Should the 50p tax rate be abolished?

Of course they will.

This is a Government made up of the 1%, run for the benefit of the 1%.

Why not? Everything else this government does is to the detriment of the poor and benefit of the rich. Osborne says that having the rate does not work. If it does not work then why does he want to get rid of it so badly? He claims people find ways around the tax with fancy accounting... but if it does not work as he claims, then he would not be wasting so much time and energy in trying to scrap it.

Well, it should be abolished, but only as a part of a comprehensive reform that would abolish progressive taxation and all benefits, and introduce universal basic income as the alternative mechanism to ensure redistribution and basic decency.

But in the current system, abolishing it is a travesty.

And why on earth, are we having to come on hear to speak up, rather than have Ed Milliband speak up for us? He never attacks these things properly. IF he did, I would notice. IF people are not noticing, he needs a new strategy to get people to notice, and QUICKLY. If he cant do this- he needs to get out the way for someone who can do it.

If it raises more money, then no.

If it doesn't raise more money, then yes.

All evidence suggests that it does raise more money. So it really should not go - it's not punitive, kicking in only at incomes over £150,000 - literally the top 1% of earners.

If there is a proposal to replace it with a better tax—property or general wealth—that raises more money from wealthier people, then by all means go for it.

Of course the 50p tax rate should be abolished. How are key Tory fundraisers, who also pose on TV as celebrity chefs, meant to pay for their Tescos cheese and wine, unless the 50p rate is abolished?

I say no. Interesting if Labour were to have a spine on this issue which way would they go ? I won't hold my breath for a decisive answer from the idiot Ed's.

How is it a moral outrage for the state NOT to take half your income?

Oh well, come to merry England where the more you make the more you're despised and the more people demand that you be relieved of your wealth.

But it's in the name of 'fairness' so that's ok then.

It must be obvious to all that rich people should not be expected to carry to pay extra tax when they spend enough on clever accountants and such already.
Aren't there enough benefit claimants sick and disabled whose handouts could be raided to provide some of the extra revenue needed to pay for essential schemes such as HSR.
It is so imperative that first class rail passengers do not spend more time on trains than absolutely necessary.

Eat the rich.

No and yes. There should be a standard flat tax level about the personal tax allowance of 43%, which is effectiely what everyone on PAYE pays now anyway (when employers and employees NI is taken in to account) but this is hidden (Employers should be forced to transfer their current 12% contributions to the employee and minimum wage should be adjusted to account for this).

The stealth tax removal of the personal allowance between 100 and £114.5k should be abolished (an effective tax rate of 63%)

The 53% (which includes NI) tax rate should kick in at £100k.

A much simpler system, which means far less scope for unfair avoidance

No, the tax on road vehicle fuels should be cut instead.

I don't think anybody should be taxed more than 49.9% of income so cut the 50% by 0.1%.... its the sort of empty gesture this government would make towards the 99% of us.

I don't know how much good 50% will do long term. I was happy to pay it for a short while but it has made me investigate completely legal ways to reduce the tax I have to pay, that otherwise I might not have bothered.

Besides lower rates, what would also help is the government making better use of the tax we pay, then maybe more people wouldn't be as reluctant to pay it.

I wish I earned enough to be able to pay a 50% tax rate. I'd be delighted if I was in a position to be paying £1,000,000 or more a year tax.

It should stay, though ideally we would all pay less tax, and 50% is a huge wedge.

I think the policy of having a low capital gains tax to encourage investment is a bit problematic. What it really does is reward people who have money simply for the fact of having money (as their returns on it will usually be capital gains rather than income). A good balance would be to raise capital gains tax and lower income tax.

I wish I earned enough to be able to pay a 50% tax rate. I'd be delighted if I was in a position to be paying £1,000,000 or more a year tax.

How is it a moral outrage for the state NOT to take half your income?

Oh well, come to merry England where the more you make the more you're despised and the more people demand that you be relieved of your wealth.

But it's in the name of 'fairness' so that's ok then.

Well, because we're talking about the top 1% of earners - the richest people in the UK. It's not about being "despised," but about the idea that people who can afford it should pay a higher percentage of their income. It's a perfectly valid position, although obviously open for discussion - for example, would a wealth tax be a more effective and fair approach?

(It's not just England, you know...)

I would be more surprised if the Tories wanted to keep the 50% rate. It it typical of them, cut taxes for the rich and take benefits away from the poor. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

'....It's the rich what gets the pleasure
It's the poor that gets the blame....'

Nothing changes.

How is it a moral outrage for the state NOT to take half your income?

Except its not half your income, is it? Its half of your income over £150K, which is enough money for anyone to live on very nicely.

And its not as if you don't get anything for your money, what with all those schools, hospitals, roads, etc, etc.

Plus, you don't tend to 'earn' that sort of money without ripping off some poor sod somewhere along the line.

