United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Everything else > Money
Reply
 
Unread 11-10-2017, 08:12 PM
Cream
 
Default Higher taxes for the rich would not affect growth - IMF.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ment-106638460

Quote:
Higher income tax rates for the rich would help reduce inequality without having an adverse impact on growth, the International Monetary Fund has said.

In an analysis certain to be seized on by Labour as backing for its tax strategy, the IMF used its influential half-yearly fiscal monitor to attack the rationale for the reductions in tax for the highest earners in recent decades.

The IMF said tax theory suggested there should be “significantly higher” tax rates for those on higher incomes but the argument against doing so was that hitting the rich would be bad for growth.

“Empirical results do not support this argument, at least for levels of progressivity that are not excessive,” the IMF said, adding that different types of wealth taxes might also be considered.
Thoughts?
 
Unread 11-10-2017, 08:18 PM
rockored2
 
Default

The rich don't pay tax
 
Unread 11-10-2017, 08:41 PM
Harri Jaffa
 
Default

This is well known information. We have a government that are in power to serve those with money already...
 
Unread 11-10-2017, 09:02 PM
red red robbo
 
Default

You can only raise tax rates if you can be sure you're actually going to be able to collect them. Rules need tightening up and enforcing first.

Most people will have a point where they are going to try to avoid paying tax. Personally I don't think the government should take more than 50% of anything anyone earns.
 
Unread 11-10-2017, 09:32 PM
My Name is Keith
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red red robbo
You can only raise tax rates if you can be sure you're actually going to be able to collect them. Rules need tightening up and enforcing first.

Most people will have a point where they are going to try to avoid paying tax. Personally I don't think the government should take more than 50% of anything anyone earns.
Totally - probably should always be less than 50% too. Bigger issue for me is clamping down on tax evasion/avoidance and then looking more carefully about what it's spent on. Funding cross rail or any london infrastructure for that matter can get to f***. There should be an enormous programme of geographical redistribution to assist the regions.
 
Unread 11-10-2017, 09:51 PM
Cream
 
Default

When the Beatles wrote Taxman, they were being hammered for over 90% of their earnings.

Also, they were living in mansions.
 
Unread 11-10-2017, 10:59 PM
red in cumbria
 
Default

The neoliberal consensus - which began taking hold in the 1970s - is coming apart before our eyes.
 
Unread 12-10-2017, 06:06 AM
tatty
 
Default

Depends what you're calling rich.

Is it someone earning £2m per year?

Or does envy and bitterness work all the way down to someone earning just £150,000?
 
Unread 12-10-2017, 06:10 AM
Bunker Buster
 
Default

Just £150k

That's rich in my opinion and national statistics on earners.
 
Unread 12-10-2017, 07:22 AM
red red robbo
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunker Buster
Just £150k

That's rich in my opinion and national statistics on earners.
It's all relative isn't. Most people consider rich to mean "people with more money than me".
 
Unread 12-10-2017, 08:52 AM
irk
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by My Name is Keith
Totally - probably should always be less than 50% too. Bigger issue for me is clamping down on tax evasion/avoidance and then looking more carefully about what it's spent on. Funding cross rail or any london infrastructure for that matter can get to f***. There should be an enormous programme of geographical redistribution to assist the regions.
Agreed, Merseyside should be detached and punted out to sea.
 
Unread 12-10-2017, 08:55 AM
Cream
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunker Buster
Just £150k

That's rich in my opinion and national statistics on earners.
150k and you're starting to worry about having to wear a bog standard Rolex thanks to evil taxes, and those expensive kids you decided to spawn. Also the soon to be ex-wife you cheated on with hookers you paid for with your big f*** off salary.

But enough about Marlo.

The point is to start taking the onus off the poor and placing it on the supporters and architects of austerity. See how their 'low spend, small gov' resolve holds up then.
 
Unread 12-10-2017, 10:18 AM
silv
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunker Buster
Just £150k

That's rich in my opinion and national statistics on earners.
You would pay at least £60k tax on that already, not including student loan.
 
