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

[soapbox]

????

Xenia - I've been to Bulgaria and can safely say: Forget it.

Monaco is much more pleasant. And you don't need to live here all year.

"discussion about the nature of need is where this thread needs to go next"

As in, "To each according to need"?

Let me save the thread a long discussion and point out that the philosophy "From each according to ability, to each according to need", has failed spectacularly in the communist experiment, for the simple reason that nobody can judge "need" objectively.

What is luxury for one person is absolute need for another. You might think private school is a luxury, but for others it might be most important, a need for which they would limit most other expenses.

In economics, this concept is simplified in the Utility Function, if anyone is interested in actually learning something, rather than churning up discredited social theories.

Totally agree with tiredexplorer. We should be looking at how to cut government waste and not how the taxpayer can give more. ID cards, anyone? What about MP expense accounts?

Bentham/Mil utility function?

the same theory that permits torture, as long as utility is maximised?

I'll stick to my "discredited" social theories, thanks.

Cote D'Azur, you made a number of assumptions about where I intended to go. No, I was not pursuing the 'each according...' principle.

I agree with you, no-one can judge need 'objectively'. I'd also like to point out that the 'utility function' in economics also fails spectacularly in a number of regards and is ideological as the communist alternative.

The question remains, if no-one can judge need objectively, how best can we judge it and on what criteria?

Xenia 'It's like the fox hunting ban really - simply socialist jealousy. '

Complete and utter bollocks.

Thinking back to the Carer and the banker. I think Carers work a damn sight harder than any banker or lawyer. And they are paid so little they can't afford to put heating on or eat properly let alone buy houses or even dream about private school.
We have a bizarre system of rewards in this country.
Lets pay the Carer 300K and yay for trickle down economics.

no-one needs a yatch though now do they?
Or Elton John and his £35k a year on flowers for his house.

I'd tax everyone according to their pollution levels. So a rich person with an 8000 sq fot house would end up paying more cos of the emissions plus their car/yatch/private jet etc etc
That would be fair

mind you, then they would wouldn't they. I remember some guy on TV when the congestion charge was being bought in. He didn't give a crap about pollution and said he could easily afford the charge and it would get all the others off the road. No social respponsibility in his head at all.

Taxation and the public sector are merely a way of evening out equality of access to valuable services such as medical and education. If there were no teachers, doctors or nurses employed by the state, people would employ them privately (as they did until 70 years in the case of medical personnel). Assuming these are things that people want (along with clean cholera-free drinking water, lighting so you don't get mugged in the dark, decent roads so that travel is possible, police in case of crime) then in a world without tax, the rich would still buy them, and the poor would not be able to afford. We all the far too much for granted the enormous social progress that has been made over the last 200 years.

And I do think unlike the US that still has a very strong altruist tradition among its extremely wealthy, that UK rich people tend to feel validated in keeping all "their" hard earned, not remembering that it is all made possible by the public sector workers toiling away on their behalf for very little financial reward. And before anybody starts bleating about private schools, healthcare etc, just wonder who trains the teachers, doctors etc working in private institutions?

Quattro, not sure that Xenia is quite the voice of reason you're looking for! But it's nice to see you here, Xenia. What took you so long? Whatever it was, I'm terribly envious...

well said Duchesse.

need more coffee on what basis do you think carers work a damn sight harder than bankers or lawyers ?

have you ever cared for someone either as a job or a relative?
A relative requires 24 hour care 7 days a week. Caring as a job is full days (and many carers have 2 jobs) wiping bottoms of adults, washing them, feeding them by spoon etc etc
I've done both (and am still doing one and will do for 50 years with no pension or money) and I thik its a lot easier than banking. I've noticed bankers get time to eat out and go to wine bars and take holidays.

Haven't read whole thread but FWIW I think a tax hike for high earners is a good thing. I agree with Duchesse and WillSelf (although can't stand the real Will Self!).

Needmorecoffee - I'd also tax people based on pollution and one of the first things I'd look at is how many kids they've got...for every extra person there will be pollution and that has to be met.

At least they are trying to do something which is far more than Thatcher did in the 80s.

I say tax them more. They will not move abroad - our tax levels are still low compared to many countries!!

Hooray for the SLOW march back to socialism.

NMC...........aaahh it may not be as palatable but that is a different matter.

Anyone caring for a relative 24 hours a day is I agree whole heartedly not valued by society enough at all but then its not regarded as a job either.

Someone employed as a carer gets the same breaks as other employees as legally they must.

But Sunshine even if Gordy proceeds with this policy the figures don't stack up do they?
Public expenditure has been based on tax income ( and debt ). Tax income has fallen due to fewer corporation, VAT and stamp duty receipts. Debts have jumped even higher.
To meet the current rate of public expenditure and to repay the debt we need more income.
But the hike in income tax won't remotely cover the short fall will it? I think the rsdio said there'd still be a 100 billion shortfall.
The only solution is tax rises across the board or cuts in public services.
I'm sad to say that I now which way this one is going to go.

most of dd's respite carers (we get some 3 hour help sessions) work several jobs cos the pay is so low so while yes legally there is breaks and holiday in real life they can't afford to take them. DD's friday afeternoon carer works 7 till 6 caring for various disabled children - she goes from one to other - then works weekends and evenings at other jobs.
She'd like to go to university but can't and she'd like a better paid job but can barely keep up mortgage payments on tiny flat.
Most Carers work for several agencies.

Very well said duchesse

Interesting NMC...........but how is the extra tax going to help DD's friday afternoon carer ??

Seems to me that if we want to get ourselves out of the financial hole that we are in at the moment then we are all going to have to pull together.

I imagine most of us could agree that government spending needs to be not wasteful; by this I mean that money is not drained away by wars, corruption, ineffecient bureaucracy, etc.

Surely we also need to chase up both wealthy individuals and companies who dodge tax. There needs to be a tightening of the system in order to stop cunning ways of legally avoiding tax. This is just plain greed and shouldn't be allowed under the UK system of government.

Those who can afford it are going to have to accept that their taxes will be increased. Many of these people will have benefited from free market economics and have to take the good with the bad. If they are pissed off by this I suggest they direct their anger at the financial swindlers who got us into this mess rather than at members of society who rightfully use the welfare system that we all contribute to.

Those who are not affected by higher taxation but who are still doing OK are going to have to accept that times are tight and that their money doesn't go as far as before.

Those who are poor are unfortunately probably going to be even poorer. This is where redistribution of wealth becomes the only humane way of functioning IMO. If people grudge extra tax here and there they are in effect saying that they don't care what happens to these people. There but for the grace of god and all that.

Well said, Beachcomer. You put it so well compared my usual rantings about greedy fuckers etc etc

Oh, the odour of sanctity.