The 50p tax rate must go!

John Fitzsimons
by Lovemoney Staff John Fitzsimons on 12 September 2011  |  Comments 47 comments

Or should it? The Government has come under renewed pressure to scrap the highest rate of Income Tax, to help stimulate the economy, but is it the right thing to do?

The 50p tax rate must go!

The 50p rate of Income Tax, levied on every pound earned over £150,000, is holding back Britain and must be scrapped immediately.

That’s the view of a number of economists, anyway, who wrote to the Financial Times last week demanding George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, drop the tax.

The move was met with fury by other groups though, who suggested that cutting tax for the top earners, when those at the lower end of the scale are struggling to get by, is outrageous.

Truth be told, I'm struggling to make up my mind about the top rate of tax; I can understand, and have sympathy for, both sides of the argument. So today I’m going to outline some of the points made both for and against the 50p rate, and ask you - our readers - to tell me and your fellow lovemoney.com users what you think.

Why the tax rate must go

Let’s start with the anti lobby, and the economists who wrote to the FT.

  • Such a high rate of tax makes the UK less competitive internationally, and less attractive as a destination for both foreign investment and talented workers.
  • As a result, this is holding Britain’s recovery back. We need to encourage entrepreneurship, to help stimulate growth with new businesses and job creation.
  • Such a high rate of tax is essentially a tax on aspiration. Why would you want to become a high achiever, with such a high salary, if you then have to hand over a significant chunk to the taxman?
  • The tax raises a relatively modest amount of money: around £2.7bn according to forecasts by the previous Chancellor, Alistair Darling.

Some fairly persuasive points then. What about those in favour of keeping the tax?

Why the tax rate must stay

  • At a time when sharp cuts are being made to central services, it’s grossly unfair that the most well off in society are the ones who get a tax cut.
  • The Government has said that those with the broadest shoulders should carry the load regarding taxes. Therefore, it’s only right that the seriously high earners – and only 310,000 people are affected by this tax rate – should pay more than the rest of us.
  • The tax is likely to bring in a substantial amount of cash more than Darling suggested over the next five years, around £12.6bn more than if the tax rate had stayed at 40%.

Again, some appealing arguments in favour of keeping the controversial tax in place.

Personally, I’m still torn. Cutting taxes for the most well off in society would send a perverse message, but something clearly needs to be done to get the economy moving again. Cutting central spending is evidently not enough.

It appears that the Government is going to focus instead on raising the personal allowance – which would be a benefit to all of us, rich and poor alike – before doing anything to the top rate of tax, which strikes me as sensible. But the 50p tax debate is not going to go away.

So what would you do? And why?

More: Fix your mortgage at 2.89% for 3 years! | New 20 month 0% credit card with £100 cashback

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (47)

  • MMIX
    Love rating 15
    MMIX said

    Such a high rate of tax makes the UK [...] less attractive as a destination for [...] talented workers.

    I want to take issue with this argument of those economists who wrote to the government - why do they assume that "talented workers" (they mean "high-earners", don't they - is there really a strong positive correlation between talent and high earnings?) are universally greedy?

    Why is taking home a certain percentage of a given gross salary and living in a prosperous, well-serviced social environment imagined by such economists to be universally less desired than taking home a higher percentage of the same gross salary and living in a less well-serviced environment?

    Is it perhaps possible that some "talented workers" might actually prefer to live and work in a comfortably well-off district surrounded by a wider safe, fun and happy environment rather than in an opulent, gated mansion surrounded by violent, impoverished ghettoes?

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  6 loves
  • cschosland
    Love rating 3
    cschosland said

    It's not so much the 50% tax rate I object to, more the 61% tax rate between £100k and circa £114k, caused by the removal of the personal allowance at the rate of £1 for every £2 earned.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • malcolms@andron.co.uk
    Love rating 0
    malcolms@andron.co.uk said

    Am I missing something or is the rest of the UK? What about the 60p to the pound marginal rate of tax for the not so high earners with total taxable income between 100K and 113K?

