Well said Frank Field

Mike Ion Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:38:41 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

According to Frank Field "super rich" should pay a minimum of 10% more tax on any earnings over £150,000 (or give the same amount to a charity of their choice). Field suggest that such a move could raise £3.6bn a year.


What do you think? Personally I think it has real merit.






tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Well said Frank Field | 39 comments (39 topical)

Re: Well said Frank Field (#1)

by rwendland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:13:06 PM GMT

Unusually, where Frank Field is concerned, I have to agree. Or remove the NI Upper Earnings Limit so the 11% rate rather than 1% continues into these high earnings.

I find it wrong that already at £143.38/week marginal tax+NI rate is 33% when it is only 41% for millionaires.


Re: Well said Frank Field (#2)

by Dan Ashton on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:42:49 PM GMT

Sounds like a common sense policy for any progressive government. Brown's NI increase to pay for NHS spending in 2002 showed that, when linked in the public's mind to a specific plan to improving people's lives or services, people can be convinced to support higher levels of direct taxation.

I wonder how the country would have responded if the Government's income tax cuts last year were complemented by making National Insurance more redistributive. Would we now be forced into competing with the Tories over who can offer the most (inheritance) tax cuts just at the moment when the global economy is  most in need of stability and our public services are being stretched for money.


Re: Well said Frank Field (#34)

by Rathfelder on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:11:45 AM GMT

The other thing he says is that means testing traps the poor and is counterproductive.  Rich people seem to think that a marginal rate of tax exceeding 40% will reduce their incentive to work.  People on meanstested benefits typically lose 80% of each extra pound they earn. (for some people the rate is even higher)  Why does this incentive theory not apply to them?


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#35)

by rwendland on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:38:20 PM GMT

Trouble is that 70+% marginal deduction rates are the flip-side of focusing help on the most needy. By definition focusing state help on the lowest-earners means it is withdrawn rapidly for slightly higher earners. To reduce high marginal deduction rate we must either give less to the most needy or give more higher-up the scale (with a large consequent cost). Difficult one.

NB without housing/council tax benefits highest marginal deduction rate is 70%. The official line is that Tax Credits are not "means-tested" as they are income-based and independent of savings (means - though interest counts as income)!


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#3)

by jljb2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:18:35 PM GMT

Tax yes, obviously, and it's a shame it only makes the BBC news website when Frank Field says it. But charity? No! Why on earth should the wealthy get to choose where their money goes when it should be the govt putting it to the best use for social justice ends? That's a return to noblesse oblige and a complete undermining of democracy and the ethic of public spending. If a left-winger came out with a similarly radical proposal, they would be castigated no end, but Field always gets away with it. This proposal would mean money that is rightfully the public's going not to the most needy but to dogs' homes and special interests. It would also allow the rich to bathe in a glow of self-righteousness whilst doing nothing to address the huge problems created by the inequalities they are perpetuating.


Re: Well said Frank Field (#7)

by JM on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:46:21 PM GMT

The point is to create a culture of charitable giving amongst the super rich. That way, over time, more than the initial 'forced' 10% would be given - benefitting everyone.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#8)

by rwendland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:49:44 PM GMT

Yes, the charity alternative could easily abused. I bet a fair bit would go to right-wing think-tanks that run as charities, such as the Social Affairs Unit, Reform Research Trust and Civitas. Or charitable private educational trusts, or railway preservation societies, motoring museums ... To allow this we'd need to define a subset of charities - perhaps just those with the charitable purpose of "the prevention or relief of poverty".


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#9)

by JM on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:22:33 PM GMT

So people who earn over £150,000 are right-wing politicos who donate to right-wing thinktanks or twee country folks who donate to railway museums?

*sigh* 


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#12)

by rwendland on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:18:17 AM GMT

Not all, but I suspect the tendancy will be there amongst the £150+k earners.

But my main point are that charities are perhaps not all wonderfully deserving, and there are some weird ones.

Plucking one at random! For amusement consider: The Conservative and Unionist agents' benevolent association

The 2006 accounts for this charity show it has assets of £2.3 million, and  from this they spend £50k on charitable activities, with £24k costs. The charitable spending they highlight are: £350 grants for "short breaks" or car-hire and accomodation costs (£600 for a couple). They also give Christmas hampers, and a fuel grant in early spring. They also have a scheme to provide a TV, TV license and telephone to deserving recipients. They have also covered roof repairs and emergency plumbing, and medical/disability needs.

