Follow this blogger

Like what you're reading? Register with lovemoney.com today to get all of these blogger's posts sent to your personal homepage just as soon as they're published.

Join the lovemoney.com experience

Confused?

50% income tax is a mistake

If you read my blog post this morning about bankers' bonuses, you might think I was a market-hating leftie. But that's not the case. In broad terms, I'm a fan of free markets. They create the most wealth and give more freedom of choice to individuals. 

If you want to have a really vibrant free market economy, it's dangerous to let the tax take rise too high - especially taxes on income. So I think the government's plan to raise the top rate of income tax to 50% is a mistake. 

You may have forgotten the details: Alistair Darling plans to raise the top rate of tax to 50% for those who earn more than £150,000 next April. And people who earn more than £100,000 will lose their personal tax allowance. According to Treasury estimates, these two changes will raise £3.2 billion for the government. But I'm not convinced. 

I think a 50% tax rate will mean that high-earners have less of an incentive to work hard and make money. I also fear that it will damage the City. There have already been reports of hedge funds leaving for Switzerland and elsewhere, and I fear that trend will pick up speed in April. That's bad news for everyone in Britain - hedge fund managers spend lots of money and help to drive the economy in London. They even pay some tax. 

As high-earners work less hard, they'll earn less money and create fewer jobs for other people. And that will hit tax revenue. So I suspect that the 50% rate won't raise as much cash as the Treasury hopes. 

Don't get me wrong, the government's deficit is way too high, so taxes will have to go up over the next few years. It's just that a 50% tax rate will do a lot of damage and won't generate much revenue in return. 

I think that the government would do better to focus on property taxes. The great thing about property taxes is that they don't discourage hard work. They're also hard to avoid. True, they might encourage hedge fund managers to exit London, but the UK has relatively low property taxes when compared to many countries, so we might see a smaller exodus than that triggered by an income tax hike. 

Now my hunch is that the Chancellor doesn't read my blog. But in the unlikely event that he does, it would be great if he could use next week's pre-budget report as an opportunity to reverse his policy on the 50% rate. 

What about bonuses? 

So if I'm opposed to a 50% tax rate, how can I support a bank windfall tax? Won't a windfall tax just be a punishment for hard work and enterprise? How can I claim to be a supporter of the free market when I'm advocating a one-off retrospective tax? 

Here's how: if the government hadn't rescued the financial system, the investment banks wouldn't be making big profits. The likes of Goldman Sachs have been especially fortunate as they've been able to clean up without much competition. The banks have made big money thanks to sheer good luck. A government-engineered windfall if you like. It's perfectly reasonable for the government to get some of that windfall. 

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Share this lovemoney.com content on any of the social networks and utilities below by simply clicking the site of your choice.

  • You can subscribe to all lovemoney.com blog posts via our RSS feed. To subscribe to this blog only, use the RSS link under 'Follow this blog' on the right.

Comments

Avatar

Mike10613 said

  • 0 recommendations

I agree the 50% tax rate is a bad idea, plus there is national insurance on top of that. A tax on certain luxury goods would be better. Property taxes in certain areas would be a good idea. Oxford Street and Regent Street could afford to pay a little more and of course their clientèle prefer to pay a little extra for quality. Luxury cars should have a special tax too; as they are least fuel efficient. Scrapping the vehicle excise license and adding the tax to fuel would cause an outcry but would be fairer all around. Those who do unnecessary journeys would pay the price. Scrapping certain taxes like the car excise license and television license would also be a more efficient way of collecting tax; although it would put a few thousand bureauprats onto this side of the desk in Jobcentreplus.

Avatar

Ed Bowsher said

  • 0 recommendations

Hi Mike,

Scrapping the vehicle excise license and adding the tax to fuel would cause an outcry but would be fairer all around.

Yes, I completely agree with you on that. Owning a car doesn't increase CO2 emissions. Driving a car does. So driving should be taxed. But as you say, it would be politically hard to achieve. As would higher property taxes.