    I agree it's not stated in the legislation, for questionable reasons, but it is a real and verifiable mathematical fact, not an opinion.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    Some people are calling for a cut in corporation tax to give companies that pay tax overseas an incentive to bring those profits back to the UK. The same people want cuts in the NHS and in benefits. They then want people to go out and spend money to stimulate demand in the economy. What they really want is more money for themselves and less for the poorer people in society - true blue Tory politics...

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  6 loves
  • Talent
    Love rating 77
    Talent said

    Cut the tax of the high earners by scrapping the 50% rate.

    Increase the tax of the low earners by scrapping the 10% rate.

    Hey, that would have been an election winner for sure??

    Con, Lab, Lib et al.... scum!

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Stickwithit
    Love rating 6
    Stickwithit said

    Surely there's a better way of getting the super-earners to cough up more of their ill-earned cash to the Government coffers - and one is to take the ceiling off NI contributions. After all, if one is earning a million pounds a year then your health is worth far more than some-one earning one five-hundredth of that, and what's more it would enable a decent rise in the State Pension.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • ocelot
    Love rating 6
    ocelot said

    What utter nonsense to scrap the 50p they earn enough that's is the why the country is full of them. If they want to get the economy going force the Credit Card Companies to lower their extortionate rates of interest.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • ronat42
    Love rating 62
    ronat42 said

    A far more useful way of generating tax income would be to close all of the loopholes which allow so many of the top earners, or perhaps grossly overpaid would be a better description, to get away with paying virtually nothing. As far as 50% being excessive, it really is not so bad when you consider that someone earning as little as £12,000 p.a. can be paying 33% when NI is included.

    Perhaps if someone could simplify the tax system so that we could all understand it and make it more difficult to find loopholes it would stop a lot of the bickering. Unfortunately, that would not be an easy task after all of the smoke and mirrors that the last government used to hide their attempts to raise more cash to squander.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • T5P8
    Love rating 33
    T5P8 said

    Why will they leave the country, they can just pay themselves more to compensate themselves.

    .

    What ever happened to the £40,000,000,000 a year tax loophole that was going to be plugged and corporations that get out of paying.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • moreteavicar
    Love rating 23
    moreteavicar said

    Its been said elsewhere [interviews with economists on Bloomberg] - there's no evidence that having the 50% tax rate has been detrimental to entrepreneurs - the people who actually create wealth. To the contrary, genuine entrepreneurs put most of their profits back into their business and pay themselves a nominal salary. What it may deter is a number of people in the financial services who intend only to make money for themselves.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • jamiecfc1
    Love rating 39
    jamiecfc1 said

    Quite simple really - scrap the 20% VAT, put it back to 15%. Fact of the matter is this extra burden on the average household is what's killing the High Street - drop tax, boost sales, the extra that comes from taxing additional profits the shops will make will cover the loss in VAT revenue. The alternative is what's happening now - sales falling, VAT & Tax being lost because shops are going bust. Wake up George. As for the 50% tax rate - no way should this be dropped. If anything it should be higher, the only reason it's not is because most people have to earn silly salaries to buy overpriced houses. Look what Tony & Gordon have got us into - the Marx Brothers couldn't have done any worse.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • ronat42
    Love rating 62
    ronat42 said

    Talent mentioned the removal of the 10% tax rate. As I remember this was one of Gordon's achievements. He removed it and, when he realised what a huge mistake it was, he claimed that it would cost £4B to put it back then spent twice as much with a fudge that left higher paid folks better off and me, as a low earner, still worse off. After that level of incompetence you can hardly blame the current government for not getting it all right at the first attempt.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • andrewjameshowar
    Love rating 25
    andrewjameshowar said

    Sensible thing to do would be to let it run for a while - then we'd have some evidence as to its effects rather than just assertions. Personally I don't believe such a £2.7Bn tax cut would be self-funding. Although I'm willing to be convinced by real evidence. All this talk of tax cuts. Are you all off your trolleys? The deficit is still increasing (though not by so much as it was). What we actually need are higher taxes or spending cuts to bring the economy into balance. Why is the 50% tax band set at so high an income level? That's why it doesn't raise very much. Bring it in at lower incomes - £100,000 say, and sort out the ridiculous issue of the 66% marginal rate at the same time.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Sooty's Mum
    Love rating 19
    Sooty's Mum said

    As someone who used to do personal tax back when there was up to 98% tax, I welcomed the tax cuts because so much money was being invested abroad and the UK was losing out.

