Can anyone defend the removal of the 45% tax on top earners

[jack_lord]

Please, I want to know how this is possible when there is a full on cost of living crisis.

 

[Pegojack]

Trickle down economics, mun.

When a billionaire buys his next Aston Martin, it creates jobs for peasants like you, washing his windscreen with a bucket and sponge when he pulls up at the traffic lights.

 

[Neath_Jack]

No, but people will still vote for them in their droves next GE. Welsh working class people as well :roll:

 

[Jack2jack]

I can think of two. Liz Truss and KK.
For those with half a brain, there is no justification, just look at the news to see what a basket case this country is. Shambles.

 

[jack_lord]

The government, Under Truss, are going to increase benefits in line with average earnings as opposed to inflation. This would save the government £5bn. In contrast, its decision to lower the top tax rate of 45% for people earning over £150,000 a year will cost £2bn, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
So the poorest are helping fund the removal of the 45% bracket. Basically then they will struggle to get food and heating so the wealthiest can put more in to their savings for retirement or get bigger boats.

 

[Professor]

There is no justification. The standard rate of tax is fine at 20% and makes more sense to increase allowances at the lower end than reduce the percentage of tax taken. I've always been struck that a sliding scale -say 20% under 40K, 30% 40-70K, 40% 70-120 and 50% over 120K would be fairer than the current system where high earners (60-100K) have a relatively high tax burden whilst the very high earners are relatively more protected.

 

[jack_lord]

So it turns out that they can't actually defend the removal of the 45% bracket (as things stand)
The rumour is that Truss is hoping to break the record for the shortest serving Prime Minister and Boris really believes he will be back.

 

[MajorR]

Boris is well despised by a significant proportion of the UK public, but he does have his supporters in the Conservative Party and it’s fire voter base. To survive, Truss will need to ensure that Boris is unable to return. One of the easiest ways to do that is to enable the Standards Committee to complete their enquiry unhindered, if they find the evidence to support the claim Boris lied he’s toast and one less rival/problem for her.

Truss and her allies are treading a dangerous path, the latest is that they’re looking at a bonfire of workers rights - if they @@@@ on the electorate nobody will vote for them.

If they were going to borrow money for anything it should be to improve the infrastructure and energy security. Despite previous assurances from Truss, it now looks like there is a reasonably fair chance we could run out of gas this winter and have blackouts. We should be upgrading the National Grid and getting as many renewables up and running as we can, we also need to reopen the gas storage site in the North Sea as we have virtually no storage capability. OPEC (including Russia) are looking to cut oil production be 1m barrels a day, if we can build up a good base of renewables supported by gas in the short term we can have a more secure energy supply which costs less.

 

[Jackmanandboy]

I heard an interesting debate on this on Radio 4 including the fact that when George Osbourne cut the highest tax rate, tax revenues went up by £8 Billion. Presently our tax take is at an historic high, a level where people start to look to avoid tax, there is a risk that the tax take is already in decline.
The top 1% pay 34% of Uk taxes, these are usually mobile and well resourced people. A golden visa can be obtained in Portugal for as little as E250,000 this gives you full EU residency.
The tax rules on NHS doctors mean that they get no tax relief when their pension pot reaches £1.1M. Doctors are threatening action because of this. However the NHS pension pot is tax payer funded, I would not complain if I had a £1.1M pension pot with annuity rates on the increase!
What is politically acceptable, what the systemic issues are and what the simplistic media report makes things more opaque. The days of cheap money are over, across the globe interest rate are up, inflation is an aid to countries whom have built up large amount of debt.The financial systems are in a state of reset.

 

[jack_lord]

It is unusual for radio 4 not to give the full facts on the removal of the 50% tax. Revenues did increase by that much, but tax receipts were artificially low in 2012/13 and artificially high in 2013/14 due to people ‘deferring’ income from one tax year to another in order to benefit from the lower tax rate. So this can’t be described as the amount of money raised by the reduction in the rate. Which is an example of how greedy fat cats roll.
Should people earning more have a higher tax rate? Is it unfair. I hear some of my more wealthy associates bang on about there being no incentive to earn more because of the amount of tax they pay. I say this is not true as they just want to earn more. They get the same basic tax breaks and even though they are paying more when the wages get beyond 150000 then they are earning a very healthy salary that most can only dream of and if they were asked would you be happy to pay 45% tax if they were to give someone on a low income that salary, I presume they would bite your hands off.