My point is that there are a wide variety of charities available, and not all are like Oxfam. Do we really want to allow all kinds of charity to be funded in lieu of tax?


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#15)

by JM on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:11:03 AM GMT

If it encourages a culture of giving amongst the rich, then I can handle a small number of donations to a few weird charities.

That's the thing about giving people any freedom - the huge benefits can always be argued against by citing a few instances of that freedom not being used in what you consider to be the best way.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#13)

by jljb2 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:49:20 AM GMT

No-one deserves to earn that much money, and we certainly don't want them in the labour party. It makes me sick that GPs and headteachers, and all the Guardian non-jobs are earning this kind of money when teaching assistants, nurses, care workers and childcarers earn a pittance. We're for those people, not the people with power and wealth, and I can't believe you'd say otherwise and still be a Labour member - if indeed you are.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#14)

by jljb2 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:49:51 AM GMT

Sorry, that was to JM!


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#16)

by JM on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:21:48 AM GMT

I think it's perfectly possible to believe that the government shouldn't put arbitary legal upper limits on how much people can earn while still being a Labour supporter.

I think the kind of upper limit you're talking about would be immoral and economically disasterous to do so.

As for the "if indeed you are" nonesense, I thought we'd dispensed with all that "I'm real Labour and you're not" childishness a while back - people on this board, even those who disagree with me, know that I'm a loyal Labour supporter.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#20)

by jljb2 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:30:35 PM GMT

I apologise, I didn't know either way - i thought maybe you were a visiting tory ;p. Didn't mean to cause offence. My point is that I don't want a Labour Party made up of people on 100K....that would be extremely sad.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#21)

by JM on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:48:11 PM GMT

I too think it would be sad if the Labour party was make up solely of people who earn £100,000 or more. However, I also think that it would be sad if people earning over £100,000 felt that there was no place for them in our party.

We shouldn't get into the mindset of judging people's morals, motives or values by how much money they earn. Poor doesn't automatically mean virtuous and the rich aren't automatically self-serving, right-wing or apathetic about building a better society.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#24)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:07:54 PM GMT

What a silly thing to say jljb.

The politics of envy is desperate and we should be happy to welcome the rich as well as the poor into the Labour party. Just because someone earns more than £100k a year, it does not make them a bad person.

I thought we had fought these wars in the 1980's. It seems not. If we start hating people for being rich, then this party will die.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#25)

by rwendland on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:56:23 PM GMT

Redistribution is not necessarily from the politics of envy though, it can be from a view of fairness.

If someone earning £144/week has marginal tax+NI of 33%, then is it fair that someone on £150k pay should only put a marginal 41% toward the common good?

Frank's notion of 50% tax+NI at the 150k level is a good one. On charity giving I'd say let the Gift Aid be 50% at that level as well, so if they give to a charity of their choice, half can be reclaimed against tax, rather than the 100% Frank proposes.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#26)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:01:47 PM GMT

There's nothing wrong with redistribution, but jljb said "No-one deserves to earn that much money, and we certainly don't want them in the labour party." This I absolutely disagree with. We shouldn't care how much people earn, providing they pay a sufficient amount of tax.

Personally, I'd favour a top tax rate of 50% (including NI) for those earning over £150k - but no more than that because I don't believe that the majority of a person's income should be taken away through direct taxation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#27)

by jljb2 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:50:37 PM GMT

Well the evidence is that more equal societies are happier, healthier and safer; that should be the starting point of our politics. I find it repellent that work done is not more equally reflected in salary: the notion that a headteacher on 100K is worth 8 teaching assistants on 12K is utterly absurd. Likewise, it seems improbable that Philip Green does as much work as the entire population of Malawi, yet his personal wealth suggests otherwise. We have a duty to take action when the wealth of the rich impacts on the welfare of others: that is what is happening now.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#28)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:03:10 AM GMT

Well the evidence is that more equal societies are happier, healthier and safer

Of course, I couldn't agree more. But that's not the same as saying that being rich is bad.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with earning lots and lots of money and one person becoming better off, does not automatically make someone else somewhere worse off.