    In fact, the tax system is a lot simpler but I have found it far more difficult because the people who answer the phone do not have a clue what they are talking about and it is never the same person. Also, Blair was able to institute what Thatcher got thrown out for, an uncapped National Insurance so that goes on top. The higher paid (for doing what precisely?) are also able to fund their own pensions and pay to go privately into hospital so they are not a drain on the system.

    To be fairer to those at the lower end of the market, I would like to see a larger personal allowance, which would also affect those at the top end.

    We used to have mortgage interest relief which was for the total amount of interest paid regardless of the mortgage or income. Perhaps something to help the first time buyer as it would help stimulate the market, interest relief for 5 years perhaps or for a loan for buying furniture which would have to be supported by a receipt.

    At this moment in time few people are doing anything to their houses as they cannot afford it so the carpets have to last a little longer and that new sofa or bed will have to wait. Instead of wallpaper let's paint the room and buy a new duvet instead. Those who cannot afford a holiday no longer need to buy holiday clothes or a suitcase! Pick the subject and take it from there.

    I certainly agree with ocelot that the credit card rates are inexcusably high considering the base rate and a drop would encourage spending. I look at what is left in the sales and wonder how much longer before some more chains go bankrupt because people no longer have the money to spend on clothes etc because the price of food is getting so high.

    Certainly I would like to see the price of petrol drop (the price per barrel has dropped quite a bit, why not at the pump) as that also has an ongoing effect on prices.

    There is not one solution such as just dropping the 50p tax band and I don't really think that that is the answer.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • lazban
    Love rating 5
    lazban said

    A better solution to all this is to fix a salary ceiling of £150K pa including bonuses.

    We would then have no need to keep the 50% tax.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Justkeepgoing
    Love rating 28
    Justkeepgoing said

    "lazban said

    A better solution to all this is to fix a salary ceiling of £150K pa including bonuses.

    We would then have no need to keep the 50% tax."

    That was, in effect, the intention of the graded tax bands up to 98%. There was little point in paying anyone a grossly inflated salary as it would revert to the exchequer. The problem with current pay differentials is that there is little justification for them. Top executives are no longer responsible for the problems the create or manage. If they do resign they receive enhanced severance pay, no risk attached. So why were they paid so much in the first place? The people responsible for our present fiscal problem, the traders and bankers "must" be paid a king's ransom or they will move elsewhere. Where? Switzerland (who is presently worried about their interest rates) or some ill begotten emerging state, perhaps that would be the best place for them. My choice would be to increase the tax rates for people who "earn" more than £150000 as they probably never deserved their pay any way.

    As a matter of interest there used to be a Maximum pay for footballers of £20 per week to stop larger clubs pinching players from the smaller ones. The football was just as good but the players were not idolized as "celebrities".

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Twumasi
    Love rating 2
    Twumasi said

    Well I think they should make the tax free allowance up to £11,563.50 for everybody regardless of salary. This represents minimum wage at 37.5 hours per week.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • credington
    Love rating 1
    credington said

    I'd like to see this go further and a flat rate of tax introduced for everyone. This country is not encouraging enough entrepreneurship.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • damnearperfect
    Love rating 2
    damnearperfect said

    Perhaps the 50% tax rate should go. But not before higher earners paid the full national insurance rate on all their earnings like us lesser mortals

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • man2411
    Love rating 1
    man2411 said

    Personal opinion:

    We should reduce corporate tax to replicate that of Ireland over a five year period for any company, ie tax would decrease every year for five years.

    We should get rid of Sunday Trading laws.

    We should also get rid of Airport Tax making the UK most visited country in the world.

    And finally, probably one that will have the biggest impact and that's us!!! we need to start behaving differently towards British Goods (things British owned or foreign owned but produced in Britain). I don't want to see any French/German made vehicles being driven by any public service. They only drive their own made vehicles.

