Peter, We have agreed on many things over the years and you know that at heart I am not a Tory and I disagree with many of their policies. However, I feel so strongly on our escape from the clutches of an even more undemocratic form of politics than our own I believe I have to vote Tory to have any hope of a reasonable Brexit. We cannot go on paying benefits to immigrants and supposed refugees from Europe and many other regions of the world. The boats containing many thousands of African nationals have already taken to the waters this year with the intention of reaching our shores. Many of these people like the Eastern Europeans are content to live in squalor here as they do at home and are claiming benefits which they send home to their own Countries. They are in fact dragging down the standards of living of the poorer in our society. We already send millions to these countries through overseas aid and through the European Union which it seems never reaches the very projects or people it is meant to help.
The saying goes “No pain no gain” and as I said in another post, with a successful Brexit there will be many opportunities to right the wrongs of our Country. However with Jeremy Corbyn in charge of negotiations we run the risk of an open door policy for at least another 5 years and god knows how much more money taken from us and either wasted by Europe or removed from this Country through benefit payments. We may never get another chance on that front.
Jeremy Corbyn is quoting ridiculous amounts of money to be spent and really has little idea of where it is actually going to come from. The world is changing but sadly despite his good intentions Jeremy is living in the past.
We can only hope Peter and also hope that whoever takes over as leader of the Labour party together with his/hers ministers/shadow ministers can add up
because the figures given today in the Labour Manifesto just don't tally. They are obviously looking to borrow Billions to balance the finances!
The Labour Manifesto is more of a bucket list and an unachievable one at that. It proposes penalising the wealth creators, totally ignoring the fact that this so called rich elite, the top 20% of earners in the UK actually contribute more tax than the residual percentage of all other taxpayers Proportionally, so have Labour investigated the possibie ramifications of increased taxation of executives and senior management and it's disincentive values on this cadre of higher earners? Will this tactic result in an exodus of the wealth creators to other countries such as occurred in France when Francois Holland increased their tax liability to 70%?
Will increasing corporation tax reduce corporate investment in the UK?
I could continue this review ad infinitum, but it suffices to say that this declaration of intent is nothing more than a sop to the blinkered socialist mind frame and as well as being unachievable it is safe forabour to make this imprudent claims because they know they will never again be trusted to govern this country because British people remember the chaos of Labour rule and understand that socialism is truly the politics of envy.
Good morning Peter, I believe in equality for all, in relation to personal taxation, I think that everybody should pay the same percentage of their gross income in income tax. Where that uniform level of taxation falls is irrelevant, what does need to change is the tax free allowance, which currently sits at £11,500 p.a. for all PAYE employees.
A worker on the UK average wage of £28,000 p.a.
Gross income: £28,000
- 12%NI. 3,360
- taxAllowance 11,500
+Tax Allowance 11,500
Monthly I come £1834.33
As you can see while the higher paid worker has a gross salary nearly 3.5 times that of the average earner after taxes that differential drops sharply to a fraction over twice the monthly income of the average earner.
This calculation does not take account of any Government subsidies for child allowance, working tax credits, council tax rebates for the average earner or private pension and commuting costs incurred by the higher earner.
Labours russh to penalise the higher earner conveniently bypasses the income of elected MP's out really is the politik of envy.
You have made a basic error, NI deductions are taken from the Gross income before general taxation and are calculated at 12% of the gross total, the residual total is then taxed minus the tax free allowance.
Back to the drawing board young Peter!
People who commute to major conurbation's Like London, Birmingham, etc are normally earning far in excess of the average national wage so it would be the exception to the rule that someone earning 28,000 or less would be able to afford season ticket prices which from Northampton to Euston station certainly amount to over £5000 p.a. now.
France forced to drop 75% supertax after meagre returns
Hollande’s measure was meant to force wealthiest to help dig country out of economic crisis, but was accused of being
François Hollande’s unpopular tax changes that imposed a 75% rate on earnings above €1m (£780,000) will quietly disappear into the history books from Thursday.