Also, it would be a very disturbing move if the government decided to control and restrict the salaries of people in the private sector - wages payed by private companies are none of the government's business (providing of course that the receiver of the income pays an appropriate amount of tax based on a sensible, progressive scale).

The aim of the Labour party is to lift the poor and disadvantaged up, not knock the rich and successful down.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#29)

by rwendland on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:53:28 AM GMT

There is the conundrum of doing both "lifting the poor and disadvantaged up" and "nothing wrong with earning lots and lots of money", with resolving the green-house gas/global warming mega-problem. I know in theory we could have carbon-neutral economic growth, but I don't see that as a practical possibility for some time (oil/gas is still too cheap for the alternatives to thrive). The UK has been meeting carbon targets so far mostly by the export of manufacturing industry to the far-east and the import of the goods produced, which is not sustainable.

Labour policies currently seem firmly wedded to continuous economic growth at about 2%/year, which I don't think is sustainable. We need to look at suitable policies for a period of low-economic growth, be that from a recession, carbon use reduction, or the economic rise of the far-east. I think a more equal and even society would be at the heart of such policies - with fewer people earning lots one way or another. To some extent that will flow naturally from a period of low-growth and less innovation, so less business opportunity. But also I suspect tax&spend policy will need changing to sustain "lifting the poor"; this will be a painful time but ultimately more suited to Labour than Tory policy.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#30)

by jljb2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:20:02 PM GMT

The aim of the Labour party is to lift the poor and disadvantaged up, not knock the rich and successful down.
But hasn't the New Labour experience shown us that we cannot reduce inequality simply by looking at the bottom - we have to curtail wealth growth at the top, or we can never reduce inequality. There is everything wrong with earning lots of money and not recognising your responsibilities to society - and since most rich people vote Tory, that is exactly what they're doing. Such selfishness has no place in a civilised society.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#31)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:26:14 PM GMT

??

The Labour experience as a whole shows that if you have a disdain for the rich, not only is that morally wrong but it also means you won't get elected.

Rich people should always pay their fair share of tax, of course. But if they do, then they should be left alone by the state and we shouldn't care how big their salaries are.

This to me sounds like class wars - which are unhelpful.

There's a huge difference between growing inequality because the poor are getting poorer and growing inequality because the rich are getting richer faster than the rest of society.

When you live in a free country, there's nothing that can be done to curtail the salaries of the wealthy and that's the way it should be.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#32)

by jljb2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:43:48 PM GMT

Well no wonder we're in such a mess if that's the way you think. I don't believe in class war either: socialism is about the quality of human relationships, about doing as you'd be done by. I can only reiterate that the vast majority of wealthy people do NOT do this - they are only out for themselves, they vote Tory and they couldn't give a damn about poverty and inequality. I would object less to their wages if they were willing to acknowledge their moral responsibility for society's problems - but the fact is they are not, and we should condemn them without pity: as I said, greedy, selfish individuals have no place in a civilised society.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#33)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:02:58 AM GMT

But why do you assume all wealthy people are greedy and selfish?

Stereotyping all wealthy people are being greedy, heartless Tory voters is as bad as stereotyping all poor people as lazy single parents on council estates.

There are plenty of rich people (both in the Labour party and in the wider world) who pay their taxes without finding loopholes and who care about poverty and helping those less fortunate.

The Labour party should concentrate on making sure the wealthy do pay their fair share of tax, but then leave the rich alone and let them earn whatever they want. It's a free country.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#36)

by jljb2 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:09:44 PM GMT

Er...well i's fairly clear that most rich people DO vote Tory, and certainly the vast majority did in the 80s, thereby contributing to a tripling of child poverty and a vast increase in inequality etc etc. Paying your taxes isn't enough - these people have power and influence: they should be actively lobbying for greater state intervention to reduce inequality if they are indeed the good people you claim them to be. People earning whatever they want is the recipe for a fractured and morally degenerate soceity.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#37)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:48:33 PM GMT

People earning whatever they want is the recipe for a fractured and morally degenerate soceity.


What? This isn't even socialism you're espousing - it's communism. Nobody who believes in a free country would ever believe in placing restrictions on how much people can earn. In fact even communist China don't do that any more.