    Come on guys we can get the UK out of recession and into growth!!!

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • cmp1951
    Love rating 4
    cmp1951 said

    Normal wage earner on 12,000 a year pays combined PAYE an NI of £123.16 per month, i.e. around 12.32%.

    Where does nonat get 33% from?

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • bobmattfran
    Love rating 58
    bobmattfran said

    It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that a tax rate of 50% on earnings over £150,000 would prevent entrepreneurs investing. Remember, that the 50% tax rate is after personal allowances and takes no account of the relief on the other two tax bands. I have no personal axe to grind as I am well over the £150K/annum figure.I can also remember being taxed at the rate of 83pence in the pound on the last £23,000 of my earnings, and that did not deter me from working any harder. I think that the basic problem is greed, people are too quick to complain about paying their taxes, but quite happy to earn the money in the UK and the use as many dubious schemes necessary to avoid paying their fair share. I am quite prepared to pay a higher rate on my earnings

    on the basis that I wish for this country to be successful again. It is an investment, and taxation is the price that I am prepared to pay for that investment. To have the view that it is unfair is absolute nonsense, anyone on a £150k or more a year pays exactly the same rate of VAT for fuel, clothes, cars, furniture and entertainment. Anyone on basic wage pays a much higher proportion of their income on necessities, until this unfair tax is changed and the poorer of society treated more even handedly, then no one earning £15ok a year or more should complain, a little humility and thankfulness for their own financial position would be a start,

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • MikeGG1
    Love rating 878
    MikeGG1 said

    All these measures have been panic driven due to the gross overspending by Labour. Before the 50% rate goes there should be a lot of simplification. All tax should be progressive. Clawbacks should be replaced by starting the next band sooner.

    We have thousands of foreign registered lorries and cars driving round our roads without paying a penny in Road Tax. Why not scrap the Road Tax and include it in the cost of petrol and diesel? Then the foreign vehicles would pay their share and not be at an advantage. I know one French registered car that has been here for over 10 years without payment. They even have the cheek to display the 10 year old insurance label, which makes me assume that they are also driving uninsured. It also proves that the car hasn't been back to France in that time or they would have an up to date insurance label.

    Close the loopholes and straighten out the anomalies and then we can see what else can be afforded.

    Mike

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    Some pretty naive comments here but man2411 yours do border on buffoonery. There are NO normal production British made light commercial vehicles which could be used, for example, as ambulances. British content by value on many overseas assembled vehicles can be as great as some of those produced in plants here because the UK is a world-leading producer of engines and transmissions. You can pick on many areas of engineering and manufacturing where the UK has lost ground but in automotive and aerospace manufacturing, we are stronger than ever.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • krustallos
    Love rating 39
    krustallos said

    First, I'd just like to say "bravo" to Bobmatfran.

    Personally I would certainly not be deterred from applying for a £150k job by the prospect of paying a few more quid in tax and I don't seriously believe anyone else would. It would be interesting to know how many of the 310,000 jobs in question are exportable - my suspicion is that very few are. If we're talking about "talented workers" I'd be very happy for these high earners to go overseas so that I can apply for some of the jobs they vacate.

    For sure very few company directors pay anything like 50% tax when there are so many loopholes they can exploit, so most of the 310,000 will be salaried employees, not "entrepreneurs".

    I'm not sure what the real agenda of these economists is - perhaps they're socialists who correctly realise that the 60 million people in the country who don't earn £150k will be seriously teed off to see only the rich getting a tax cut. However my own recollection from 'O' level Economics is that if you want to stimulate growth you cut taxes on the low paid, because they will spend more of the additional money in their pockets whereas the rich will squirrel it away somewhere.

    There seems to be something of a groundswell worldwide to the effect that the rich should pay more tax, with even Buffet and Bettancourt speaking out. It makes a lot more sense for taxes on the wealthy to be increased everywhere, removing the incentive to become a tax exile and benefitting the majority of the population worldwide. When the richest 2% of the world's population own 50% of the world's wealth, 98% of the population have an interest in redistribution. As soon as they realise it, change will be pretty swift I reckon.