I really am pissed off with dimwitted politicians thinking that we're all as fucking thick as they are. So thick that we'd swallow any of their crap.

Cameron's "performance" on TV, where he gave the terminally stupid the impression that fat-cat pay would be reined in with his latest wheeze, when he and 75% of the population could hear the bollocks in his suggestion, we then have this getting rid of the 50p tax-rate with some plonkers suggesting that it doesn't collect in a lot more tax, when clearly it does.

Added to his mind-boggling stupidity of name calling of Ed Balls, and his London-centric "lecture" and threats to 5 million Scots, then we can see his upbringing has left him totally unsuitable for his current position.

Time he went. Lots of Tories know that too.

How true, but with Dwayne Dibleyband and his shadowy bunch of goons drooling and squeaking on the opposition benches, it could be an eternity.

Abolish it - and replace it with a 60% rate.

Downing Street: broadest shoulders must carry tax burden
People with “the broadest shoulders should contribute the most”, Downing Street said today, after The Telegraph disclosed the 50p tax rate will not be axed before 2015.

A senior Government source said last night: “This is not now something we are moving on any time soon.” Another source said: We are repeatedly emphasising the need for those with the broadest shoulders to do more.

The Daily Telegraph understands that an annual assessment of the tax's impact on enterprise will be made and the levy will be scrapped before 2015 only in the 'unlikely event' that evidence shows that it is damaging the economy.

Daily Telegraph 9 January

I think this answers the question at the head of this article. Cameron's comments have been taken out of context by the Guardian to create their own headline: [Government is committed to abolishing 50p tax rate].

But anyway, don't mind me. Please carry on.

Plus, you don't tend to 'earn' that sort of money without ripping off some poor sod somewhere along the line.

I don't think that's a fair characterisation: it would probably be better to keep it civil.

£150,000 is a lot of money, but it's quite possible for a senior public servant or higher-level manager to earn that kind of money, and it's less than 7 times the average. I'd be much more concerned about the people who are able to avoid paying income tax entirely.

So the message to any budding Bill Gates or Steve Jobs is 'if your products are so popular and people buy them in such numbers that you make loads of money then you'll become one of the 1% and we can call for your head on a plate and be morally entitled to do so'.

Name we ONE public servant who SHOULD be on that money? And if you do, you can bet you're bottom dollar, they're pen-pushers and semi-permanent holders of pointless meetings.

So the message to any budding Bill Gates or Steve Jobs is 'if your products are so popular and people buy them in such numbers that you make loads of money then you'll become one of the 1% and we can call for your head on a plate and be morally entitled to do so'.

No, pretty obviously not - you're being willingly ignorant.

The message is: if you do well and make loads of money, then we expect you to contribute a greater proportion of that money to the public good. It's not punitive.

Quite aside from anything else, the richest people aren't paying income tax at all.

Not only should the 50p rate go, so should the 40p rate as well.
And so should National Insurance, which is effectively Income tax.
And so should NIEE which is a tax on employing people.
Tax free allowances should be increased so that no one pays tax on incomes below £15,000.
Taxation should be flat rate at 20%. Anything higher is simply state theft.

How do we pay for this?

Ensure that everyone pays.
No more loopholes for Vodafone & Top Shop etc.
Make it cheaper to pay the tax than pay an accountant to avoid the tax.
Make the Olympics the last vanity project we waste money on.
Stop invading countries that are not invading or threatening us.

Sorry Brouillard - I didn't quite understand your calculation but we may be thinking along similar lines.

Here's my answer to the OP question "Should the 50% rate be scrapped". No - the exact opposite. By which I mean the 50% rate should be preserved and its threshold steadily but substantially reduced from the current £150,000, progressively increasing universal PAYE allowances to compensate.

Eventually, this would squeeze out the 20% and 40% bands so PAYE is only levied at 50% . I calculate this would need to be levied on an allowance of about £21,500 to generate a comparable revenue to the present system.

By my reckoning, about 14,000,000 people currently paying income tax (in the income band £7,450 to £21,500) would be relieved of that burden. Similarly there would be a large reduction in the administrative burden of PAYE.

The next 6,000,000 (income £21,500 to about £40,000) would be better off. Everyone over £40,000 would pay more.

A single tax rate can narrow the gap between rich and poor while simultaneously realising a sense of national "all in it together" unity.

Two points -

1) Over the last twenty years we have been a pretty bloody wealthy nation, and an upper rate of 40% should have been enough with which to fund a healthy welfare state. Problems that already existed with the NHS and educations sysytems before the Tories turned up were not down to not having enough money! So the notion that we actually need that additional 10% to pay for anything is questionable.

2) More importantly, we could abandon the 50% rate tomorrow and still be better off if Cameron commited to closing down offshore tax arrangments and get HMRC to stop letting big companies get away with not paying their corporation tax!!

Wouldn't mind seeing a poll of Cameron's approval rating amongst tory part members?

