egafd.com

Pretty daft response if you don't mind me saying so, Jimslip. Maybe you should look up the Laffer Curve, you might learn something.

Robches wrote:

> Pretty daft response if you don't mind me saying so, Jimslip.
> Maybe you should look up the Laffer Curve, you might learn
> something.

A rather patronising reply if you don't mind me saying. Sorry, but where have i gone wrong? Basically the Laffer Curve says this:

"A curved graph that illustrates the theory that, if tax rates rise beyond a certain level, they discourage economic growth, thereby reducing government revenues".

How convenient for the billionaire elite? I wonder how much old Laffer trousered for coming up with this one? You could call it, the "Billionaires Economic Blackmail Threat", ie "If you don't cut our taxes to the bare minimum we will fuck up your economy and blame it on the "greedy" unions and government!"

I am not as easily convinced as perhaps you are, by "Theories" that bolster, maintain and hold sacrosanct the perceived "Right" of the ruling elite to hold on to every scrap of their wealth, whilst they happily watch the poor squirm in poverty!

I say tax the buggers till the pips squeak and if they all want to go and live in Dubai, pay for their fucking airtickets and boot 'em out! Oh and confiscate all their property and freeze their wealth until they pay their fair share of tax. When they find they can't lay their hands on all the drugs and women they want, they'll be back in Blighty in no time at all!!grin!

Mr Laffer doesn't look that clever here...........

What is the optimum rate of taxation? Won't this curve change depending on how well the economy is doing???

He is a complete cunt, but makes great pickle.

I must agree with you. It's time for the rich to pay MORE than their fare share for the sake of Britain. If they don't then let them fuck off to Switzerland.

Gusset Sniffer wrote:

> I must agree with you. It's time for the rich to pay MORE than
> their fare share for the sake of Britain. If they don't then
> let them fuck off to Switzerland.
>
>

And then we get no tax? That really makes no sense.

The Laffer Curve is a simple concept. If you set tax at 0%, you get no tax. If you set tax at 100%, you get no tax. The ideal tax rate is somewhere in between. The higher the tax rate, the less incentive for people to work or invest. Under Labour in the 70s, the maximum tax rate was 98%. It didn't raise much money, but it made class warriors feel better, even as Britain slipped into mediocrity. If you think the government can spend your money better than you can, you will support high taxes, but most people who call for high taxes prefer them to be levied on someone else. Strange that.

"The Laffer Curve is a simple concept. If you set tax at 0%, you get no tax. If you set tax at 100%, you get no tax. The ideal tax rate is somewhere in between. The higher the tax rate, the less incentive for people to work or invest. "

Personally, I would prefer to describe it as a very simplistic concept. Clearly there is a whole host of factors involved in whether people pay 50% on their earnings e.g. for business people their perception of the business opportunity, the attitude of the government to tax avoidance and a the availability or not of a whole host of alternatives which I outline here

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=255087&t=255071

THe general argument used by supporters of tax cuts for the rich is that if the tax rate is too high, people will find ways for tax avoiding. This strikes me as a farcical argument. If the government announced that they were stopping looking into unemployed benefit fraud because people would only find other ways of ripping off the country legal or otherwise, the tabloids would have a fit of apoplexy.

High taxes? What you probably aren't aware of is that the budget will usher in major changes to the way UK based multinationals are taxed on profits for their overseas subsidiaries as well as enormous cuts in corporation tax. Corporate tax is going down from 28% to 23% by 2015 which will cost the Treasury ?5 bn a year. THe changes to taxes on foreign subsidiaries will cost ?1bn.

I repeat the idea that 50p as opposed to 40 or 45p tax rate is a disincentive for highly paid employees and business people looking to invest or continue investing in this country is clearly laughable.

spider wrote:

> Mr Laffer doesn't look that clever here...........
>
>
>

Good one!

This is what I understand. The government are saying that people who should be paying the 50% tax rate avoid paying it by moving around assets money etc?? I can't blame them for using an accountant.

But if tax is reduced to 45% the government imply those people will stop tax avoidance. Why would they do that then? Their accountant wouldn't be doing his job. They would be mad to pay tax they don't need to pay. Why doesn't the government try closing the tax loop holes to stop tax avoidance if they are so keen on boosting their coffers?