    Report on 12 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • yocoxy
    Love rating 132
    yocoxy said

    The higher paid should pay more tax?

    Hmmm... isn't 40% of £200k more than 40% of £100k?

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mambach
    Love rating 33
    mambach said

    yocoxy: the guy on £200k probably pays less taxes, since he can afford a better tax accountant. See the article on Beckham and his loans from his own company.

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • geejay46
    Love rating 2
    geejay46 said

    The arguments you cite in favour of scrapping the 50p band are not persuasive - they are tired. Ii is doubtful that many entrepreneurs think that they must find a low tax regime before starting out. Britain's international competitiveness is not founded on whether or not it has a 50p tax on income - it is much more complex than that! A tax on aspiration! - it is unlikely that the tax rate is much of a disincentive to any would-be high achiever. Finally since when has £2.7bn been a modest amount of money? Even tinkering with allowances for the least well-off in society will not excuse the scrapping of the 50p band for high earners.

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • joeohara
    Love rating 2
    joeohara said

    The 50% rate is only paid on taxable pay over £150 000, so will still leave a particularly hefty paypacket for most! Your article makes out that the minute people start to earn over that rate they will run for the USA or some tax haven - what a lot of tosh!

    I can just imagine the thought process - entrepreneur thinks up new business scheme, based upon a target audience, and thinks Hmmm, this may make me more than £150K, I'd better move overseas and let someone here run the show! I doubt it very much!

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • spoonfulofdreams
    Love rating 8
    spoonfulofdreams said

    It seems we lose either way which is the same with the banks. The rich have a moral obligation to bear the burden and we know that their clever accountants will reduce their tax bill to a minimum anyway. Those who bail out because they can pay less tax elsewhere clearly show where their loyalties lie. The government should not reward the greedy.

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Chuckwallah
    Love rating 23
    Chuckwallah said

    A "number of economists" think this do they? Would this be the "number of economists" who earn more than £150K? Personally I would love to be in the 50p tax bracket.

    From everything that I have seen and read over the past few decades there appears to be absolutely no correlation between high salaries and talent, in fact the reverse seems to be largely true. Also there appears to be no shortage of people wanting to come to Britain to better themselves financially.

    So, anybody who doesn't like the 50p rate - goodbye and good riddance.

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • grahamft
    Love rating 10
    grahamft said

    I used to work in an industry (IT) where high salaries are far from unusual. Most of our account managers earned way more than £150K per year.

    Not one of them was an "entrepreneur". Not one of them employed anyone else. And when they did spend their "ill-gotten" gains they went abroad to do it, so showering the benefits of their "talents" outside of the UK. So much for the "trickle down" effect!

    I strongly suspect that the vast majority of high salary earners fall into this category. Only a very small minority fall into the category of true entrepreneurs, genuinely generating wealth for the nation rather than (as well as) for themselves.

    I don't see any of the rest rushing to leave the country (or indeed these entrepreneurs) to avoid this "punishing" tax. Most of them would scarcely notice the depredation to their wealth. Most don't know how more quickly to spend what they've got.

    So far no one has proved that removing this tax would do anything other than lead to a shortfall to the Treasury, to be made up, of course, by those far less able to afford to do so. One has to wonder how many of these so-called experts pay the 50p tax rate. All of them I suspect.

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    The thing that really annoys me is the graduated income tax system.

    I fully accept that people should pay income tax, but why do those who earn more pay more as a percentage? Surely the fairest thing is that everyone pays the same percentage - so those who earn more, pay more and those who earn less, pay less in actual numbers but the persentage remains constant.

    In my most humble opinion, there should not be any tax allowance and everyone should pay the same (eg 23% - the actual number could easily be calculated to maintain tax revenues) percentage on everything.

    That is a truly progressive tax system in it's most pure form. Those who earn more, pay more....... and everyone is treated the same.

    Under the current system, the more you earn, the more you pay as a percentage of earnings - how is that fair? Those who earn more are paying more than their fair share.

    The other question is, of course, how did those who earn more get to that situation? The majority (i would assume) got there through hard work and determination.

    Those with the broadest shoulders should carry the most load, and they do. But there is no point is loading them up disproportionately until they break.

