- Feedback
- View
Kestonian":3oan0so6 said:Easy_Rider":3oan0so6 said:Good analogy, but for total tax revenue, is it not the middle tax payers who pay the most because of the numbers who are paying. Not many pay the very high band but most fall into the middle band.
Assuming a standard distribution you are, of course, correct. This is (allegedly) (one reason) why (some) politicians (might) (allegedly) (perhaps) embark upon headline-grabbing budgets to tax the very rich, rather than the greatest number of people.
Then again, studies (and experience) show that there is a rate above which tax increases have a negative effect on total taxation income. That level is somewhere around 50%. I wish I had the details on the top of my head - if people are interested I will dig around the bottom of my brain to try and substantiate this!
There comes a point where the very rich start to move away, or find ways around the system and for every person earning 100k at 40% tax (40k tax) you need to find 10 people earning 20k at 20% (4k tax). (Numbers very simplified)
But 100k at 40% tax doesn't mean they pay 40k tax :?
They have the same allowances as everyone else.
So the first 34k ish is taxed at 20% for everyone, anything earned over 34k is taxed at 40%, so if you earned 35k then only 1k is taxed at 40% the rest remains at 20%
Then they introduced the 45% (soon to be 50%) tax band on anything over 100k, same again, if you earn 101k then only the 1k is taxed at 45% (or 50%), between 34k and 100k is 40% and the first 34k at 20%
Now the rest of what you said I agree with, there does come a point where too much tax will have a negative effect, look at labour in the 70's there was an 83% tax band on earning over 20k :shock:
My Grandad was most pissed off at this one.