I'd keep the licence fee - at least for now - because it helps to preserve the independence of the BBC. But I should probably write a seperate blog post on that.

Ed

Avatar

finnol49 said

  • 0 recommendations

Call me a card-carrying leftie, but for once I agree with the Morning Star - the rich SHOULD pay. I refuse to believe that all people earning £150,000 a year or more work harder, they just work smarter, or they wouldn't be earning that sort of money. As far as property taxes are concerned, local income tax makes more sense than Council Tax. I also think that IHT limits should be increased, but that it should be impossible to avoid this tax by using trusts & other instruments.

Avatar

Mike10613 said

  • 0 recommendations

finnol49  Revenue and customs collect in both income tax and VAT. I don't see the sense in a local income tax, when we could have a cut off VAT going to local councils and scrap council tax that way. A tax on spending is better than a tax on earnings; it encourages people to save and be financially responsible. VAT is 15% now and will soon go back to 17.5% but it could go to 20% and added to newspapers, books and magazines (I know the media would scream!). This would encourage councils to support local business. The more VAT paid in their postcode area;the more money they get in.

Ed at least we agree on vehicle excise licence. I did a government advanced driving course and test and I had to drive with minimal braking and save as much fuel as possible. Except on the test, I couldn't actually do that, I was in fast moving traffic but still passed the test! It is possible to achieve good MPG if you drive properly. I have had young people pass me as I slow down approaching traffic lights on red! What is the point in hurrying if they are on red? Duty and VAT on fuel is avoidable by careful driving and making only essential journeys. I would like to go back to the days when we can in fact enjoy driving without congestion and we will soon have congestion charges in many cities as well as the one now in London if something isn't done soon.

The television licence is a difficult issue and I would like the BBC to stay independent too. However, how independent is it? People often refer to the BBC world service as being a independent and unbiased service; but it's funded by the Foreign office! Keeping the BBC independent and above all unbiased isn't a economic problem it's regulatory problem. Advertising from government departments at estimated market rates could fund the BBC and some departments could close. The detector vans and other staff would be unnecessary and the whole tribe of staff that collect in the licence fees. I think the trading company could do much better at selling BBC programs globally too. Our BBC comedies are admired the world over. What happened to them? Where are the 21st century equivalents of the comic greats like Ronnie Barker and David Jason? We also have a problem with over paid staff at the BBC and a lack of opportunity for the young. 

 

Avatar

Klawman said

  • 0 recommendations

I see nothing wrong with a higher tax band of 50%.  NI contributions are capped anyway, so that high earners pay proportionately less tax than middle earners.

I completely agree with scrapping the Vehicle Excise Duty, or rather charging a flat-rate annual registration fee.

Local income tax is, IMHO, much fairer than Council Tax.

But - sorry - but I strongly object to the Licence fee.  A substantial part of the money goes to paying inflated salaries (and bonuses, of course) to managers (where else would a Personnel Manager earn £330K?) and obscene sums to "talent" of the calibre of Jonathan Ross whos vanity and ego are matched only by his "edgy" humour which, as far as I can see, consists solely of being smutty.

When you see that the DG of the BBC is trousering the thick end of a million, but still claims innumerable 70p parking meter fees, you must wonder where his priorities lie.  A quick calculation shows he is paid roughly £8 a minute.  Assuming he spends just 2 minutes over each claim, that's costing us £16 every time this poor, underpaid individual wants to save himself the princely sum of 70p. 

I don't care what remunerations private broadcasting companies pay - I don't have to watch their shows nor do I have to support their advertisers.  I do have to pay the Licence fee.

Rant over ...

Join the conversation

Please sign in or register to add a comment or recommend.

  • About this blog

    I'm Ed Bowsher and I'm a commentator at lovemoney.com. Here's my take on money, finance and anything else that takes my fancy.

Tags

Thank you for using Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels