to think that people who threaten to leave the country because they resent paying more taxes should just bugger off without trying to elicit sympathy form the rest of us?

[AllFallDown]

Oh and, many of those on high salaries earn that much either directly or indirectly because of the deregulation that caused this whole bloody mess in the first place. So to hear them moaning now they're aksed to pay a bit back ... Grrrr.

Vezzie, your post is the most cogent thing I have read on MN for a very long time. Well done.

i have been to cuba on more than one occasion and communism def does not work, unless of course you want your 12 year old daughter walking up and down a beach all day, selling herself to 50 year old westeners so that your family can eat. oh and there is food in the shops, but not plenty or even nearly enough and most of it can only be bought with us dollars.
lastly they dont not have the latest cars they have a few skodas donated in the 80's and a few cars left over from the 50's, in some areas its ilegal not to pick up hitch hikers because you can never tell what day the bus is going to come.

My impression of Cuba's communism chimes pretty much with nancy75's although I would say everyone has enough to eat - it's just a very, very boring diet of rice, beans and sugar. There is endless hustling for dollars - a lot of it via prostitution - in order to inject a little bit of variation and some pretty low-level "luxuries" (toiletries, slogan t-shirts) into their lives. I would love to say Communism there has been a wild success because I do admire a lot what Castro attempted to do but, despite its vibrancy and sun and salsa, it can be pretty depressing.

In Cuba you may not die of starvation or be illiterate but you will certainly not be feasting on a varied diet of fruit and vegetables and you will have nothing to read other than party-approved bulletins and pamphlets.

I found Cuba very depressing. The island is beautiful and Havana is fascinating with so much history. But we did a pre-Xmas carriage ride round Havana, cuba libra in hand, to see huge families living in tiny flats, a bit of tinsel wrapped round the ancient b&w tv, carriage guy telling us how the internet, and modern rock music is pretty much banned. I like a drink, but that one kind of stuck in my throat.

At our 4 star hotel by the beach, the food was pretty bad. And you know that the tourists get the best of what is on offer. Stuff that we take for granted like toiletries etc is much sort after - you are encouraged to take extra to leave.

I even gave my Claire's Accessories bits of bling to the lovely woman who worked behind the bar, as such stuff is unobtainable. Not sure this is all Castro's fault, I think the US embargo has much more to do with it as natural trade is thwarted.

I'm going to Cuba next month for a couple of days (work trip hence ridiculous short stay). I am very curious to see what it's like.

I'd be very interested to hear what you think of it. It is very vibrant and beautiful and lots of things about it are very seductive but there did seem to be very, very deep problems as well, many of which were caused by influx of tourists .

"Because if the high earners all left the country they would also be taking with them a large part of the country's income."

I think you should read this WannBe.

I utterly disagree with such neoliberal claptrap, fearmongering about the so-called "golden goose" fleeing the nest. Ask me why, please. I'm an Economics student and have nothing but contempt for the way so called "free-market" policies are enacted throughout the world, and a deep anger at the exploitation and poverty ideologies breed.

[ahem] I meant to type, that these ideologies breed.

Cuba aside, what I don't understand is that the high rate tax bracket is already £40%. So, it goes to 50%. Presumably not all income would be taxed at 50%, but the threshold would be £150,000. So, if it's already 40%, what's the difference in real terms?

Not much at all, relatively speaking!

I think that this is a nasty thread too, but for those asking for clarification about calculations, here is my attempt to explain....

Yes Ilovemydog, the 50% rate is only on income over £150k.

Also people earning in excess of £100k will lose their personal allowance of £6,500

So as an example, someone earning £150k will, like everyone, pay 20% on approx first £37,000. Then they pay 40% on everything up to £150k. This works out at an overall rate of approx 35% of £150k. Then any additional earnings will be taxed at 50%. This means that someone on £200k would pay an overall rate of around 39% (with 50% rate applied). (These workings do not include NI by the way.)

It would take vast vast amounts (millions) for anyone to reach an overall rate of CLOSE to 50% and NO ONE will pay over 50% because keeping 65% of the first £150k means that it is not possible....

Good post, sleep.

The other, historical problem with taxing high earners is that they do all piss off abroad.

And actually, that's not great for the economy.

I don't believe that the problem, or the solution to the problem, lies with taxation. We, as a nation, are simply wasting too much money on things that make no difference.

As a side line, I'd be interested to know what the clear, government stance is on immigration at the moment.

Clearly, we can't afford them, and we certainly don't need 'em right now. If Australia can say no, then why can't we?

Also, I would just like to add that there is clearly a lot of resentment and blame being directed at high earners (who are not all bankers), which goes to show that this change in the tax regime has achieved what it set out to do - please the majority of voters and pander to their wish to see revenge visted on those perceived as being to blame.

Don't be so easily fooled though, everyone is going to end up paying more taxes, there is simply no alternative with the gobsmackingly huge amounts of debt this country has to repay, the Labour Party is just putting the really nasty changes off until they get re-elected...not that it will make much difference if the Tories get in, they too will have to tax everyone to the hilt in order to start to unravel the mess that has been created in recent years.

Thanks sleep for that understandable guide.

The 51% tax sounds excessive at first glance, but on closer inspection perhaps not worth emigrating and definitely not major crisis on the basis that there are benefits also to living in the UK (non means tested)

But Sleep add in NI and where are you re the 50%? NI is effectively a tac too. Also, I think it is relevant that the combination of the loss of personal allowances and the highr tax rate means that the marginal rate for many will actually be 60%, not 50%.

Enormous kudos to the government for maintaining its commitment to development aid in this budget - the aid budget will actually be increased over the next two years.

Under the Tories, there was no such thing as development aid; there was only support for British exports (ie, paying the world's poorest countries to buy our weapons and irrelevant technology).

Development aid is one of the shining achievements of this Labour administration, along with minimum wage (too low, but the Tories would NEVER have done it).

That's excellent. Nice to have something in the budget to feel good about. How much are they committed to?

Reach you are right to bring up NI, every time. And there's no relief on NI.

I think the benefits system and the NHS are an issue. Benefit payments in the UK are lower, I believe, than in other European countries (please correct me if I'm wrong). But access to them is much, much easier. I think abuse of the system costs a great deal and leads to a lot of the resentment that higher tax earners feel.

I also feel that change is needed to the NHS. It was set up at a time when the people who used it were the people who paid for it taxpayers and those in such desperate need they couldn't pay.

Now it's like a free health centre for the world and his wife. That seems wrong to me.

People who earn more spend a smaller proportion of their income than those who earn less so at a time when the economy is really struggling, it makes sense to only increase taxes on the high earners. I thing almost everyone is aware that taxes will have to increase for all income bands but surely it makes better sense to wait until the economy is on the road to recovery before increases the taxes on the poorest workers - irrespective of general elections as we know that whoever wins the next election will have to increase taxes unless we discover something like the North Sea oil that allowed the Tory Government to survive the 1980's ?

What do the people who keep saying this is a nasty / ugly thread mean - that it is absolutely fine for some people to devote their ENTIRE LIVES to greed, to earning insane amounts of money - and to bitch about people who have other priorities as if they are lazy - and to feel not only financially, but practically and morally superior to them - despite all evidence that contradicts basic managerial competence (let alone their much vaunted economic expertise - yes, the results of it are visible all around, right now); BUT, if anyone else suggests just for a second that they might like to share a proportion of the VERY TOP LAYER of their wealth in hard times when modestly salaried people are going under through no fault of their own - suddenly that is terribly, terribly, UGLY?

Vezzie for PM!

I quite agree vezzie, if you disregard the MN unwritten rule on threads about threads that is.