to think a flat tax of 25% for all on everything would be much fairer?

[peapodlovescuddles]

51% is ridiculous. People shouldn't be penalised for working hard their entire life (and I know this will be controversial) and being much better than average at what they doI know the economy is in trouble but surely alienating the richest portion of society is a stupid idea?
£150,000 isn't a ridiculous salary, there are plenty of middle class professionals who aren't living a lavish lifestyle earning that much.

What do you do now, kentmum?

if i say do you all promise not to jump on me and hurt me

I won't jump on you!

taxcredits support a great many people for whom a tax allowance of 15- 20 would be unachievable as an earning figure (EG part time workers- if you work sixtteen hours you get TC@s which is good IMO as it does encourage you to do something whilst FT work might be impossible)

Less arguable it is also used as the means of delivery on certain other benefits, such as disability premiums which would need the infrastructure in place still to administer them.

im a social worker in child protection

Didn't Lewis claim his tax exile status was a resukt of the mesdia? (coz I believe that obv LOL)

I think there are lots of people who are wealthy and possess a social conscience, hmc.

That's my point.

There won't be a massive brain drain because most people aren't entirely self-centred.

Keep up, love.

and i had to train hard get my degree and constantly do further training plus i work very hard and long hours with a huge amount of responsibility and earn no where near that figure

Well you do deserve a pay rise then.
I have no tips as how to go about getting one while continuing in that valuable line of work tho.

That was meant in jest, by the way, hmc (!)

Gosh, I'd never make a good pitchfork waver, would I??

nah its just not meant to be perhaps i will be the new inventor of er er er er er something like sticky backed plastic

In my home town most FT worke3rs are pushing it to get anything above £20K, £25k woud make you quite well off but housing doesn't reflect it as it is artifically buoyed by being a useful commuter location and the surrounding area is a retirement belt of choice.

£150,000 is alughably unachievable salary to attain there.

i recognise that London ? se salaries have different iving costs but even then if you look at London weighting on salaries etc, it's not THAT much of a gap is it? Not ten time more costly, surely? If you think a 3 bed in my old village (not posh and certainly no facillities) was £1200 to rent 5 years ago, is a relatively similar house in London really £12000 to rent?

If you want to be rich, forget about protecting the kids - the quickest way (least training) if you have the personality profile for it is sales - but lots of traditional honey pots for driven untrained people who want to make money fast are not so good any more, eg, estate agents, selling cars. Maybe some areas of business to business sales are still ok - have no idea which tho. Ask Sorrento about recruitment, I know some areas will be very soft now but sometimes some are surprisingly resilient.

(I will never do sales again - not worth the money if it is temperamentally too much of a stretch - well I would if I had to, which was why I did in the first place, but I hope not).

If you are successful in your career change, you won't be able to feel good about protecting the innocent any more, but you will be able to post self righteous screeds about your Value to the Economy instead, as if flogging some abstract notional nonsense to various twats in suits on a daily basis and lining your own pockets handsomely makes you intrinsically better than the team you left behind doing your old job because you get more money.

i wont be leaving my job even though i would like to earn more guess thats where most of the population are really

im just amazed how some people can moan and make such sweeping and judgemental statements especially since nothing is going to really change

will just dream about that boat and continue listening to people moaning about having to pay tax at a higher rate perhaps they forget they also get interest on their savings at a higher rate too.......oppppssss beter shut up coz thats another thread to moan about interest rates

Ain't that the truth peachy

I do wonder whether living in the south-east gives people a very different perspetive on income.

I think people get used to having lots of money and think they can't do without it, or that they'll be "poor" if they have a bit less.

It's a state of mind.

MIFLAW - you are entirely wrong when you say that "the majority are the financial backbone of this country and they are staying - not the tiny minority of high earners". What the discussion about numbers showed is that it IS the high earners who are providing the financial backbone of this country. Over 50% of income tax revenue is provided by people in the top 10% of incomes.

So you can raise taxes implausibly high and watch tax revenues decrease if you like - that's what the last labour government did - but it will have no economic good effect.

I think you are being disingenuous.

This discussion - including bloody silly examples like a sportsman moving to Switzerland - is about people who are earning 150k and over. To suddenly redefine "high earners" as the top 10% is misleading to say the least.

I grant you that 50k is the entry level to that section - but, as someone else has said very well, that just shows you how skewed the set-up is in Britain. How many people on 50k have the incentive and linguistic abilities ability to move to France or Germany, let alone the wealth necessary to make a move to Switzerland worthwhile, comfortable and, frankly, bearable?

If, on the other hand, you don't move the goalposts and keep to the original prompt for this thread - a marginal tax rate of 50% for salaries over £150k - then, even by your own figures, we're talking 22% of the total tax take - and that's if they all moved out tomorrow!

Hardly a "backbone" - a spare rib at best ...

I think at this moment we can't afford 2% let alone 22% no?

So, to summarise - no, I am not entirely worng, but entirely right.

And scaremongering like "implausibly high taxes" to describe a 50% (or even 60%) marginal rate is really irritating and just plain wrong. People - including business people - don't stay (and even voluntarily immigrate) to Britain because it is a tax haven. They base themselves here because of a complex mix of characteristics which best suit their business. To suggest that a tax hike alone - and an income tax, not a business tax, at that - will drive them out and leave a gaping hole in the economy is bollocks.

I agree with Quattro.

It's known as the Laffer Curve

I can see that in practice Swedes - some lawyers currently on around 150-180 ie very qualified have been offered the opportunity to work four days a week to ride out the current crisis. They pay will drop to below 150k. Taking into account the increase in tax on that proprtion of their earnings they may now feel that four days sounds great. They will only loose a small amount in comparative terms because they already do so well, they get time at home with the family, the partners keep profit ratios up and avoid redundancies.
The only loser is the exchequor ergo the public purse.

Russia saw a rise in tax revenues after they introduced a flat tax system-
"the real revenues from its Personal Income Tax rose by 25.2% in the first year after the Federation introduced a flat tax, followed by a 24.6% increase in the second year, and a 15.2% increase in the third year."
from here

I still think a flat tax system is better... though sorry Dollius I cannot think where on earth I saw the article I referred to yesterday (baby brain, no sleep etc)

NI is the big shocker for me- I cannot believe the super-rich pay less than others- it is completely unfair- they are entitled to exactly the same benefits as all other contributers.

I just love this comment from that wikipedia article you've attached, eachpeach:

"It is not clear how effectively the Iraqi tax is being collected in practice."

Brilliant.

I rather suspect it's not all that clear for most of the other countries they cite as having a flat tax system either - dodgy areas of central Asia, former soviet bloc countries, and small parts of Latin America by all accounts.

Not sure you can compare results in Russia to likely results here, can you?

Not disingenuous at all.

I'll grant that the discussion started around people earning over £150k. It was your comment that the majority of people provided the financial backbone that I took issue with, because it is simply not correct. The majority of tax revenues are raised from a small minority of people.