to be upset when I disagree profoundly with friend's (political) opinions

[SilverBones]

So, this weekend, I got talking to a friend, who started complaining about the new 50p tax rate over £150,000. He said that he got nothing in return for this, and all he was doing was paying for dole scroungers and benefit thieves who didn't want to work. He claimed that he wanted a nice lifestyle for his family and didn't see why he should have to give his money away. I think it's relevant that this person earns his living in the banking sector, and as far as I understand it, if the taxpayer had not bailed the banks out (at huge cost to us all), he would not have a job at all, let alone be continuing to earn over £200,000.

Am I being unreasonable? My DH thinks I am and I'm sure this person thinks I'm just jealous. I probably am! But the thing is I also fundamentally disagree with him. I think that the 50p tax rate should have come in a long time ago, and I think it's far more complex than just paying for the welfare bill. The conversation made me very angry and quite upset. What do you do when you disagree profoundly with a friend's position on something like that? I'm finding it ridiculously hard to move on!

I wouldn't have a friend with this position as it's so extreme. All my friends are 'nice' and happy to contribute to the economy when they earn plenty.

It would depend if he was a good guy in other ways, did charity stuff etc, kind to animals and his wife - if his selfishness leaked over into everyday life I'd drop him like the tory-shitbag he is.

I think this is a very interesting point.

We have a group of friends we have known since we were all 16-18 years old (so for about 15 years). When life was all about drinking and having fun, we all seemed very similar people.

Now we are all past 30 and having kids, we are making very different decisions and I wonder sometimes how much we have in common any more.

I would find it difficult to accept a viewpoint like the one you describe above. I think sometimes friendships do drift apart because people have different views on the important questions of life.

However, this doesn't mean it isn't fun to meet up once a year and reminisce about the old days with a bottle of wine.

Good luck with whatever happens for you.

Don't know what to suggest about your friend, but if the government hadn't bailed the banks out, our entire economy would have crashed which would have been a whole lot of no fun for all of us. Sometimes people speak of the bail-out as an act of charity to banks when it is actually in the national interest.

I think everyone who pays tax gets annoyed when they see what crap it's sometimes spent on.

Those type of comments upset me too. I live in a (European) country (not Switzerland)where the basic rate of tax is circa 40% and people earning over circa 50,000 euros are taxed at 50%, with bonuses (whether in public or private sector) taxed at over 60%. People in the UK who earn £150,000 should stop moaning and count themselves lucky that they pay so little tax.

I definately have very different politics from a few of my friends and I also have a few friends where I have different parenting techniques/ lifestyles.

They are often long standing friends that I have known since school/University and so these differences do not really matter. We just don't talk politics/parenting or whatever when we meet.

I am not sure I could make new friends that had very different views from me but old ones get a pass as I like them for other reasons.

But I do understand and YANBU.

YANBU

What a prick! Of course he gets something in return. A free health service, free education for his kids (if he opts out of either of these that's entirely his choice, he is still entitled to them), his own job security, the satisfaction of his own contribution to society (that he can easily afford) etc etc blah blah.

He may well think you're jealous. Maybe you are, but that's not why you're angry. I'd rather someone thought that of me than everyone think I'm a pompous selfish prick.

You will ultimately have to agree to disagree with him as people like that are so self assured he will never change his mind. But you have your eyes opened wider about him now, and he will probably be aware of the faint whiff of contempt whenever you're in the same company again.

I also have SISTERS with different politics than me and that is fine too. I just don't think I could have a husband/partner with different politics - that would deifnately lead to divorce very quickly/

I also have an uncle that completely denies climate change - not just man made climate change but that it is happening at all which I think is barking IMO but live and let live and all that.

I'm glad that some of you agree with me! He's a really nice guy in every other way, and not being friends isn't an option really. And I wouldn't want that.

Inmylittlehead, I understand what you're saying. The thing is, in bailing out the banks, though it 'saved' us all, we are also all going to pay for it. And as far as I can see, people on middle and lower incomes will end up paying a lot more proportionately than people on higher incomes. Equally, people on higher incomes are going to suffer less from any cuts in public spending that result. So I don't see it as an act of charity, but I do think that someone who is benefiting most directly and most significantly from that bail out might have the grace to shut up about the dip in their 'lifestyle' they might suffer as a result of paying a bit more tax at the very top of their income. I think that's gross.

You're probably better off not discussing issues like this with friends.

Yes - I agree on the whole Squeez. I didn't start the convesation, he did, but once started I found it hard to simply sit there and agree! Especially re: the immigrant thing. I've noticed since this recession started that it's become a whole lot less taboo to blame everything on immigrants. People always preface the argument with, 'You must agree that there's been too much immigration, small island, etc, etc,'. It always makes me laugh, especially as these people are often employing immigrants as their cleaners etc.

Some of my friends appear to me to be naively and embarrassingly left wing. If you know you have very different opinions on issues like this and you're going to be upset by disagreements, it might be best not to discuss it. Some people I will discuss political differences of opinion with in RL, others I won't - it depends on how personal they are going to get about it.

I think it is rare to wholeheartedly agree with or approve of all aspects of another person's character, even if they are friends.

If he is a good enough friend and you are sure enough of your facts, why not have a 'heated debate' about it? You may at least give him some food for thought.

Of course, he may find your views as repellant as you find his and you'll just have to agree not to talk about it again. There must be other subjects you have in common that you can talk about.

