealthy people. When you have a lot of cash and can easily fly 6000 miles business class for a wedding and fly back the next day, living 6000 miles away from close family isn't such a biggie as if you can afford to go home economy every 5 years.

Also, remember that as well as tax there are other "push" factors driving people east. Low crime, great schools, nice weather.....

ughh 50% is way too much. you r taking half of some1s wage thats really not fair. no wonder businesses try to move away from the uk

Swiss cost of living is higher though.....so it makes little sense.

I think Custardcake sums up my opinion more eloquently than I could.

The "rich" are not complaining. Do you think the Richard Branson's, Alan Sugar's & Wayne Rooney's of this world give a flying toss? Nope. They've an army of accountants and ways of minimising their tax liabilities. I bet Wayne Rooney's official salary is nowhere near his real income. I'd probably even wager he doesn't pay himself enough to pay 50% income tax.

And we have to ask ourselves why the last govt introduced the 50% rate. Is it because they genuinely wanted to raise more money? If so there were plenty of better ways to do it. For example a mansion tax. I don't think there is any disagreement that the actual amount of money the top rate raises is quite marginal.

The real reason Labour introduced it was purely political. It played to their usual supporters "look, we're taxing the rich" knowing full well the Tories would be in a bind. Scrap it and they'd look like they were protecting the rich. Leave it and risk losing their supporters who in general are the wealther parts of society.

That said, now it's done I think it would be political suicide to scrap the top rate in the current climate. It's hard to justify lowering the 50% tax band whilst at the same time removing child benefit for those earning £46k.

My point is it's not the top earner who is moaning. It's those with the intellect to realise that such a punitive tax rate does more harm than good.

Cost of living isn't too much of a factor if you can fly home every weekend - which of course breaches the 90 day rule but if your family can spend a few weeks holidaying that solves that problem.

fargate "Higher rate tax payers will continue to re-negotiate their contracts/perks and employ tax accountants to reduce their tax liability, no matter what the top tax rate is."

Can you please explain how a UK resident working for a company in London is able to avoid paying PAYE on their salary?

As per my previous post, widespread tax avoidance by higher rate tax payers is largely a myth.

half the wages earned over £150k

Not half their wages

niceguy2 and others who have said it you're right. I haven't (personally) heard those who are paying it moan, just the 20 economists. Some of whom may earn it. Oh and some on this thread.

Just to chip in.

The tax acts of 1988 and 2009 were amended by George Osbourne at round about the same time he declared that bank tax was being raised and all the bankers feigned disgust. I say 'feigned disgust' because they were actually delighted.

You see, these amendments encouraged large, rich businesses to base themselves offshore because, thanks to Osbourne, they no longer paid tax if they shifted their earnings from an offshore bank back into a UK bank. So what you do is base your Head Office in, say, Andorra where tax is around 4.5% and make sure your earnings are paid into an Andorran bank. Then you transfer it to the UK and avoid paying any UK tax whatsoever! But this is not all - oh no.

The tax you do pay in Andorra you can claim back from the UK government as an expense of having foreign branches. Genius!

But these changes weren't all Osbourne's doing. They were the bright ideas of the committee set up by the government to control tax policy. Members of the committee include Tesco, BP, British American Tobacco, Santander, Barclays, Citigroup, HSBC, Vodafone, Standard Charters and Schroders.

So if you resent paying 50% just remember that you are making up for the totally legitimate tax avoidance scheme that this Tory government set up in May.

I am a 50% rate payer. The vast majority of the tax I pay is at the 50% rate (I earn about 700k so 550k at 50%). Like everyone else I also pay NI so actually it isn't just the 50% tax. The impact the rate has is I was thinking about doing something that would have increased my earnings by £100k but I thought about it and decided I couldn't be arsed because I would lose more than half of that to tax and it wasn't worth it. I am not expecting anyones heart to bleed for me but my point is that by turning down that opportunity it means I am curbing my activities (extra money would also have meant more people employed) and its this kind of subtle thing that means the uk economy is stagnating. No extra employees and I am not spending that money out at the shops etc.

I'd rather see people encouraged to spend money here than overseas.

Exactly. And if we assume each person is earning £150k then that's £60k of direct taxation we lose before we even look at the lost VAT, council tax and the knock-on effect for the people he employed indirectly.

The ugly truth is that rich people give others jobs and pay far more in taxation than poor people. To send a message out to them that they are not appreciated and in fact they should pay more is simply counter-productive.

Usually those who think this sort of tax rate is fair are just playing the politics of envy.

But it's only a little higher than 40%.....

No envy here. Niceguy.....I won't disclose our income, but we're not envious.

To me it seems to depend on how you view tax, is it a way to collect enough money to pay for the things we value or is it there to represent moral values about how much money is enough per person? If it is the former then the government should do whichever brings in the most money, if the 50% bracket reduces tax income then scrap it, if it doesn't then keep it.

Well no, it's 20% more (which is not insignificant) and then add on the creep from NI..........