Sod 'em.

'Nuff said.

Style of thing

And the surprise would be what exactly? Rich, tax avoiding millionaire with political power and lots of similar friends wants to reduce what few taxes are paid by him and his friends so wishes to ditch a 50p tax rate that is bringing in lots of money to help the nation get out of the trouble his friends caused in the first place. Nothing to see here and all that.

Many in politics now really don't seem to care for anything other than a small clique of friends and making (and keeping) as much cash as possible. They're damaging our nation and bringing what's left of our democracy into disrepute and it really is about time things changed. Lets have some honour brought back into politics, fairness too. Please.

It didn't take long for the tories to get this one out we have been expecting it.
I'm not surprised given their promise to limit bonuses and executive pay
which was all hot air.
Dai call me dave looking after his rich mates again, no surprise there then.
Just what this lot of posh, money grabbing, elitist buffoons would do.
Tell us something new about the tories?...........see you next tuesdays all of them........

Doff those caps. Tug those forelocks. Lick those Old Etonian Tory boots.

Plebs.

A couple of observations:

1) I don't think anyone would be surprised that revenues surged in first year of its introduction. Bankers on £5m with a large house, family in schools etc aren't going to be able to decamp to Singapore or Dubai that quickly even if they wanted to. Longer term is the issue as internationally mobile people choose whether to come to London or work elsewhere.

2) The surge in revenues does rather nail the common prejudice held by many on the left that rich bankers avoid paying tax. In fact I spent most of yesterday on CiF rebutting claims by many that tax avoidance was rife amongst the rich. It evidently isn't as easy as you think !

Quelle surprise

Another example of right-wing ideology (High taxes on the rich is bad!) trumping over the evidence and reality of high taxes on the rich being essential to growth.

I'd prefer a 100% tax rate on the rich, but we'll get there eventually.

Ah, this must be the "evidence based' approach we've heard so much about.

Utterly shameful.

Rich, tax avoiding millionaire with political power and lots of similar friends wants to reduce what few taxes are paid by him and his friends so wishes to ditch a 50p tax rate that is bringing in lots of money.

So the rich pay little tax. And yet this tax which only impacts the rich brings in lots of money.

Both those statements can't be right.

Nice to see we're all in this together.

Excellent, sooner we get rid of this puntive tax the better.

I bet there are a few at the Guardian who are looking forward to the 50p tax rate being abolished.

It was meant to be temporary when introduced wasn't it?

The tragedy is that we all know this is what the tories do - yet we lay back and take it. Just what will it take to get the ordinary people of this country on to the streets ?

"It is temporary; we don't want high marginal rates of tax," he said.

Which is also what Darling said when he introduced the 50p tax in 2009.

And yet him and his party ride high in opinion polls! Our country is full of idiots. We deserve all we get.

Why do you hate people who have made a success of themselves so much? You wreak of envy. Nothing more.

The poor rich. how dare we tax them. They NEED that 4th house in the Cotswolds. They NEED this year's new Ferrari. Without it, social standings would suffer. They're wealth creators. They create jobs and wealth! Wealth for themselves!

Well my income taxes went up and so did those of many of my colleagues. Contrary to the widespread myth here on CiF, there's no possible way of avoiding income tax even if you're a highly paid banker. Like me. There is not a single scheme that anyone has ever been able to suggest on these pages which would work for a UK domiciled employee of a bank in the UK.

But, that doesn't stop the left wing narrative about tax-avoidance.

Yeah, getting a bit blatant now.

OK, you print as much money as you can for your mates and call it 'Quantitative Easing' instead of a Taxpayer Money Hand Out. You get away with it because it is so wrapped up in economic trickery no one understands where it actually goes or works, although ironically it doesn't.

But this, bit obvious they want to 'give something back' to the £150k+ a year earners.

Come on Dave, next you need to subsidise the luxury car market, champagne imports/production, caviar imports and make £500k+ art buys tax deductible, the common man demands it.

And the property speculating, debt riddled, consumer sickness middle class continue to vote for these people.

