3 thoughts on “Shifting justifications for the 50p tax rate”

  1. Posted 30/01/2014 at 12:30 | Permalink


    On a point of order, the data on the 50p rate was never conclusive for the reasons you suggest. It was in place for two tax years, meaning that people could bring income forward in year 1 to pay 40% or push it back in year 2 to pay 45%. If Labour introduce it, then it will be interesting to see how much it raises.


  2. Posted 31/01/2014 at 10:49 | Permalink

    Why all this kerfuffle about the 50p rate? The “rich” don;t pay PAYE anyway and it’s not even close to teh highest marginal rate anyway which I believe is the ludicrous 62% from 100k to 118k ( which widens out every time the nil rate band is increased. All this is is an attack on th eupper middle class and not the “rich” as the likes of The Guardian would like you to believe.

  3. Posted 01/02/2014 at 15:20 | Permalink

    Mark Littlewood, on Question Time this week also raised the question that Paxman asked Balls: if a 50% top rate of income tax is ‘fairer’ than a 45% top rate, wouldn’t 60% or 70% or more be even ‘fairer’? In other words, what are your criteria for fairness? It rather looks as if the Labour leadership would argue that a higher top rate is always, necessarily, ‘fairer’ — almost by definition. It seems perfectly possible that a 50% top rate would actually reduce total tax revenues (compared with a 45% rate) — indeed, a 45% top rate might reduce total tax revenues compared with the 40% rate that was in force for practically all of Labour’s 13 years. In that case, some of the tax revenue raised from British taxpayers would be going to finance the Labour Party’s notion of ‘fairness’ — a price I doubt if many people would willingly agree to pay.

Comments are closed.