The French socialist president announced plans for the controversial measure during his 2012 election campaign as a means of forcing the wealthiest to help dig the country out of economic crisis.
Although supported by the left, the reform sparked accusations of an anti-business agenda. After the “supertax” was announced in September 2012 the government was accused of shooting itself in the foot by risking an exodus of high-profile personalities. Business leaders expressed fears that investors would pull out of France.
France’s richest man, Bernard Arnault, the chief executive of luxury group LVMH, took out Belgian nationality, and the actor Gérard Depardieu also moved across the border to Belgium before obtaining Russian citizenship.
High-earning French footballers threatened strike action, while league bosses warned they would no longer be able to attract world class players.
A majority of French taxpayers disapproved of the 75% rate, although polls showed that six out of 10 voters were in favour of raising income taxes on the wealthy.
Despite the backlash Hollande clung to the principle of the supertax even after it was dismissed by the country’s highest court, fearing a revolt by his leftwing allies. The tax was subsequently adjusted to a 50% rate payable by companies after the constitutional council ruling in December 2012.
The final nail in the coffin came from the former investment banker who is now France’s economy minister, Emmanuel Macron. A former economic adviser to Hollande, Macron described the supertax as “Cuba without the sun”.
With the party leftwingers having marched out of government in the days and months following the appointment of the openly pro-business Manuel Valls as prime minister last March, it was only a matter of time before the tax was dropped. The prime minister confirmed it would not be renewed in 2015 during a visit to London in October, where he addressed business leaders.
“The reform clearly damaged France’s reputation and competitiveness,” said Jorg Stegemann, the head of the executive search firm Kennedy Executive. “It clearly has become harder to attract international senior managers to come to France than it was.
Tax lawyer Jean-Philippe Delsol, author on a book on tax exiles called Why I Am Going To Leave France, said last month many high earners had agreed with their companies that salaries would be limited during the two years the tax rate applied, and they would “come to an arrangement afterwards”.
Finance ministry studies showed that despite all the publicity, the sums obtained from the supertax were meagre, standing at €260m in 2013 and €160m in 2014, and affecting 1,000 staff in 470 companies. Over the same period, the budget deficit soared to €84.7bn.
The decision to drop the tax is a personal blow for Hollande and only one of a number of government U-turns since he was elected, fuelling criticism that he is indecisive and lacking presidential authority
Sweden is a nation with extraordinary high tax rates. The average worker not only pays 30 percent of her or his income in visible taxes, but, additionally, close to 30 percent in hidden taxes. The defenders of the punishing tax burden argue that it is needed to maintain Sweden’s generous welfare system. While this claim may seem reasonable on its surface, a deeper look suggests that it is based on flawed analysis.
Some level of taxation is, of course, required to fund the public sector. At the same time, a high level of taxation does not necessarily translate into an equally high level of welfare:
Taxes discourage work and encourage tax avoidance. There is strong evidence that Sweden’s highest rate of individual and capital taxation actually reduces public revenue. For this reason, some taxes, such as the wealth tax, have recently been reduced. The result is estimated to be a net increase in tax revenues.
When Swedish municipalities receive increased funding from the state, the money is used to expand the local bureaucracy, a government survey has shown, instead of going to educators and health care workers.
Municipalities provide much of the welfare in Sweden. The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions have shown in a study that funding for Swedish municipalities grew dramatically between 1980 and 2005. Despite this, the general public consensus is that the quality of welfare has declined during the same period.
Welfare provisions don’t necessarily correspond with taxation levels. A 2005 research paper examines the efficiency of the public sector in 23 industrialized countries. The researchers found that Sweden only reaches a mediocre 12th place when it comes to how much the public sector provides in terms of welfare services. When the level of welfare is related to the level of taxation, Sweden falls to the last position in the index.
