In the news

^ is that forecast or collection?

Collection apparently

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/13/london-council-relocation-benefits-cap

" Camden council plans to move 761 poor families from London
Council says welfare cuts force shift of 2,816 adults and children to areas up to 200 miles away with lower housing rents "

This'll get some hackles raised

I always have mixed feelings about these stories when I am lucky enough to have to pay full price London rent. But the general principle aside, I am curious to know what practical options are there for councils;

• own their own properties so they can charge a reduced rent;
  
• provide huge subsidies to pay private landlords;
  
• ?
  
• ?
  
  
  
  

A Labour government would seek to re-introduce the 10p starting rate of tax scrapped by Gordon Brown in 2008, Ed Miliband has announced in a speech.

Mr Miliband said it was a "very bad mistake" to get rid of it and the move would send a "clear signal" his party was on the "side of working people".

The move, worth about £2 a week for people, would be funded by a "mansion tax" on £2m properties, he said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21453444

ugh... fucking mansion tax. What a load of BS. Asides from the fact that I disagree with asset taxes as a point of principle, I have never heard a sensible person put forward the figures for how much this would actually raise, or how you would implemented.

It's misleading. It's showing a small number which actually represents a very large number (income, rather than % of income paying population) and comparing it to a large number (which actually refers to the latter rather than the former).

Presumably if it showed "Annual income" on the left, it would be pretty much inverted (in terms of lots, not quite so much, less, much less, almost 0)

I am ashamed to have issued a small yet disceranble lol:

'Chubby Checker sues Hewlett-Packard over app to measure penis size.'

Chubby Checker app has caused 'irreparable damage' to singer of same name, say lawyers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/feb/14/chubby-checker-sues-hewlett-packard

I agree with you horatio. But the point is it does make clear that increasing tax at the top end does bring in plenty, contrary to dicki's point as to taxing the rich versus poor. So, if they bring in 24% now, you can increase their tax rate by 4% (and no one else's) to bring in another 1% for everyone. Basically, it is worth taxing the rich.

ahh i didn't realise the actual amount of cash / tax that the rich pay
it is higher than i thought

the number of them is where i was expecting it

It is interesting what puts you into the top 1% and so on. Income distribution. I think that £75 p.a. puts you in the top 5% or something, twice that puts you in the top 1%. I think. I will go away now and try to find the numbers for real.

hang on... isn't that graph title just a bit misleading?

it is saying that eg. the top 1% provide 24.1% of all income tax collected. 24.1% is graphically shown as being a proportion of a whole (the block on the right being 100%).

however, the title "How income tax paid varies with level of income" is quite ambiguous, it could also mean that the top 1% pay 24.1% income tax on their earnings (which it doesn't show, at all, but is the obvious next question).

so what %age of the top 1% income is paid as income tax?

My guesses were not that bad, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom , the section called "Percentile points for income of individuals before tax".

Top 10% is £50k p.a.
Top 5% is £68.5k p.a.
Top 1% is £156k p.a.

So, the top 1%, paying 24% of tax starts to make more sense. Not being funny, but £156k is not a huge amount. There are getting on for 250,000 people earning that, according to a rough reworking of the preceding table in the Wikipedia article.

so what %age of the top 1% income is paid as income tax?

I assume this is taxable income (i.e. not capital gains), so these guys (and girls) would be paying a maximum of 40%, but 20% or whatever and even 0% on the bits of their income that would fall into those bands.

I'd also like to make sure people know what progressive tax means. Because it's amazing how many people don't get it ("there's no incentive to work harder because you actually make less!").

Basically, it is worth taxing the rich.
Arthur Laffer might disagree with you...

I'd also like to make sure people know what progressive tax means. Because it's amazing how many people don't get it ("there's no incentive to work harder because you actually make less!").
In the old 98% tax days, it wasn't worth working a full week / year (for the top earners), because the marginal increase in income compared to additional effort was not worth it.

Which isn't quite as snappy.

And doesn't address the question of "So fucking what?"

This Laffer Curve is based on a flat tax, no? How else would a 100% tax rate be possible?

You can make the model as complex or simple as needed.

You wouldn't have to plot it to 100%, although you could extrapolate.

Although Wikipedia mentions that the highest marginal tax rate has been 99.5% in the UK.

Which would still include some incentive. And considering the amount of extra work involved when you're reaching these levels of income is completely theoretical (does a CEO really work harder than a nurse?), I'm fine with it.

Not that I'm proposing it. I'm just not convinced it's counter-productive in theory.

I'm fine with it too, in theory. Utility of money all but disappears once you have a boatload of it, so why not use that money to benefit the infrastructure that gives the rich the ability to be rich.

The higher the tax rate, however, the more incentive to avoid tax, through fair means or foul, which leads to a reduction in receipts.

As to CEOs & nurses - they probably do, but not to the order of magnitude that their income differs. But that is down to supply & demand, and luck.

The higher the tax rate, however, the more incentive to avoid tax, through fair means or foul, which leads to a reduction in receipts.

Exactly.

As to CEOs & nurses - they probably do, but not to the order of magnitude that their income differs. But that is down to supply & demand, and luck.

My point was there is a physical limit to the amount of work someone can do, and I'm sure a lot of people approach this limit (and elsewhere in the world, are right on it). And the pay one gets is in no way related to that physical limit.

Bird that ran down Wiggo has been sent on a driver awareness course:

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/driving-course-for-sir-bradley-crash-motorist-1-5403224

^ http://www.lfgss.com/thread96302-2.html#post3416612

What's Pistorius gonna do about his blades in prison?
I saw some bullshit Ross Kemp on gangs thing with a bloke from a South African prison called John Mongrel. Pistorius does not wanna bump into him sans-blades.

He doesn't walk with the blades, they are only for the track. Using them for walking down the street would be stupid. It would be like riding a track bike with a silly gear and no brakes around the streets... Oh.