To not want my children to pay for tax cuts for the middle-class?

[antelopevalley]

A new policy proposal to increase the ceiling for higher rate tax for individuals has been proposed so that it will only apply once you earn £80k plus. But there seems zero idea of how this will be funded.
Realistically the only way it will be funded is by increased government debt. Debt that my children and others will be working to pay off in the future.
Why should my children and others have to work in the future for tax cuts for the middle class?

Government borrowing should be for investment in the future. Building sources of cheap future energy for the future for example. It should not be used for short term political gains.

[antelopevalley]

And giving money to the well-off in an economic crisis does not help the economy. When this has happened the well-off tend to save or invest it rather than spend it. Giving money to poorer people does help the economy as they tend to spend it almost immediately in local shops.
The tax cut is a voter's bribe, there is no economic justification for it.

[worldeater]

But it's ok for middle class high earners to pay shit loads of tax to provide benefits for people who don't work and have loads of kids!!??

[steppon]

Spiralling debt and a lack of investment. The lack of investment almost inevitably means productivity will continue to fall.

spot on

[steppon]

But it's ok for middle class high earners to pay shit loads of tax to provide benefits for people who don't work and have loads of kids!!??

tbf the stereotype of someone not working & having loads of kids is not really true.

[Blossomtoes]

@worldeater

But it's ok for middle class high earners to pay shit loads of tax to provide benefits for people who don't work and have loads of kids!!??

Impossible. Benefits cover a maximum of two children.

[PerfectlyPreservedQuagaarWarrior]

@antelopevalley

And giving money to the well-off in an economic crisis does not help the economy. When this has happened the well-off tend to save or invest it rather than spend it. Giving money to poorer people does help the economy as they tend to spend it almost immediately in local shops.
The tax cut is a voter's bribe, there is no economic justification for it.

This has been shown to be true in the past. But the idea that people on say 60 or 70k are going to behave like the super rich if given a few hundred extra a month in an environment of spiralling living costs is rather speculative. They may very well use it to maintain their discretionary spending rather than cutting their belts.

[Hawkins001]

@antelopevalley

The financial crash was not about people taking out mortgages. It was about the deregulation of the market. This led to the offer of mortgages that were at a high risk of defaulting. But the real issue is how this debt was sold on in a way that reclassified the debt as medium risk. Investors paid far more for the debt than it was worth. They did not realise they were investing in a high-risk proposition. When people defaulted on their mortgages, the investments plummeted.
Deregulation tends to give the economy a temporary boost so is liked by governments looking at the short-term, but it inevitably leads to collapses and scandals.
It is normal for each generation to pay the previous generations' debt. And debt can be a good thing. But debt should be accrued for the benefit of the economy or in response to a crisis, not as a political bribe to some voters.
We have the worst of both worlds. Spiralling debt and a lack of investment. The lack of investment almost inevitably means productivity will continue to fall.

Deregulation, itself was not the main problem, even when Glass-Steagall Act 1933, was in place, their were still financial crisis, etc, deregulation is only a part of the issue, but then on the flip side, suddenly having more rules, would mean banks being able to be less competitive and as jamie diamon of jp morgan and chase, said, if the rules were tighter and more restrictive, they would then look at trading out of London more if the us, tightened the rules etc. Obviously that's just my basic understanding so far.

[Hawkins001]

The same with tax, the tax system needs to be a competitive system, rather than top weighted for the high earners.

[antelopevalley]

@Hawkins001 But deregulation led to the crisis. Financial institutions said deregulate us, we need to be competitive and can regulate ourselves. And then promptly fucked up the whole economy.

[Antarcticant]

I would prefer to see the threshold raised for lower-rate tax. That would also benefit the people on 50-80k, of course, but there would be benefit where it's needed for those on lower incomes.

It doesn't bother me that people in the future will be repaying anything that's done. We all pay taxes for things that don't personally benefit us, or that we don't personally agree with - that's life.

The way things are going, the OP's children will be lucky if taxes are the only thing they have to worry about.

[Hawkins001]

@antelopevalley

@Hawkins001 But deregulation led to the crisis. Financial institutions said deregulate us, we need to be competitive and can regulate ourselves. And then promptly fucked up the whole economy.