There is a high variation in how effectively public money is spent within Sweden. The Swedish Taxpayers Association has, in a number of surveys, shown that identical welfare services such as care of the elderly, can vary in cost quite dramatically across Sweden.
There are two important reasons why the average Swedish worker pays a large portion of her or his income in taxes, without necessarily receiving an equally high level of welfare.
First, much of the money is spent on administrative costs at various levels of government. Although a small nation, Sweden has over a hundred public authorities. Vast sums are spent on political projects which fall outside the frames of general welfare. It is, for instance, not unusual for Swedish municipalities to fund bowling alleys, swimming pools, or camping places.
Second, a large fraction of the population is living on benefits rather than working, due to the combination of high taxes, a rigid labour market and generous welfare benefits. Even before the economic crisis hit, for example, almost one out of five children in Sweden’s third largest city, Malmö, were living in a family supported by social security. Sweden has 105 local districts where the majority of the population lives off of various public benefits, and does not work. This unintended consequence of the welfare state has taken a heavy toll on public services, since an increasing share of tax revenue must be diverted to fund welfare payments, rather than social services.
Many are immigrant dense neighborhoods; others are situated in the northern part of Sweden, where many cities with stagnating economies have suddenly experienced a boom in the fraction of the population who cannot work due to disability.
The famous Swedish welfare state is to a large degree a notion of the past. Many feel that its glory days occurred during the late 1950s and early 1960s, when Sweden successfully combined welfare policies with an expanding economy. At that time, however, Swedish taxes were 27 percent of the GDP, compared to 47 percent today. The golden days of Swedish welfare did not coincide with the high tax regime we know today.
How could Sweden fund a prospering welfare system with relatively low taxes in the past? As the researcher Erik Moberg documents in a book for the Ratio Institute, public money was spent much differently back then. The share of public revenues spent on health care and education at the end of the 1950s was greater than it is today.
And, compared to the 1950s, close to three times as much of public revenues are now spent on public bureaucracy. Four times as much is spent on welfare payments and social insurance. As the level of taxation has increased, so has the share of taxes going to public bureaucracy and various government handouts.
The historical comparison with the 1950s and 1960s is worth thinking about. It shows that a high quality of welfare can be achieved with a much lower tax level than we have today. If politicians slim down public bureaucracy and cut wasteful spending, resources can be opened up for increasing welfare and reducing taxes at the same time. If the system rewards work to a greater degree than it does living off the state, fewer will be dependent on the public for their daily living, again opening up tax revenues for better use.
Sweden has long been a small homogeneous country with a high degree of economic equality. Strong norms related to work and responsibility made it possible to enact an effective welfare system early on. With time, however, welfare dependence has reduced the very norms that formed the foundation of Swedish welfare, and wasteful spending has increased.
Many important social outcomes that the welfare state aims to address, and that Sweden is famous for, such as a low crime rate, have increased in recent decades, concurrent with the expansion of the welfare state. Even income inequality has increased in Sweden compared to, for example, the 1980s, despite similar or higher public expenditure.
Swedish decision makers are doing their best to reduce public spending and lower taxes. The reforms have been highly successful so far. As taxes have decreased from 57 percent of GDP in 1989 to 47 percent of GDP in 2009, the incentives to work have improved, with Swedish growth rates benefiting. The convergence of lower taxes and lower public spending is likely to continue. After all, experience has made it quite apparent for many Swedes that extraordinary high taxes are not the key to qualitative welfare services and a well functioning society.
Nima Sanandaji is president of think tank Captus and a fellow at the Swedish Taxpayers Association. Robert Gidehag is president of the Swedish Taxpayers Association.
Yes I agree if there is a loophole that can be used to limit an individual or a corporation's exposure to what they consider to be excessive taxation then human nature dictates that most will do so if it can be achieved through legal means. So it is down to the Government's lawyers to frame legislation so that it cannot happen..
However Peter, most people earning £80,000 p.a. would struggle to afford the financial and legal advice that would allow them to avoid paying the full tax that they owe.