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • grahamft
    Love rating 10
    grahamft said

    @iamcoldsteve: Your proposal only makes sense if the things for which people pay are graduated in price in proportion. Sadly they are not. A loaf of bread is still around £1.25 whether you earn £15K or £150K a year.

    They only way a flat rate tax across the board makes any sense at all is if personal allowances are raised to, say, £20K, so ensuring that those at the bottom of the wage scale, the ones who do the real work, have a wage that enables them to survive to a reasonable living standard.

    Sadly, that would leave the Exchequer well short of the revenue the country needs to run essential services and to provide subsistence to those unfortunate enough not to have a job at all.

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • sodit
    Love rating 127
    sodit said

    10% flat tax.

    Get rid of all the people at the Inland Revenue section of HMRC.

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • sodit
    Love rating 127
    sodit said

    Why are banks regulated? Because bankers cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

    Therefore we must have a regulator to ensure they do the right thing.

    So any failure of the banks is a failure of the regulations.

    Gordy the Klepto reformatted the banking regulations in 1997. These were inadequate.

    The guilt for the spread of the crisis to Britain is Gordy's.

    Who put Gordy in power? The Labour voters.

    It would be fair to dig out all the voting slips from the elections, cross reference the serial numbers against the electoral roll, identify who voted Labour, and tax them to pay for the consequences of their choice of government.

    As the Donkey Trader says in the film Pinnochio, "You've had your fun, now it's time to pay".

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    @grahamft

    You are right, and some of my comments were said a little tongue in cheek, others were serious. Yes it annoys me intensely that there is a graduated tax system. A FAIR system would tax people equally, in percentage terms.

    Those who earn more WILL pay more.

    And if some people can't afford things that they "want", then that's tough. I can't afford a yacht, so I have done without one. I'm not talking about 'needs' but only 'wants'.

    Society has got the point that people expect to have everything. If a person doesn't have a large flatscreen TV, games console and a modern mobile phone, do they think they are deprived? Try telling that to the street kids of India who nothing except the shirt on their back.

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • targetblack
    Love rating 3
    targetblack said

    I would do the following:

    1. Re-badge National Insurance as National Health and direct all funds from this specific tax to the NHS. NHS spend £119bn. NI revenue £104.6bn.

    Until people understand the cost of the NHS it will never improve. 3rd largest employer in the world!

    2. Increase the basic tax allowance to £12,000 per person so a family where both parents work could earn the average wage without paying tax or NI.

    3. Create a clear financial divide between the maximum that can be received from benefits and the minimum wage. As an employer there are too many examples of people not taking a job because it would make them worse off.

    4. Which tax to cut first will always come down to "which one will benefit me most". My personal view is that cutting Corporation tax to 0% for Companies with a revenue below £1m would encourage small company growth.

    5. I think the odd tax bump between £100k and £112k should be corrected.

    Overall we need simpler taxation that costs less to administrate and that is fair.

    My definition of fair is that if I work harder to earn more I should not be paying more tax so I would always pursue a single personal tax rate.

    Practically though all of this is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things as the priority has to be converting NEETs into employees. To do that we need to remove the attraction of the benefit system and reward employers for hiring staff.

    I would as an initiative do the following:

    1. Any company recruiting a new employee that is currently receiving one of the existing Govt. payment for being out of work (I hate the word benefit) would receive that payment in full for the first 12 months to contribute to the cost of the wages.

    2. During that first year it would be in the employers interest to train and use that person for work since they are almost free - it is almost an apprenticeship but less formal.

    3. Following 12 months of employment the Govt payment (contribution to wages) to the employer would reduce to 50% however by that time the employer would likely have trained the person up and converted them into a useful member of staff.

    4. 12 months of work would change the behavioural habits of the individual and reintroduce a working mindset.

    5. After 2 years of work the payment would be cut to 25% and following 3 years of work the payment would be cut to 0% by which point a lot of good people that have fallen out of the system would be confident, skilled and useful again. Importantly they would have been converted from living off the system to feeding the system.

    Only by addressing the burden of benefits, welfare etc are we going to create the financial position to cut taxes.

