What do you think of the 5% tax hike for those earning more than £150k - good or bad?

[soapbox]

????

Quattro, I'm not sure it's the politics of envy - I don't want to tax the rich so hard that they just earn the same as me, for example, nor do I want to earn what they do.

BUT - they benefit from the market valuing what they do - be it modelling high fashion or betting on the stock market, and benefit from other people choosing to take lower-paid work which directly helps them and their families. Extra tax readjusts the balance a little, so the rich maintain, by and large, comfortable lifestyles, and the poor are a little better off.

Agree, pointy - I don't think it's possible, really, to earn a high wage without putting in a lot of time and effort, but in general it's the market that decides whether that effort is rewarded handsomely or not, not the amount of sweat, toil, or talent.

They can afford to pay more tax and as a society we need more and need those who have to dig deeper, that's all.
No envy, just community sprit

TheCrackFox - Here is that article you quoted to say "At least 400 UK-based individuals earn, or are capable of making, £10m a year."

Let's read on and see the laughable calculation through which the Standard reached this figure of 400 who "earn or are capable of earning" £10m/yr:

"... according to the Sunday Times Rich List, there are more than 350 people in Britain with a fortune of at least £200m - enough to generate a return of £10m-a year through dividends, interest, rents and profits.But only 65 paid income tax [over a taxable income of £ 10m or more]"

Such a calculation is impossible to make without knowing the individual asset compositions of the said 400 people, and the imbecile who wrote this clearly doesn't understand that total worth figures include expected values of non-liquid assets, nor that their owners are not obliged to put them to commercial use.

"ability to make money is rewarded with money."

Very true. However, an important part of that philosophy is missing: the ability to lose money...? Ah yes. The ability to lose phenomenal amounts of money is rewarded with money from government in the form of nationalisation.

Now, where does free market and nationalisation a la socialism begin? I really don;t know.

This is still a good thread, you know. It had potential to descend into a full-on hair-pulling fight, but instead it's in the main thoughtful and reasoned. Huzzah!

I have not objected to paying more tax. I might feel a bit rueful about the 60-hour weeks that I have worked consistently since leaving university 20 years ago, but I have not complained about it. It seems fair enough really.

What I am complaining about is the total lack of accountability that means largescale economic mismanagement can go unquestioned.

Here we all are questioning the merits and effects of the tax increases, rather than questioning the causes ...

Its outrageous

90% would be more like it

It always makes me laugh with this "we have to keep giving them tax breaks else they'll go abroad" line.

What is the point of HAVING them here in the first place if they don't pay lots of tax?

I suppose it's easier to do the former, Quattro, as everyone has an opinion and a personal take on it - the latter takes a bit more thinking, and I, for one, am all too aware of how little I know about it all.

Would you really tax people at 90%? Because it was tried once before you know. With disastrous consequences.

Where would you start the 90% rate? At £150k?

oh quatters. It is the complete lack of accountability in business that depresses me. Ultimately, the government is forced to take responsibility. They are trying to come up with solutions, doing their best to get us out of this mess, whether we agree with their current methods or not. Whether we agree with the political party in power or not.

But I do not see the banks, and all those highly educated, rarely talented individuals taking any responsibility at all. They come across as scrounging for hand-outs (as someone accused members of the public doing earlier). Oliver Twist, please sir, more.

And the "oh they work hard thing"

Bollocks. I worked bloody hard, before I became a SAHM, in a deeply unglamourous yet, I feel, socially useful job, for a charity. I frequently did 70+ hour weeks.

My mum, a teacher, does 80 hour weeks on occasion. She is not a higher rate taxpayer.

oh just GRRR generally at any idea that some people deserve to live on more than others because they have not chosen socially useful jobs.

Can't. Keep. Away. From. This. Thread...

Aaaaaargh!

CBM said: 'We do not value people on their social standing, on their input into society. We value pretty much in economic terms - ability to make money is rewarded with money.

But that is how our society works - we support free market economy principles.'

Which 'we' is this exactly? As far as I'm aware 'we' (in the UK, being a democracy an' all) all have different values.

