So, to follow your reasoning: either the rich spend the money, in which case they pay more tax in the form of VAT, or they put in a bank account. If they do the latter the, as Cube notes, that's deposit money that becomes a valuable source of lending for the banks, which in turn oils the wheels of the economy. If the banks don't have money to an end, and no-one can get credit, then we have all the credit-crunch problems we were seeing very acutely a couple of years ago, and everyone (including those squeezed middles) ends up being worse off.

It might also be worth noting that there are many more countries with lower top marginal rates that have economies that appear to be doing better than the UK's, for example Germany (45%), Australia (45%) and Switzerland (11.5%). You may object that other factors besides the top rate explain that correlation - and I would agree that you could well be right, but would also note that the same could be said of your original point about the Swedes, Dutch and Danes.

Surely the thing that you should most be concerned about is maximising the total tax take? That does lead us into a discussion about Laffer curves (apols to Mr Tineash), but however unpalatable it may be to a fine class warrior such as yourself, is it not possible that the maths will tells us that that might be achieved by lowering the top rate?

You understand how marginal rates work, yes? You don't pay 75k of 150k because you hit the 50% threshold.

So, to follow your reasoning: either the rich spend the money, in which case they pay more tax in the form of VAT, or they put in a bank account. If they do the latter the, as Cube notes, that's deposit money that becomes a valuable source of lending for the banks, which in turn oils the wheels of the economy.

Surely the thing that you should most be concerned about is maximising the total tax take? That does lead us into a discussion about Laffer curves (apols to Mr Tineash), but however unpalatable it may be to a fine class warrior such as yourself, is it not possible that the maths will tells us that that might be achieved by lowering the top rate?

Say what you want but if this Halo TV series is a BIG BUDGET Game of Thrones style series with Spielberg directly producing this could be a Band of Brothers in space.

Herp Derp yes I do. Like I said, with national insurance the combined income taxes can rock up to 58% (a figure quoted on question time ages ago but I have no direct source)

I do have a spreadsheet I wrote for my own tax rates (iirc I pay 18% tax all told), but if I get bored and fancy some number crunching I'll add in the higher rates and NI values to find the highest income rates someone might pay.

17.76% to be precise

utterly refute

Say what you want but if this Halo TV series is a BIG BUDGET Game of Thrones style series with Spielberg directly producing this could be a Band of Brothers in space.

I would accept this freely and wholeheartedly except for the fact that, if the past five years have proven anything, it's that certain banks are utterly incapable of operating in such a responsible method that is good for the economy. The fact that the government have had to impose something as ridiculous as lending targets for these national treasures (which, as that one article of many notes, many have missed) goes some way to depict exactly how willing these institutions are to lubricate the proverbial wheel of spending. When the top 10% are making a concerted run on the banks a la Northern Rock 2008, then I might see your reasoning. As it stands, all my experiences of credit crunches have been courtesy of madmen fiddling with imaginary numbers in hedge funds.



Again, I would accept this were it not for the fact that the only alternatives mentioned so far are peeps and squeaks from isolated Lib Dem voices about mansion taxes that quickly disappear into the ether, and you'll forgive me if I'm somewhat short on faith in seeing such proposals come to light given how well previous efforts to influence policy have gone.

What I reject, resent and utterly refute is this idea that we should, as a society, somehow be bribing the awe-inducingly rich to stay here during the biggest period of austerity endured since World War II, which are the words I assume I'm being accused of placing in people's mouths. But what else is it if the counter-argument is, "If we don't do this, then the absurdly wealthy will emigrate"? Are we that quick to forget that the UK is the world's sixth largest economy? Do we think that little of ourselves? Fine class warrior that I am (a fine career as much as it is a position adopted for arguing on Internet fora) the whole thing is just one gooseberry fool sandwich too many to swallow.

I've just stumbled in here and I'm hoping for more of the you vs Atreyu debate. You are a shifty little bugger. There he was debating tax rates (on which subject I'm inclined to agree with him)

*popcorn gif*

Say what you want but if this Halo TV series is a BIG BUDGET Game of Thrones style series with Spielberg directly producing this could be a Band of Brothers in space.

it just isn't fair to have any income tax set at 50%

Melly, what are you thoughts on the argument (regardless of how much revenue it generates for the govenment), that it just isn't fair to have any income tax set at 50% even if the only people who pay it are people more fortunate financially than either one of us, or the vast majority of people in the UK? What right does the goverment have to take away such a big chunk of the fruit of their labour?

In an ideal situation, everyone in Britain would do the Ken Livingstone tax reduction strategy, register themselves as an LTD, and have their employer hire them through the LTD and only pay a much lower corporation tax rate which would also be near enough a flat tax too.

Say what you want but if this Halo TV series is a BIG BUDGET Game of Thrones style series with Spielberg directly producing this could be a Band of Brothers in space.

