UK General Election 2015

[DungBeetle]

The fairy story is idiotic as the rich guy owns the fucking bar and will get poor quickly if his "friends" boycott it.

On the subject of rich and poor.  Monopolies abuse their market position and are usually broken up by government authorities.  For some reason that doesn't apply to rich individuals.  CEO pay has been ballooning for decades, this hasn't resulted in either any evidenced improvement in performance or increased supply of suitable candidates, so it is safe to conclude that some sort of monopolistic behaviour is taking place - probably a monopoly of power.  High tax rates should be imposed on these people as a way of discouraging this behaviour.

You are seriously arguing that CEO pay is high because CEOs have a monopoly? 

[Longines]

NI isn't 14% on everything, it's 12% up to around £35k and then 2% after that.

http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php

Someone on £5m/year pays 46.8% in tax & NI before any avoidance techniques.

[Doobs]

The fairy story is idiotic as the rich guy owns the fucking bar and will get poor quickly if his "friends" boycott it.

On the subject of rich and poor.  Monopolies abuse their market position and are usually broken up by government authorities.  For some reason that doesn't apply to rich individuals.  CEO pay has been ballooning for decades, this hasn't resulted in either any evidenced improvement in performance or increased supply of suitable candidates, so it is safe to conclude that some sort of monopolistic behaviour is taking place - probably a monopoly of power.  High tax rates should be imposed on these people as a way of discouraging this behaviour.

They already have 59% taken, how much do you think they should pay?

Very few of them have 59% of their income taken.  Most will have found a way round it, mostly legally.


 

[DungBeetle]

The point where you get most shafted is between 100k and 120k, as they take your personal allowance away.  This is where marginal rate of tax is worst under our current system.

[doubleup]

The fairy story is idiotic as the rich guy owns the fucking bar and will get poor quickly if his "friends" boycott it.

On the subject of rich and poor.  Monopolies abuse their market position and are usually broken up by government authorities.  For some reason that doesn't apply to rich individuals.  CEO pay has been ballooning for decades, this hasn't resulted in either any evidenced improvement in performance or increased supply of suitable candidates, so it is safe to conclude that some sort of monopolistic behaviour is taking place - probably a monopoly of power.  High tax rates should be imposed on these people as a way of discouraging this behaviour.

That also doesn't make sense - you get a monopolistic situation if there was only a single supplier. Even if you extend your metaphor to oligopoly (a few suppliers) then the pool of potential CEO's doesn't come particularly close to the definition.

The average CEO in the FTSE100 has only been the job for about 4 years - this suggests a fairly healthy level of competition to me.

There might be a wider issue concerning corporate governance in general but it's a bit weird to single out a handful of individuals at the top level.

Monopolistic behaviour doesn't have to apply strictly to monopolies, it is any detrimental behaviour caused by constrained supply.  The huge increases in rewards hasn't increased the supply of suitable candidates (by incentivising potential candidates to augment their skill base, for example) and hasn't increased the performance of those in the position, as if it had done, the increased supply would cause a reduction in the rewards.

Large corporations are the wealth creators in society, they provide jobs, produce goods and services and pay dividends to pension funds.  When they are being run to primarily benefit a cartel of high-flyers and nudge-nudge wink-wink non execs it is perfectly acceptable to impose punitive taxes.  

[Doobs]

The point where you get most shafted is between 100k and 120k, as they take your personal allowance away.  This is where marginal rate of tax is worst under our current system.

I think this kind of trap is very detrimental to the tax take.  So many people must put their money in pensions or keep it in the company at that point that I wouldn't be surprised if it means the total tax take falls rather than rises because of this.  There is another one around child benefit now as well from 50k to 60k.

If they just made it 45% tax from 100k I expect they'd get much better tax receipts.

[mulhuzz]

The point where you get most shafted is between 100k and 120k, as they take your personal allowance away.  This is where marginal rate of tax is worst under our current system.

I think this kind of trap is very detrimental to the tax take.  So many people must put their money in pensions or keep it in the company at that point that I wouldn't be surprised if it means the total tax take falls rather than rises because of this.  There is another one around child benefit now as well from 50k to 60k.

If they just made it 45% tax from 100k I expect they'd get much better tax receipts.

hard to know where the inflection is on the laffer curve, but I think it's likely around that. I don't think that necessarily means the revenues would be 'much' better though.

[Woodsey]

The fairy story is idiotic as the rich guy owns the fucking bar and will get poor quickly if his "friends" boycott it.