And, as some others have rather astutely pointed out, the notion of the 'free' market was laughable BEFORE the govt had to bail out the bankers, keeping the jobs of many, many high-earners in the City. QC just complained that it is the govt's fault for encouraging banks to lend. Hmm. All those City financiers were crying into their Pol Roger when the financial and lending markets were deregulated by the Tories in the mid-80s then? And none of them gambled their funds away trying to score bigger and bigger bonuses, that 'we' are now all paying for?

And what utter bollocks to describe people's revulsion at the resentment of wealthy people at contributing a touch more to the society they benefit from enormously as 'jealousy'. Most people in ordinary jobs wouldn't trade with you in a million years because what they value is not wealth but commitment, time, personal investment in others in need, stopping and watching the birds fly and having a lovely chat with the bus-driver. Nope. It's the other way round: City workers and sad multi-millionaires secretly envy us normals as they sit and throw money at their shallow lives hoping it wil buy them happiness.

The rest of us have worked out that when we meet our maker, the value of our lives is measured in how much we loved not how much we took.

lol - I meant individuals with rare talent (I was paraphrasing some previous poster re people with rare skills deserving loads of money), not rarely talented.

Hmm, maybe I was right first time

"Would you really tax people at 90%? Because it was tried once before you know. With disastrous consequences. "

When?

Do you mean the pre-Thatcher 87% tax on the top tier earners?

Resulting in a 6x difference between the pay of the richest and poorest, as opposed to now when it is more like 60x ?

And we did not seem to have any great exodus from our island.

So what were these disasterous consequences?

wilf, are you on the sauce?

No. I might be a tad hysterical with sleeplessness though.

Anyway, let's trade economists:

JK Galbraith: 'The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy, that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness'

"Do you mean the pre-Thatcher 87% tax on the top tier earners?"

I do indeed. The economy was going to hell in a handcart, sliding down to the level of the second world, investment was at an all-time low, strikes were endemic, winter of discontent, yada yada yada

Well to be fair, Rod Stewart left

That was a national disaster.

"City workers and sad multi-millionaires secretly envy us normals as they sit and throw money at their shallow lives hoping it wil buy them happiness."

Is that how you put the envy monster to sleep?

"The rest of us have worked out that when we meet our maker, the value of our lives is measured in how much we loved not how much we took."

I'm sorry but these are meaningless generalisations. The rich are shallow, the poor are not. The rich are unhappy, and they envy us poor people, who have much more love in our lives

But the power cuts were fun!

Wilf - why are there lots of photos of your desk on your profile?

Most people in ordinary jobs wouldn't trade with you in a million years because what they value is not wealth but commitment, time, personal investment in others in need, stopping and watching the birds fly and having a lovely chat with the bus-driver. Nope. It's the other way round: City workers and sad multi-millionaires secretly envy us normals as they sit and throw money at their shallow lives hoping it wil buy them happiness
WilfSell on Tue 25-Nov-08 20:10:18

Why do we feel the need to insult other people like this, why can't we accept that we are just different.

I don;t think for one moment that city workers are really envious of me or they would go and get a teaching job. We may have moments of envy but if they lasted most people would make the changes necessary if they are practically possible ( although of course it is easier for a banker to become a teacher than for me to be a banker) I may envy the designer suit and flash cars fleetingly but then remember I have had it before and it did not make me happy. Just as the odd banker may feel envy at the fantastic job satisfaction I get and the fact I get to help young people fulfill their potential. I am sure however that bankers get job satisfaction, not sure how but only because I have never done it.

Why if you are rich do you have to be shallow, I am sure there are lots of people who are rich, happy and fulfilled with balanced lives.

I myself am a professional who has earnt between 30 and 40K and some of your descriptions could apply to me. I work daft hours and often have no time to watch the birds fly blah blah blah. But not because I am shallow but because I am ambitious, want to do well and want to provide security for my dd

Ah, Wilf. My old adversary

What was that generalised rant about exactly?

The winter of discontent was not caused by the 87% tax rate.

Just as the six day war was not caused by Cilla Black being at no 1.

Just because things may have happened at the same time, it doesn't mean there was a simple cause and effect.

(Caveat: Cilla Black may not akshully have been at No 1 at the time)