Was Darling right to penalise high earners in his Budget?

62% (59 votes)
38% (36 votes)
Total votes: 95

Your Comments


What most people forget is that this will only affect 1% of taxpayers and the very rich employ accountants and in % terms pay less than the ordinary taxpayer so they will not miss this if they ever pay it.The major income tax burden will still fall on earners of less than £150,000, also don't forget that this 50% is only on income in excess of the £150,000 not all of their income.While I agree with it I don't think it will make as much difference as indicated, it would have been better to close the loopholes and collect the correct amount of tax due.

The government do not have a clue, just like the deduction of the 2 1/2%
on VAT a complete waste of time. This labour government has gone the same way as all the others, an honest Prime Minster would call an election

It's not a case of was he right or not, by doing this he got everyone talking about and focusing on this subject. That way additional taxes that hit all of us, even the poor can be snuck in. It's a distraction and a technique that works well. You see, the very rich have very good accountants, footballers included and they will always find ways to reduce the tax bill. So make real hard working people think you are doing something really good and while they are distracted, slip the hand in the pocket and steal their money, they won't notice. Cheers everyone

I totally agree - I am also not a high earner, but why should someone pay even more just because the earn more? Those earning £150,000 will already be paying over £50,000 in tax (inc NI)- much more than most people earn. Taxing them more will put them off. I think Labour have just returned to type - they have blown all the money in the kitty (and shed loads more besides) and have no idea as to get it back - so they will do the only thing they know how - raise taxes.

Whilst not a high earner I do feel the initial proposal of 45% was adequate.

The number of people involved is small and will not really yield that much

in relation to the amount required to help solve our problems.  Moreover I would

not like to see the High Earners leave to work in tax havens, better a little contribution

than nothing!

The wording of the poll question is, in itself, questionable. PENALISE seems to suggest that people are powerless bystanders to their predicament (earning over 150k is not a bad predicament!). If humankind cannot conjure up any sense of communal responsibilty then we are rightly doomed.

I agree that taxing the very rich is unproductive. It is a typical socialist trick that satisfies the poorly paid voter, but does not make Britain competitive. Tax needs to encourage entrepreneurs not discourage them from taking risks with capital. Britain did not become the richest country in the world in the 17th and 18th century by taxing the rich. Neither are we the 5th richest now by having tax above 40%. Socialism failed in the world, because people need an incentive to work hard, encourage risk taking and reward merit. The labour party was voted in because they showed in their promises that they were not going to over-tax businesses and individuals. They have broken their word as a result of not keeping a grip on the City regulators and as a result we will decline in the world order as we have for the last decade. Rule Britannia is history !

I do not earn anything like 150k, but I think this increase in tax for high earners is completely wrong. It has been shown in the past that increasing tax for high earners _decreases_ revenues, as the affected people have more incentive to find ways to avoid paying. We need all the revenue we can get, so implementing a measure that reduces this for political posturing reasons is downright stupid.

I agree with the rise of tax on high earners. Yes some of them do work hard,but most of them get paid just because they are linked up with something else where they only have to attend about once a month or so to get a very hefty pay packet.

What many of your correspondents fail to recognise is that there is a strong correlation between wealth and the ability to control your own income. Very senior managers of large organisations (both private and public sector) can hold their organisations to ransom (and do!) by demanding £1M + salaries. They achieve a level of success and if the organisation wishes to retain their services theey are made to pay dearly, due to the uniqueness of their position, and the high disruption costs of replacing them.

Yes, I am in favour of increased tax rates for higher income people. Indeed, I would charge a much higher rate for people whose income is over, say, £500,00 per annum.

You will notice that I have used the term high income rather than high earner. I really don't see how anybody can 'earn' incomes over £250,000. Any income over that is only paid/recieved due to anomolies of the 'system' and cannot be said to be due to extra efforts made by the person in question.

I would also introduce a 'witholding tax' so that any income derived in the UK is taxed even when the recipient resides overseas or can avoid tax by other methods.

I`m def. not a 150K earner but don`t believe this is correct step by this inept goverment. Steal £`s from people who work hard for their earnings. The things they should look at is the disgusting wages and pensions offered. Bankers who couldn`t manage a piggy bank , the unelected lords and the MP`s themselves who are nothing but legal thieves. Lets not steal from the people in the engine room who keep the country going their are a lot of unnessasary high paid jobs that could save a fortune.

Yes I think it was a positive step and most of the complainers I have heard so far have been employed by the media and so are obviously on high salaries and affected by this measure. I am also tired of hearing that these hard-working people should not be penalised and that we have to pay exorbitant salaries to get the 'best' people for the job. Extraordinary when the so called 'best' people have been shown to be the opposite in many cases.i.e the bankers & others in financial services. Others on high salaries are often simply 'lucky' and not particularly skilled or clever. Threats to move abroad and transfer their 'talents' elsewhere I suggest are simply threats . . . where will they go? This is a world economic problem and if you look at the 'bigger' picture I would doubt the world will ever return to the excesses it has indulged in over these past years. It is over and the world finances will be completely over-hauled. why don't people ever try to look beyond themselves. This situation is serious and should be looked at asnd dealt with head-on.

I go along with those who point out that 50% on income IN EXCESS of - not of ALL - income hardly equates to 'penalising'. In truth the switch from direct to indirect taxes started by Thatcher does equate to 'penalising' - of those on low incomes. £ 150 VAT on a £1000 TV is a much bigger tax chunk of a £20000 income than of a £200000 income & I can't get my head round the logic of the contributors who say that they get paid much less than £150k yet believe that they should still subsidise those with higher incomes. In my long departed youth I moved around in the upper echelons of 'business' and it was my experience that, as long as one had enough money ( and £1m p.a. is certainly enough) the main motivation was the adrenalin from being in control. We do not need to pay extraordinary sums to retain & motivate the really talented. As the financial crises has revealed it is the selfish, greedy & incompetent who are driven purely by their cash reward.

Tiered taxation makes eminent sense, although whether it will act as a disincentive to our top-earners and lead to the "brain-drain" effect is open for debate. I think that it is well overdue that high earners take some of the burden off the low and middle class, low and middle income earners. And if these people have clever accountants, I imagine that they will find clever ways to minimise this tax hike.

I used to think that those who earnt more should pay for the vulnerable in society until this government made it a lifestyle choice to live on benefits! Although I earn nothing like the £150k we are talking about ALL of us are being taxed more to pay for a certain group of people who choose not to work. Think about it, our personal allowances have hardly increased since labour came to power & our NIC's have risen. So those who are calling for the "rich" to pay the 50% tax think on, you are already paying more to keep the feckless in a house.

www.notnowdarling.com campaigns against the new income tax measures announced by Alistair Darling in last month’s budget speech. We believe that the decision to introduce a new 50% income tax band and to abolish the personal allowance for higher earners was politically motivated and threatens to undermine the economic prosperity of the UK for years to come.