He doesn't have to like it, he just has to pay it. It is easy to feel like it should be 50% if it isn't you paying the 50%.

I have friends of all different leanings, there are some people who go just too far in either direction for me, but they are pretty rare to be honest.

Very rarely talk about money with friends in any case.

so he doesn't want to give away half of his earnings. meh.

we live in a society and he has to contribute that much, but that doesn't mean he has to like it.

i earn MUCH less than him and I sometimes resent paying tax. don't we all?

i think you should get of your high horse tbh. why should your friend share your political views anyway? and given that he is talking about his actual life, rather than theoretical political opinion, how can you possibly say he is wrong to feel the way he does.

by the way, I do agree with the tax rate. but I think YABU to expect anyone to think the way you think. if you don't want to be his friend - fair enough, but dont just sit in judgement on him.

It's not half his earnings, to be fair, it's 50% over £150K, but I do at least theoretically tend towards the "all taxation is state sponsored theft" POV whilst conceding it is the least worst system (much like democracy). As Blinder says, he doesn't have to like it and he is entitled to say so. You are equally entitled to ask him not to discuss these issues with you because you are unable to agree.

I have mixed feelings about the 50% tax rate. It seems like fixing a leaky tap when there is a burst water main. It's easy to lump more tax onto certain people than to look at ways in which money could be saved or better spent. For example, how much does it cost to collect this tax and, in fact, all taxes? Would a flat rate and no complex taxing actually make better economic sense (I don't know the answer to that one, by the way)?

I don't think his dislike of tax is offensive in itself (although I don't agree with him). Saying it all goes on benefits scroungers is just silly though. I've had some fun discussions with people who refuse to believe they benefit at all from taxation (explaing the zillion way sthey benefit from the NHS, say, even if they have private cover).

The majority of my friends have different politics from mine- I'm vaguely lefty and very liberal, most of my friends are moderate Tories. It doesn't cause any problems at all.

I don't think the key is to avoid discussing politics with those who have different views. Rather, you should just avoid discussing politics with those who are unable to sustain an argument in support of their views: there are plenty of reasonable objections to the 50% band, but frothing at the mouth about benefit cheats isn't one of them.

I try to avoid discussing politics with my friends and family as it can only end in disaster.

My friends all seem to vote for the Green Party, which I find rather hypocritical as they all have big houses, fly longhaul a few times a year and drive monster cars. I always think to myself "well you would be taxed to the hilt if they got in" but I just keep my opinions to myself. One friend said to me once "you seem rather disinterested in "green" issues ". Well the truth is I live in a tiny house, I don't fly, I don't have a car and I have a small family, I'm already perfect.

Surely the thing to focus on is the fact that the new 50p tax rate will probably raise almost no money?

I only did AS-level economics, so am not an expert at all. However, I am highly sceptical that the 50p tax rate will work. In the 1980s the top tax rate was cut from 60% to 40%, and tax revenues actually went up.

People who are professional economists (independent of any political party) have studied this question:

www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn84.pdf

Ignore all the gobbledegook, and go to page 26 for the conclusions - basically, they say that the new top rate will probably actually lose money overall for the exchequer (but not much).

I don't know whether to believe them - to be honest, I think economics is bit of a voodoo science. I believe them a lot more than I believe Gordon Brown though, who has been consistently wrong.

If the new tax will raise no money, then you have to ask yourself what the point of it is. The answer is that Gordon Brown wants a political dividing line to distract attention from the fact that he has screwed up so badly.

I voted Labour in 1997 and 2001, and Tory in 2005 - but I would never vote for the "old Labour" policies which Gordon Brown is bringing back. It was very easy to vote for Tony Blair, who made aspiration OK again for the Labour party.

That said, bankers really shouldn't complain too loudly. They would be out of work if not for taxpayer money.

At the end of the day, though, I think unless people are BNP, there is no point in getting angry about their politics. Unless, of course, they are politicians, in which case, they are fair game!

Is your friend kind and funny? If so, why care whether he begrudges his tax or not?

YABU.

Why not just debate it with him? Say, "oooh, let's open (another) bottle of wine and discuss because I think you're wrong and that the 50% tax rate is more than fair and these are my 10 reasons why". If he's a good friend, he'll enjoy the debate while perhaps also remembering that not everyone's opinions are the same.

Well, is his banks definitely one of the banks that was bailed out? Was he in any way responsible for the current banking crisis?

Mateykatie ... The IFS isn't exactly completely unbiased. While it is not formally affiliated to any party, it was the one of the hothouses of Thatcherite thought and advocates broadly monetarist policies. As such, you would expect it to predict declining tax revenues under a higher tax regime.

As for OP, if you can't be friends with people with different political viewpoints, then you need to do some growing up. The same applies to him if he can't take you telling him not to be a twat.

AllFallDown, I am not an economist, like I said - but the basic argument about the Laffer curve is quite simple.

If income tax rate is 0%, obviously the treasury gets no money.

If income tax rate is 100%, the treasury also gets no money - no-one will work because they will get no income at the end.

Therefore, the optimum rate of income tax is somewhere in between.

It's quite easy to see from that argument though that simply raising income tax doesn't necessarily increase revenue. What the actual optimum rate of tax is - that's a much more difficult question.

I didn't know the IFS were Tory stooges though. I think the media should make these things clearer.

I know there are lots of political think-tanks with their own agendas - Policy Exchange for the Tories, Compass for Labour, etc.

But I thought the economic think-tanks (NIESR, OECD, etc) were all pretty much independent.