I suspect it would be much lower than his overall poll rating.

How is it a moral outrage for the state NOT to take half your income?

It doesn't take half your income. It takes half of what you earn over £150 000.

When the minimum wage is about 10% of this, I cannot see how these ludicrous amounts of pay are justified.

Name we ONE public servant who SHOULD be on that money? And if you do, you can bet you're bottom dollar, they're pen-pushers and semi-permanent holders of pointless meetings.

That's a pretty knee-jerk reaction. I tend to hold the opinion that public servants should be paid approximately the same as equivalent jobs in the private sector. There are a few headteachers, senior civil servants, and senior officials on that money - not too many though.

Here's a list of senior officials. Unfortunately can't find figures for the civil service at the moment. Linky

See "Laffer curve".

Unless the purpose of the tax is "to punish rich".

The problem is fat cats ask for and get higher wages to take account of high taxes .The only answer is a much higher minimum wage to reduce the gap, not higher taxes.Its wrong and counterproductive that these fat cats are in effect being subsidized through the low wages in service industries every time they have a coffee or restaurant meal and we pay higher taxes than we would if such workers were better paid.

The problem is fat cats ask for and get higher wages to take account of high taxes

The evidence of the last thirty years is that they ask for and get higher wages despite their tax going down.

How is it a moral outrage for the state NOT to take half your income?

Oh well, come to merry England where the more you make the more you're despised and the more people demand that you be relieved of your wealth.

But it's in the name of 'fairness' so that's ok then.

Except the state does not take half your income. It taxes half of every pound earned over and above the threshold of £150,000 per year and for dividends, it is only 42.5%.

Like those earning more than £150k cannot afford it !! But we have a government whose primary concern and primary interest is those who already have more than they need so undoubtedly those less well-off and those struggling will be forced to make-up the shortfall so the super wealthy can accumulate more wealth. It is wrong but that does not seem to worry the Conservatives.

Anyone who believes Britain is a democracy really needs to wake up. Our government will always be motivated by those at the top of the financial ladder (AKA the 1%).

At least countries such as China and Russia are not so sly in hiding that fact.

Cameron will always his super-rich school chums over the country he was 'elected' to serve.

If we cut tax then tax revenues will increase. I am not for a ridiculously low Russian style flat tax, but clearly we need to keep our rates competitive in a globalised world if we want to return to growth. Increase taxes on the higher end of the housing market and inheritance to make up for any short term losses. We need to force money out of real estate anyway.

"and it's less than 7 times the average."

Oh. Is that all?

That's alright then.

Unfortunately you're right, they need to ditch Ed and soon, otherwise we'll be paying for it a lot more down the line!

50p tax rate doesn't equal the state taking half your income

"I don't think anybody should be taxed more than 49.9% of income so cut the 50% by 0.1%.... "

I quite agree with you. But the tax on road vehicle fuels is over 130% of the retail price before tax.

Even if it doesn't raise as much revenue as we would like, It should be kept at least to try and pretend that we are all in it together..... just as a token gesture to the people that have really suffered. "Look, we're suffering too... we get taxed on our extraordinarily high salaries!"

And so should National Insurance, which is effectively Income tax.

National Insurance is actually different from an income tax. e.g. I pay all my income tax whereas an employer pays a component of NI. e.g. when you move overseas to many EU countries the health cover you get and for how long depends on your NI payment history (your income tax history is irrelevant) e.g. when your retire your basic state pension amount depends on your NI payment history (your income tax history is irrelevant).

It is the Conservatives who want to remove the tax burden on the companies and move it to the individual who are putting around that NI is effectively an income tax. Reason: to relieve companies of their component so companies make bigger profits creating bigger profits meaning bigger dividends whilst, employees have a higher tax burden - and do you really think your pay will increase when the tax increases. My pay has never been changed to reflect government changing tax rates ! So it is just another ploy to move more money from the less well-off to the better-off.

"See "Laffer curve".

Unless the purpose of the tax is "to punish rich"."

Ah yes, the well-known unproven bullshit beloved of all right wingers who desperately need to prove that the problem is with poor people, rather than rich people evading tax.

Very good. Have a banana.

"If we cut tax then tax revenues will increase"

But the indication is that the 50% rate is bringing more tax in? If even the Torygraph is reporting it, then perhaps it might be that you would be willing to pay attention to them? I know 'lefty' pubs like the Graun can't be trusted, as they don't always follow the Mail/Express/Torygraph line, so best look to your spiritual home for this shattering piece of news.

Fascist scum !

I'm dreadfully sorry, I really don't know, that just popped out. They're not, obviously, theya re just right wing conservative F...f.....f aaaargh.

Some of us really don't mind paying tax. My priorities are, first, to pay the bils, and second, to live in a civilised society.

That civilised society started the day we started sharing our resources for the common good.

And forgive the pompous tone.