Can't you see they are laughing at you all and want nothing more than to see you with their iron collars back around your necks.

Lovely people and he is the International face of our sick, ugly, speculating, ROI, yields, rotten to the core, smash that window I want a new pair of trainers, get in my fucking way and I'll stamp on your fucking throat society.

Cameron looks like he is trying hard to squeeze one out in the photo above.

Sorry. Can't think of anything constructive to say in yet another example of Tory government by prejudice.

Clegg's got it right. If it's not earning significant extra income then scrap it, but tax the hell out of other stuff like capital gains. But it should be earning a fair bit of extra income, and the top earners should be contributing their fair share.

The very wealthy don't make their money on direct income, or if they do are domiciled for tax elsewhere so don't pay. Tax the private incomes and make sure tax is being collected.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

We are all in it together unless you are fortunate to earn over £150000 per year. Poor Cameron doesn't want to upset his party donors too much having, grudgingly I imagine, insinuated legislation of fat cat bonusses.

With the current and growing deficit, he seems happy to let the less well off continue take the strain. How much does, for example, the premier league army of footballers contribute in 50% taxes, or the highly paid employees in the banking sector? They are party in contributing significant extra funds in its first year a report suggests.

Why do you hate people who have made a success of themselves so much? You wreak of envy. Nothing more.

And you sirrah reek (correct spelling) of greed!

I think (if the evidence shows benefit) then it should be kept until 2014/ tax year end

despite a report suggesting that it raised significant extra funds in its first year.

....but....but....but the right-wing preached on almost every media outlet available to them (and boy oh boy didn't they all have them on o spread their nonsense about this one) that this would & could never happen.

It just goes to show how the standard right-wing narrative is just a self-centred load of old tosh.
As for the argument that in following years the tax-take from this will drop?
We'll see ought to be the reply (and we'll close further loopholes to minimise that happening).

Of course it can become counter-productive if it goes to far but the top rate @ 50% is historically low for the UK.

Thatcher had a 60% top rate for many years & I don't recall too many of her pals back then calling her time a 'Marxist hell'.

I wouldn't put it past Cameron's gang to try to ditch this but as they keep telling us the Gov finances are dire.....so what sort of rational could possibly be put forward (with a straight face) that ditching a surprisingly productive tax is a good thing?

Why do you assume rich people's money was due to their own success? Your assumptions 'wreak' of privilege.

You're all in it together down there.

I know more than a few well-off left-leaning people who supported the tax increase.

But, that doesn't stop the left wing narrative about tax-avoidance.

But it does support the left-wing narrative about higher tax rates being valuable and useful in raising tax receipts.

Keep the 50p rate.

Thank you. I was actually wondering how to spell that.

I pay BRT. Hardly earning the big bucks.

Why should the person who works hard their whole life through school, university and in their career owe people who refuse to take the educational and other advantages that are provided for them? Who essentially refuse to compete.

Granted that support should be there for those of below average intelligence, the disabled and the infirm.

I think Dave just does what The Economist tells him every week,

this was heavily hinted in this week's issue.

As usual looking after the better off in society to the detriment of the poor who will have to make up the shortfall - well done Mr. Cameron!

maughanlibrary
9 January 2012 11:07AM
Response to Overhead, 9 January 2012 11:02AM
Why do you hate people who have made a success of themselves so much? You wreak of envy. Nothing more.

The hate comes from your direction only. People just want to see fairness.

As a staunch Thatcherite you be quite happy to see the her rates return.

70% up until 1988 !.

Id be up for that.

btw. Inheriting large sums of money for sitting on you're arse is not 'making a success' is it ?

It isn't 1750 chief. They aren't all aristocrats.

So a cut in welfare spending for the rest of us (effectively a tax increase) and an eye to cut the tax for the richest members of society making them even richer.

Lower than vermin.

£12,000 tax-free for those on minimum wage please. How about enabling the not-so-well-off to survive, rather than just helping the wealthy to become even more wealthy...?