I must admit I have more studying to do on the topic, I watched margin call.and the big short that got me intrigued with the world of high banking and finance securities ect,
overall I'd say even with deregulation part of the issue was over confidence in the markets, which I presume could of happened with or without the deregulation.

[Jiminycricket10]

@SlickShady

No it's not. Proportional taxation is fair because the rich don't benefit proportionally more than the poor.

There should be a liveable tax-free allowance, maybe something like 20k, and then every £ should be taxed equally.

Nor are higher earners always handed a fair share of challenges or disadvantages...
As a graduate I fully understand the arguments on here about being penalised for progressing. However, as someone who has spent years working in lower paid jobs in a region where jobs paying 80k or even 40k are few and far between, I think raising the tax free threshold is a fairer way to incentivise working, given that many people simply aren’t given access to that many jobs with a salary of 80k+.

[antelopevalley]

@PerfectlyPreservedQuagaarWarrior

This has been shown to be true in the past. But the idea that people on say 60 or 70k are going to behave like the super rich if given a few hundred extra a month in an environment of spiralling living costs is rather speculative. They may very well use it to maintain their discretionary spending rather than cutting their belts.

I know they are not super rich. But in the past this group tends to be cautious during financial crisis. No one knows what will happen with mortgage interest rates or energy bills. Why spend money in local cafes when your mortgage payment may soar by November?
Sorry but I have heard too many times people arguing that in this financial crisis the rules/or the way people act will be different in the past for various reasons. It never has been. People always want to think this time is exceptional. But history does show us fairly reliably what will happen.
This proposed tax cut may buy some votes. It will have no impact on the economy or very minimal.

[Doingprettywellthanks]

There is zero nuance to your viewpoint and debate OP

[antelopevalley]

And it is not about incentivising working. Anyone I know who is retired early or a SAHM will not return to work unless they financially need to. It would be need that would drive them back.

We need investment and a long-term strategy. Only this will boost productivity and wages.

[Hawkins001]

As for the mortgages I can understand people were sold the idea that they could refinance their mortgage when the teaser rate expired, but again with overconfidence on the house values going up, when the teaser rates expired then the values plunged and people had to default.

[Doingprettywellthanks]

Everything is so…. Childishly basic

”respectful working class”
”super rich”
“the poor”
”un respectful working class”
”middle class”

It is all so…. Year 9

[antelopevalley]

@Hawkins001 And that could happen again. People have taken on large mortgages because interest rates have been low. They are rising. If they continue to rise we could end up with lots of people defaulting.

[Hawkins001]

@Doingprettywellthanks

Everything is so…. Childishly basic

”respectful working class”
”super rich”
“the poor”
”un respectful working class”
”middle class”

It is all so…. Year 9

You could provide a better analysis and be more constructive to the debate.

[Blossomtoes]

Other threads are available @Doingprettywellthanks.

[antelopevalley]

@Doingprettywellthanks I note the name calling and lack of actual engagement.

[Wouldloveanother]

@Doingprettywellthanks

Everything is so…. Childishly basic

”respectful working class”
”super rich”
“the poor”
”un respectful working class”
”middle class”

It is all so…. Year 9

Yep. There was a poster berating an OP for not coping on 60k, because she earned 27k. However she subsequently admitted:
she had no mortgage (paid off a long time ago)
no nursery fees - or ‘children’ (she was in her 60s)
she didn’t work (no commuting costs etc)

Income is only ever part of the picture
its ridiculous

[Doingprettywellthanks]

I’m not criticising the debate on this thread

It was just viewpoint specifically re the Op

[Doingprettywellthanks]

@antelopevalley

@Doingprettywellthanks I note the name calling and lack of actual engagement.

No name change? I posted early on and haven’t changed my name.

who did you think I was?

[worldeater]

@Blossomtoes

Impossible. Benefits cover a maximum of two children.

Only since 2017. Plenty of families are getting hefty sums for many kids born before then and that also means huge benefit payments covering rent. In London the four bedroom rate is over £400 per week!