On the subject of rich and poor.  Monopolies abuse their market position and are usually broken up by government authorities.  For some reason that doesn't apply to rich individuals.  CEO pay has been ballooning for decades, this hasn't resulted in either any evidenced improvement in performance or increased supply of suitable candidates, so it is safe to conclude that some sort of monopolistic behaviour is taking place - probably a monopoly of power.  High tax rates should be imposed on these people as a way of discouraging this behaviour.

They already have 59% taken, how much do you think they should pay?

Very few of them have 59% of their income taken.  Most will have found a way round it, mostly legally.

Most of us avoid paying some tax legally by paying into our pensions, it's hardly like the super rich are alone in that fact.

[DungBeetle]

The fairy story is idiotic as the rich guy owns the fucking bar and will get poor quickly if his "friends" boycott it.

On the subject of rich and poor.  Monopolies abuse their market position and are usually broken up by government authorities.  For some reason that doesn't apply to rich individuals.  CEO pay has been ballooning for decades, this hasn't resulted in either any evidenced improvement in performance or increased supply of suitable candidates, so it is safe to conclude that some sort of monopolistic behaviour is taking place - probably a monopoly of power.  High tax rates should be imposed on these people as a way of discouraging this behaviour.

That also doesn't make sense - you get a monopolistic situation if there was only a single supplier. Even if you extend your metaphor to oligopoly (a few suppliers) then the pool of potential CEO's doesn't come particularly close to the definition.

The average CEO in the FTSE100 has only been the job for about 4 years - this suggests a fairly healthy level of competition to me.

There might be a wider issue concerning corporate governance in general but it's a bit weird to single out a handful of individuals at the top level.

Monopolistic behaviour doesn't have to apply strictly to monopolies, it is any detrimental behaviour caused by constrained supply.  The huge increases in rewards hasn't increased the supply of suitable candidates (by incentivising potential candidates to augment their skill base, for example) and hasn't increased the performance of those in the position, as if it had done, the increased supply would cause a reduction in the rewards.

Large corporations are the wealth creators in society, they provide jobs, produce goods and services and pay dividends to pension funds.  When they are being run to primarily benefit a cartel of high-flyers and nudge-nudge wink-wink non execs it is perfectly acceptable to impose punitive taxes.  

Do you have any evidence for your suggestion that CEOs are running a closed shop and are somehow able to restrict the supply of other candidates to do their roles.  If you look at some recent CEO appointments (I just picked the first three on google) at Alibaba, StatOil and Target, two of the CEOs worked their way up their organisation and the other is in his third CEO role after working his way up the corporate chain.  Hardly the same tired old faces.
 
I don't disagree that CEO pay is too high, but as someone mentioned earlier that is an issue of corporate governance and culture.  There is no monopoly issue here imo.

[arbboy]

The fairy story is idiotic as the rich guy owns the fucking bar and will get poor quickly if his "friends" boycott it.

On the subject of rich and poor.  Monopolies abuse their market position and are usually broken up by government authorities.  For some reason that doesn't apply to rich individuals.  CEO pay has been ballooning for decades, this hasn't resulted in either any evidenced improvement in performance or increased supply of suitable candidates, so it is safe to conclude that some sort of monopolistic behaviour is taking place - probably a monopoly of power.  High tax rates should be imposed on these people as a way of discouraging this behaviour.

That also doesn't make sense - you get a monopolistic situation if there was only a single supplier. Even if you extend your metaphor to oligopoly (a few suppliers) then the pool of potential CEO's doesn't come particularly close to the definition.

The average CEO in the FTSE100 has only been the job for about 4 years - this suggests a fairly healthy level of competition to me.

There might be a wider issue concerning corporate governance in general but it's a bit weird to single out a handful of individuals at the top level.

Monopolistic behaviour doesn't have to apply strictly to monopolies, it is any detrimental behaviour caused by constrained supply.  The huge increases in rewards hasn't increased the supply of suitable candidates (by incentivising potential candidates to augment their skill base, for example) and hasn't increased the performance of those in the position, as if it had done, the increased supply would cause a reduction in the rewards.

Large corporations are the wealth creators in society, they provide jobs, produce goods and services and pay dividends to pension funds.  When they are being run to primarily benefit a cartel of high-flyers and nudge-nudge wink-wink non execs it is perfectly acceptable to impose punitive taxes.  