The problem with the 50% rate is not the impact it has on those currently living in the UK, but those who are currently deciding whether to base themselves in London, New York, Hong Kong, Zurich, Singapore or Dubai. Little Englanders can't understand this, but London - you know, that bit in the south east that generates all the UK's money? - is an international financial centre, populated by people from all over the world whose presence here benefits everyone.

There are other financial capitals too, unfortunately, but only in London does half your income get taken away and given over to gold-plated public sector pension pots.

As for the argument that in following years the tax-take from this will drop?
We'll see ought to be the reply (and we'll close further loopholes to minimise that happening).

You really haven't a clue have you.

A large percentage of the highest earners in the UK aren't British citizens. As a guesstimate I'd say the majority of million pound plus bankers in the City don't have British passports.

They're working in Canary Wharf at the moment but if offered the choice of moving to Dubai (on zero tax) or the more fun Hong Kong or Singapore (10-20% tax) then many will take it. They're not British and have no family or cultural ties to the UK.

No amount of "closing tax loopholes" is going to stop bankers who happen to be French, Argentinian or Lebanese nationals from deciding not to put up with London's high taxes, poor weather and crowded public transport and moving elsewhere.

....but....but....but the right-wing preached on almost every media outlet available to them (and boy oh boy didn't they all have them on o spread their nonsense about this one) that this would & could never happen

No, we preached (correctly) that it would have negative long term consequences.

To avoid punitive income taxes often requires moving abroad - which takes a significant amount of time to plan, especially if you're moving an entire company or sizable department.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

I'd prefer a 100% tax rate on the rich, but we'll get there eventually.

That's going a bit far, even for me. I favour something like 80-90%, at least in the short term. Long term, I'd like to see no more than a fivefold gap between the lowest and highest earners. So if minimum wage were 20K, maximum would be 100K. The highest salary for a FTSE boss is currently £12million I believe, so to get that down to 120K would amazingly require a 99% tax rate. Lovely!

That still leaves the problem of static wealth and property, which is far more disproportionate than income. The very poorest own almost nothing, whereas the richest, the likes of the Duke of Westminster, don't earn a salary but possess incredible wealth.

Osbourne's family put their business in trust to avoid paying taxes.

Tory party is 56% funded by the city of London.

Lobbying continues unabated in the Houses Of Parliament.

Cameron and indeed anyone else is bought and paid for .

BAN LOBBYING NOW.

This won't stop entrepreneurs, they (we) aren't on PAYE taxation anyway. They only people the 50% tax rate affects are those employees who get paid over £150k a year (effectively £200k a year as they'll be putting £50k a year into pensions).

This is pretty much only footballers, bankers and FTSE CEO's. None of those groups can really claim to be in need of extra support.

And to put the 50% rate into perspective any graduate under the new student loan scheme will be paying 40% on earnings over £21k under the new scheme (11%NI, 20% tax and 9% student loans) and 51% over £40k (40% tax, 9% student loans and 2% NI).

In other words a student will be paying a higher tax percentage than Wayne Rooney once they reach the higher tax band.

Same old rhetoric from the Flashman bully - Big Society for the Rich, Beg Society for the Poor.

Relax...

HMRC just sets the rate you have to pay.

There's nothing to stop you paying more if you want to.

Just tell your accountant to leave your rate at 50%.

Sorted.

The tragedy is that we all know this is what the tories do - yet we lay back and take it.

I don't, I actively encourage it

Just what will it take to get the ordinary people of this country on to the streets ?

Free chicken McNuggets.....

When Alistair Darling increased the top rate of income tax in 2009, it was touted as a temporary move to help deal with the country’s ballooning deficit. The rationale was simple. The wealthiest in society (for wealthiest, see bankers) caused the crash, so they should pay to clear it up. The new rate would be temporary and assessed in the future.

So is it OK to be assessed by Labour politicians and nobody else? In any case, it isn't going to be changed until at least 2015, so what's the fuss about. Labour had 13 years to raise the highest rate of income tax and did it one year before a general election, yet it seems that it is now set in stone. Why?