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 265
    oldhenry said

    The Tories need to keep their mates happy , it is as simple as that. Those that pay into Tory funds want a return. That is why corporate taxes are lower now. Also , of course, the Tories have let the likes of Vodafone and others off billions in tax to keep them happy. Crazy.

    my solution is to tax companies on turnover that they earn in the UK, forget profit and loss as it is 'cooked', tax the turnover on a simple percentage. Then there is no benefit in running to a low tax regime or fiddling your books to create international losses.

    If you earn you income from the UK you pay tax in the UK, if you do not make a profit than you pack up and someone else fills your niche.

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    Oldhenry, at least someone will be happy then. So instead of paying 50% tax, they will 'just' be taxed at 40% - hardly a massive difference. Put very basically, if you earned 160K, then 40% of the 10K would be 4K and 50% would be 5K = only a grand difference on a 'earnings' of 160K. Hardly going to make anyone jump for joy I'd have thought.

    Labour, I suppose collected all tax due then, and also definitely didn't announce the sale of the UK gold reserve and so sold at the lowest price possible. Well done Gordon and Blair.

    Report on 13 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • yocoxy
    Love rating 132
    yocoxy said

    Hahaha! graduated pricing for a loaf of bread! Great idea! Then any pay increase is completely meaningless and there's absolutely no incentive for anyone to do anything other than sit around on the dole or work minimum hours for minimum wage..

    It's a ridiculous assertion that the rich pay less because of good accountants.. That's a daily mail classic. My tax bill last year was more than my wife's salary, (in fact around triple), so I'd say that the system is pretty effective in taking a large chunk from higher earners..

    Report on 14 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ECLKWRIG
    Love rating 22
    ECLKWRIG said

    All very laudable, I'm sure; unfortunately, my age is such that I can remember when one of the first Things Margaret Thatcher did when she assumed power, was to cut the top rates of income tax, stating that this would generate more inward investment at home. Unfortunately, Mrs. T. also did away with the sterling exchange controls which previously limited and set restrictions on the amount of sterling which could exit the UK. The result ???..........millions of pounds saved in tax were not invested at home but actually went overseas, leading to a dramatic collapse in UK manufacturing business. I therefore do not believe anyone who states that cutting the top rates of tax will generate more investment at home - its proven hogwash.

    Report on 14 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • grahambond
    Love rating 0
    grahambond said

    Sorry, but I don't think the 50% tax rate should be removed. In times of austerity the treasury needs to recoup as much tax as possible. Although the top rate of tax does contribute a valuable income to the Uk balance sheet, it is not the largest contributor.

    Graham Bond

    http://.www.consilium-ifa.co.uk

    Report on 14 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Quarket
    Love rating 25
    Quarket said

    I wouldn't call 2.7 billion a trivial amount and I doubt that keeping the tax would lose us 2.7 biillions worth of investment which equates to £8709 for each of the 310,000 tax payers. Are these people many of which are in the financial services sector all going to go abroad to save 9K? Much of this 2.7 billion would be taken out of the country anyway for investment elsewhere if it wasn't collected in tax, so the country would not benefit in getting rid of the tax

    Report on 16 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • daalders
    Love rating 1
    daalders said

    Read the latest edition of Private Eye (No. 1297) about who is behind the pressure to cut the top rate of income tax. It's a Tory linked PR firm and a string of Tory friends and relatives and connections to a top banker.

    This may help you to make up your mind about cutting the 50p tax.

    Report on 16 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MMIX
    Love rating 15
    MMIX said

    @daalders - Indeed! What's that phrase again which Osborne used to remind us that we all have to adjust uncomfortably to the change in economic tide? Ah yes! Here it is:

    "You're all in this together."

    Report on 16 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • yocoxy
    Love rating 132
    yocoxy said

    Daalders, are you really suggesting that we should read a comic for political insight and value its rigorous political reporting?

    Did you know that some people in the wild west eat cow pies with the horns sticking out? http://www.dandy.com/

    Report on 23 September 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Virgin Money Credit Card MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.99% fee) Representative 17.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 17.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 17.9% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV3