Higher taxes or higher tax revenue?

There are often complaints about state spending on one thing or another on this forum. I'm curious as to whether the forumers are aware of the Laffer curve:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Whilst I appreciate the attractiveness ideologically of, in the Robin Hood vein, collecting more from the rich to give to the poor; we may have already reached the peak of what we can in practise collect from the rich.

It is my impression that the 45% income tax rate is beyond the peak of the Laffer curve for income tax. The 50% rate certainly was. I base this on the fact that when the top rate was reduced from 95% to 60% and then later 40% in the early '80s, tax revenue from the wealthiest went up. Furthermore income tax revenue from the rich has gone up since the rate was reduced from 50% to 45%, having fallen when it went from 40% to 50%.

A similar case can be made for capital gains tax, as revenue from that has also gone down since the rate was increased.

So my question I suppose is this: If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that cutting the top rate of income tax would actually increase tax revenue from the rich, would you support it?

Flat tax is the answer.

Flat tax is the answer.

I don't think that taxing flats would be an answer.

So my question I suppose is this: If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that cutting the top rate of income tax would actually increase tax revenue from the rich, would you support it?

Yes, but then it would be a good idea to raise more taxes on the rich by other means.

I think 50% is about right, our problem is not how much tax we raise, just that we have over spent and have too large a debt.

Yes, but then it would be a good idea to raise more taxes on the rich by other means.

I think 50% is about right, our problem is not how much tax we raise, just that we have over spent and have too large a debt.

What would you suggest?

Also, where would you cut spending?

I'm curious as to whether the forumers are aware of the Laffer curve:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

There is a certain validity to the idea that raising taxes to a high level ultimately reduces tax incomes. Look at the late 70s in the UK. The top marginal rate of income tax under the Callaghan-Healey government of 1976-79 was 98 per cent. We should have been ROLLING in cash, yes?

No.

That was the same era when the UK had to go cap in hand to the IMF for a loan. FACT.

Embittered and impoverished lefties just don't understand why those with a bit of cash don't want to be dragged down to their level. If they have to leave the country to do so, they will.

A clear sign of the times occured in 1979 when the Bond film Moonraker came out.

The main shooting was switched from the usual 007 Stage at the Pinewood Studios to France, due to high taxation in England at the time.

LINK

So British studios and British technicians lost work and the government got no tax income at all. Brilliant.

The model in the Netherlands is low tax on business, high tax on individuals. I personally can see the merit in that, although it is very frustrating for those in employment at times.

Tax should be seen as part of a system and needs to be balanced to encourage investment whilst keeping the state in cash.

I am not rich , and am no particular friend of the wealthy and I'm taking no sides in this debate.

But I would be interested to see how people can justify taxing one set of individuals more than others just because they are successful.

Bearing in mind that ..If some of these people were not successful then a lot more people would be out of work.

If people are to be punished for being wealthy in the UK then we should perhaps not complain if they choose to invest their money elsewhere.

.

I am not rich , and am no particular friend of the wealthy and I'm taking no sides in this debate.

 

But I would be interested to see how people can justify taxing one set of individuals more than others just because they are successful.

 

Bearing in mind that ..If some of these people were not successful then a lot more people would be out of work.

 

If people are to be punished for being wealthy in the UK then we should perhaps not complain if they choose to invest their money elsewhere.

.

or maybe everybody should pay the same rate of tax regardless of income

I think that it's very fair to have a lower tax rate if you earn less.

What would you suggest?

Mr Bloomfield told HMRC that, despite his lavish lifestyle, he did not own any property or have any income. The notes of the meeting say: “Bloomfield advised that he has never paid a bill and never received a bill and when he needed money it was sent to him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hmrc-failed-to-prosecute-british-property-mogul-who-did-not-pay-any-tax-for-20-years-10046050.html

To solve issues like the above, I think you would need to be an expert, or just get HMRC to do their job properly.

Make it a criminal offense not to declare your income and pay tax on it.

Also, where would you cut spending?

Make benefits reduce over time, so if people fall on hard times they get help, and they would have time to sort themselves out, before their benefits stopped. People may need help, not money.

Make pensions independent of the tax system, so what you pay in you get back.

Make someone living on benefits, get less than someone working 35 hours per week, if that is not the case now. Put the basic rate of VAT(20%) on domestic fuel.

Once we have paid off our debt, we can spend the same as we are spending today, and it looks like George Osborn has it sorted.

Mr Bloomfield told HMRC that, despite his lavish lifestyle, he did not own any property or have any income. The notes of the meeting say: “Bloomfield advised that he has never paid a bill and never received a bill and when he needed money it was sent to him.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hmrc-failed-to-prosecute-british-property-mogul-who-did-not-pay-any-tax-for-20-years-10046050.html

 

To solve issues like the above, I think you would need to be an expert, or just get HMRC to do their job properly.

Make it a criminal offense not to declare your income and pay tax on it.

 

 

 

Make benefits reduce over time, so if people fall on hard times they get help, and they would have time to sort themselves out, before their benefits stopped. People may need help, not money.

Make pensions independent of the tax system, so what you pay in you get back.

Make someone living on benefits, get less than someone working 35 hours per week, if that is not the case now. Put the basic rate of VAT(20%) on domestic fuel.

Once we have paid off our debt, we can spend the same as we are spending today, and it looks like George Osborn has it sorted.

I think IDS's universal credit is intended to achieve exactly what you describe in benefits.

I'm pretty sure that not declaring income is already a serious crime. Not that HMRC don't screw up.

Privatising pensions completely is a bit drastic.