Unread 12-10-2017, 10:28 AM
red red robbo
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silv
You would pay at least £60k tax on that already, not including student loan.
So only £90k then?

I would still consider that pretty well off
 
Unread 12-10-2017, 10:42 AM
silv
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red red robbo
So only £90k then?

I would still consider that pretty well off
its well off of course it is!

But on 150k you're paying £60k tax! Its a good amount.

Where is the incentive to earn £150k if you're taking home £75k?

Again, still well off but people have ambition. And the money they take home is going back into the economy anyway. I find it bizarre is all. We don't want to send all the talented, bright ambitious people to shit holes like Abu Dhabi do we?
 
Unread 12-10-2017, 10:44 AM
Bunker Buster
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silv
You would pay at least £60k tax on that already, not including student loan.
Yeah, course you would
 
Unread 12-10-2017, 10:48 AM
red red robbo
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silv
its well off of course it is!

But on 150k you're paying £60k tax! Its a good amount.

Where is the incentive to earn £150k if you're taking home £75k?

Again, still well off but people have ambition. And the money they take home is going back into the economy anyway. I find it bizarre is all. We don't want to send all the talented, bright ambitious people to shit holes like Abu Dhabi do we?
Is it though? BMWs, Mercs etc isn't putting money back in (apart from the dealers cut).

It is important that people feel incentivised to make money, but it's also important to recognise that they don't end up rich and successful entirely because of their own efforts. There is an entire country's worth of infrastructure that has allowed them to get to where they are going and they are probably taking advantage of that to make money, especially if they are employing people. Most businesses wouldn't work without people doing stuff and that needs to be recognised.
 
Unread 12-10-2017, 10:51 AM
Harri Jaffa
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silv
You would pay at least £60k tax on that already, not including student loan.
If that's the exact figure, then it'll only be a little bit more tax than what they are paying now. They aren't suddenly pay 60k tax , it'll be like 3 or 4 k more tax over a year than they are now...
 
Unread 12-10-2017, 10:55 AM
silv
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red red robbo
Is it though? BMWs, Mercs etc isn't putting money back in (apart from the dealers cut).

It is important that people feel incentivised to make money, but it's also important to recognise that they don't end up rich and successful entirely because of their own efforts. There is an entire country's worth of infrastructure that has allowed them to get to where they are going and they are probably taking advantage of that to make money, especially if they are employing people. Most businesses wouldn't work without people doing stuff and that needs to be recognised.
petrol, tax, cleaning the car etc.

money in restaurants... houses.. clothes.

150k, 60k out of that is perfectly reasonable!!

Im all for people paying a bit more but just dont like this mob mentality on anyone whos done well for themselves. Someone should make a J Corbs calculator so we can make our minds up.
 
Unread 12-10-2017, 10:55 AM
Cream
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silv
its well off of course it is!

But on 150k you're paying £60k tax! Its a good amount.

Where is the incentive to earn £150k if you're taking home £75k?

Again, still well off but people have ambition. And the money they take home is going back into the economy anyway. I find it bizarre is all. We don't want to send all the talented, bright ambitious people to shit holes like Abu Dhabi do we?
Sounds good, but what are you offering by way of salary?

'well, Mr Silv we can offer a basic of 149k plus incentives'

Can we lose the incentives?

'erm, sure...'

When do I start?
Reply
Thread Tools
Similar Threads for: Higher taxes for the rich would not affect growth - IMF.
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Don't pay taxes? You have no rights. Fat Al Money 7 30-09-2015 07:36 PM
Best Growth Figures For Five Years Toilet sniffer V News, Current Affairs & Politics 142 27-10-2012 07:32 PM
Spot Poll about Foot Growth. BarryX Off Topic 8 08-04-2010 09:08 AM
filing taxes - what a c*** plopborsky Money 9 03-03-2010 01:59 AM
HGH (Human Growth Hormone) Lou_Macari_Chippy Off Topic 2 17-10-2007 05:53 AM
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 PM.

Copyright ©2006 - 2022 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.