I think the reasoning is circular though; like lending is only risky because the economy is not growing the economy is not growing because no one is lending money that could fuel growth. Naturally all the banks will want to hang back and wait for the competition to take the risks that get things moving so they can pile in afterwards, but in that case you will end up with a stalemate. Hence government trying to get banks to lend because otherwise it will take an age.

By 'curves' be damned, you mean evidence be damned? The argument that 45<50 looks mathmatically robust, I grant you. However, the reason for the 'curves' is that there's more to tax-take than maths - top rate tax payers constitute a disproportionately high share of the total tax-take, and this gets more marked the more higher up the money tree you go. But the super rich have options as to where they pay tax, and where they put their money. So the maths only works if all countries agree to play by the same rules. And they don't.

Say what you want but if this Halo TV series is a BIG BUDGET Game of Thrones style series with Spielberg directly producing this could be a Band of Brothers in space.

Firms poised to take advantage of NHS shake-up 'avoid tax on their profits'

Report exposes how four of five biggest health companies that lobbied in favour of health bill can keep taxes to a minimum

Leading private health firms hoping to benefit from the government's controversial NHS reforms have set up corporate structures that allow the avoidance of tax on millions of pounds' worth of profit, it can be revealed.

An investigation into the accounts of five of the biggest corporate names who lobbied in favour of health secretary Andrew Lansley's reforms has found widespread use of tax havens.

The complicated tax structures set up by the firms, or by their parent companies, make use of corporate entities in the British Virgin Islands, Luxembourg, Jersey, Guernsey and the Cayman Islands, according to a report entitled An Unhealthy Business compiled by the website Corporate Watch and revealed today by the Observer.

■ Spire Healthcare, the UK's second largest private healthcare company, made an operating profit of £123m in 2010, but declared a loss of £53m for the same period because of a complicated corporate structure which uses a company based in Luxembourg;

■ Care UK, which operates NHS treatment centres, walk-in centres and mental health services, has a reduced tax bill by taking out loans through the Channel Islands stock exchange and coming to an agreement with HMRC;

■ Circle Health, which became the first private company to take over the management of an NHS hospital, is owned by companies and investment funds registered in the British Virgin Islands, Jersey and the Cayman Islands in an arrangement which allows investors to avoid tax on their shares;

■ Ramsay Health Care, the company with the greatest number of contracts in the NHS to provide services, has used a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands to finance the purchase of a French health company for its Australian parent;

■ General Healthcare Group's 37 hospitals are owned by 37 separate British companies currently registered for tax purposes here, but each of those British firms are in turn owned by firms in the British Virgin Islands, which would mean there could be no stamp duty to be paid by a future buyer of the land and property.

The Royal College of Physicians of London is a British professional body of doctors of general medicine and its subspecialties. It was founded in 1518 as the College of Physicians and received the royal charter in 1674 from King Henry VIII, the first medical institution in England to become a Royal College.

Risks

A detailed list of potential risks inherent in the Bill, referenced where appropriate, can be found at Appendix A; but these can be summarised into four overarching concerns:

1. Loss of a comprehensive National Health Service

Clause 1 repeals the Secretary of State's legal duty to provide or secure the provision of a comprehensive health service, and replaces it with a duty to “promote” a comprehensive health service. Clause 12 confers on Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) the power to determine what care is necessary to “meet all reasonable requirements” of the population for which they are responsible (with the exception of emergency care which is mandated). As such, it is possible for CCGs to cease to commission services which are currently available through the NHS if they do not consider them to meet a reasonable requirement. Access to such services in the future might be available only through private healthcare.

2. Increased costs
The development of more overt market mechanisms, and the greater role for the independent sector in the provision of healthcare is likely to increase the overall cost of providing healthcare. Increased costs will arise from the need for greater regulation of both market mechanisms and the quality of care commissioned and delivered by an increased number of providers and commissioners.

The market environment will increase transaction costs and lead to the loss of economies of scale as large providers could be broken up. Market incentives will lead to supplier induced demand where hospitals perform unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments to generate income.

Management costs will also increase as the new GP groups (CCGs) will need to buy in legal and procurement expertise to support them in fulfilling their new commissioning responsibilities.

3. Reduced quality of care
In a competitive market there is no incentive for providers to collaborate to provide integrated pathways of care. Indeed, such collaboration may be seen as anti-competitive and incur substantial financial penalties. Integration is essential to enhancing the quality of care for patients, particularly for those with conditions such as cancer and chronic illnesses who will receive care from a wide range of organisations and sectors.

4. Widening Health inequalities
It is likely that the most vulnerable who already suffer the worst health outcomes will be disadvantaged as a result of the enactment of the Bill. Operation of choice in an environment of multiple providers will disadvantage those who are less educated, have reduced access to resources such as the internet, or for other reasons are less able to navigate the healthcare market.

Of particular concern are the risks identified around safeguarding children from abuse and neglect. The loss of designated professionals and weaknesses in information sharing between organisations poses an increased risk to the safety of children