Do you have any evidence for your suggestion that CEOs are running a closed shop and are somehow able to restrict the supply of other candidates to do their roles.  If you look at some recent CEO appointments (I just picked the first three on google) at Alibaba, StatOil and Target, two of the CEOs worked their way up their organisation and the other is in his third CEO role after working his way up the corporate chain.  Hardly the same tired old faces.
 
I don't disagree that CEO pay is too high, but as someone mentioned earlier that is an issue of corporate governance and culture.  There is no monopoly issue here imo.

Add in Willhill's  (ftse 250) last two ceo's who literally worked their way through the firm from not far off betting shop managers.  Lifers for the firm going all the way through the ranks.  No idea what this monopoly discussion is about.  Makes no sense at all.

[Longines]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11544301/The-chart-that-shows-there-are-12-rates-of-income-tax.html

Click to see full-size image.

The 60/62% rate really does stand out as a punitive decision rather than part of a progressive approach.

[redsimon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11544301/The-chart-that-shows-there-are-12-rates-of-income-tax.html

Click to see full-size image.

The 60/62% rate really does stand out as a punitive decision rather than part of a progressive approach.

More punitive is the taper on those leaving benefits and starting work. 65% which is higher than the marginal rate of tax referred to in your illustration.

[david3103]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11544301/The-chart-that-shows-there-are-12-rates-of-income-tax.html

Click to see full-size image.

The 60/62% rate really does stand out as a punitive decision rather than part of a progressive approach.

More punitive is the taper on those leaving benefits and starting work. 65% which is higher than the marginal rate of tax referred to in your illustration.

Could you show your workings for this figure please.

[redsimon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11544301/The-chart-that-shows-there-are-12-rates-of-income-tax.html

Click to see full-size image.

The 60/62% rate really does stand out as a punitive decision rather than part of a progressive approach.

More punitive is the taper on those leaving benefits and starting work. 65% which is higher than the marginal rate of tax referred to in your illustration.

I'm sure if you google Housing Benefit Taper or Universal Credit Taper You can do your own calculations?

Could you show your workings for this figure please.

[redsimon]

Housing Benefit taper[edit]

The income of the claimant is compared to the "applicable amount". This is an assessment of the minimum level of income a claimant and household need to live on. This is broadly similar to the amount that such a person would be paid as Income Support / Job Seekers Allowance. If a claimant is receiving a "Passported Benefit" income support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, or Pension Credit Guarantee or if the income is no higher than the applicable amount, the claimant's housing benefit will normally be the full eligible rent. This is the maximum housing benefit possible. However, deductions can be made where there are non-dependants living in the household (except where the claimant is blind or in receipt of the higher rate of the Care component of Disability Living Allowance).

Income is after tax and NI, but plus working and child tax credits, however child benefit is ignored. But, provided work more than 16 hours per week, there is also some "income disregard" depending on the claimant's circumstances.

If a claimant's income is higher than applicable amount then a deduction is made from the maximum housing benefit entitlement based on how high the eligible income is. Housing benefit is reduced at a rate of 65p for each £1 of excess income. (For Council Tax benefit the amount is reduced by 20p for each £1). The calculated income will also include an assumed rate of income generated from any savings held by the claimant.

For example, assume that the maximum permitted housing benefit that could be paid for an individual who attracted the full rate of benefit were £100. Assume further that this claimant is not entitled to the full amount because his income exceeds the applicable amount by £60; that is, he has excess income of £60. The maximum possible benefit will be reduced by 65% of £60 to a value of £100 - (65% X £60) = £100 - £39 = £61; his award of housing benefit using the current taper is thus £61 instead of the maximum possible amount of £100.

Actual rates of interest are ignored when calculating income from Capital. When calculating income from capital the first £6000 of savings are disregarded. The Council may still require proof of any savings that are held below this amount. Undeclared savings and income are often picked up through data matching. This matching process is compulsory for all Local Authorities. Not declaring savings or income is likely to lead to the claimant being prosecuted for fraud. Since 2009, if there is more than £10000 in savings each £500 of savings (or part thereof) results in an extra £1 a week in income being assumed in the calculation of income. This is termed notional income, but in any case housing benefits cannot be paid if the total savings reach £16000. (See below)

Claimants are automatically excluded from benefit with more than £16,000 of capital (unless qualifying for Pension Credit Guarantee). Certain types of capital, such as personal injury compensation payments and the value of capital that is no longer available to the claimant are disregarded.

This deduction is known as the taper, and in this way, housing benefit is means tested.

from wiki

http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/universal-credit-83-tax-rate-for-some.html