So what if people voted Tory - that's their decision. People can vote for who they like. It's our job to persuade them to vote for us because we can create a better society. We certainly won't do that if we come up with lunatic policies where we tell people that they cannot earn more than x pounds in a year.


And why do you think all rich people have power and influence? The vast majority of them don't and just work for ordinary companies, but earn a high salary. Also why do you think only the rich should have to lobby the government? Why shouldn't all people take an interest? The vast majority of poor people don't bother lobbying the government for anything so why should the rich?


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#38)

by jljb2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:51:01 AM GMT

It may be people's decision to vote Tory, but it is a decision indicative of a fundamental lack of compassion, of concern for others' welfare and of the kind of morality we should expect from all citizens in a civilised society. Thus these people are failing to fulfil their moral obligations of their own accord, and we must take action against them. Were they to pursue the right path to start with this would be unnecessary; if they are indeed the lovely people you claim them to be, they will be glad to pay some extra tax on their income. Clearly all people should take an interest, but the fact is that in a globalized market economy, the rich have the power to shape our society; currently, they are abusing that power and allowing the creation of an ever-more unequal society. If they claim to be good people, they should be attempting to reverse that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#39)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:39:37 PM GMT

Nonsense.

Again, you're still using 'they' as though all rich people are the same.

It may be people's decision to vote Tory, but it is a decision indicative of a fundamental lack of compassion, of concern for others' welfare and of the kind of morality we should expect from all citizens in a civilised society.

So if rich people vote for Labour, then that clearly means they are compassionate then. So why do want to punish rich people by excluding them from the Labour party?

Thus these people are failing to fulfil their moral obligations of their own accord, and we must take action against them. Were they to pursue the right path to start with this would be unnecessary; if they are indeed the lovely people you claim them to be, they will be glad to pay some extra tax on their income.

This is the most disturbing part of what you've written.

'We must take action against them'? Like what exactly? Lining them up against a wall to be shot?

It's rational human nature to not want to pay tax and that applies to poor people as well as rich people. You make it sound like you want to send the rich off to a re-education camp because they have the cheek to want to earn money.

Stop seeing the world as poor=good and rich=bad because not only is it wrong, but it's insulting to your fellow members of the party.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#40)

by jljb2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:08:36 PM GMT

I'm not for a moment claiming poor=good/rich=bad - that would be utterly naive and stupid. But you can't get away from the fact that the vast majority of the rich individuals who you claim are moral individuals do vote tory, and consequently we can assume with great confidence that they care a hell of a lot more about their bank balances than other people's welfare. Surely you wouldn't deny that - or are you going to defend the morality of rich Tories too?


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#41)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:44:46 AM GMT

Of course most rich people vote Tory, but that's irrelevant.

You can't 'punish' a particular section of society because they don't vote the way you want them to.

And you can't have ridiculous ideas like banning the rich from the Labour party and forcing them to pay obscene amounts of taxation otherwise condemn them all as greedy immoral toffs - because not only will it create great tensions and divisions (and probably will end Labour's chances of being in government) but you'd drive the rich out of the country and the UK would go bankrupt.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#42)

by jljb2 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:21:28 AM GMT

Markets are composed of individuals, transacting on the basis of their own personal will. Therefore the market is a sphere open to moral persuasion. It is not some ineluctable force beyond our control: change the minds of the individuals that compose it, and we can change the way in which it operates. These individuals, therefore, cannot escape their moral complicity in the perpetuation of injustice. They can choose either to accept that and fight to change it - by joining Labour (I never said I opposed rich members!) and by lobbying for higher taxes on themselves - or to do nothing. We have a responsibility to evangelise our message to these people  and not pretend that they are acting in an acceptable manner - their lack of morality must be questioned, and they must be encouraged to act in a more decent, human fashion. If they cannot do so, they will be no great loss to the country anyway.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#19)

by jljb2 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:29:01 PM GMT

Oh come on, I was referring to the extreme wealth which should be taxed more progressively, not to all their money, obviously. We (the state) do have a right to that wealth, because the individuals who hold it have a responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society, fulfilled through progressive taxation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#4)

by orzr on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:34:51 PM GMT

I wonder if this is workable. People in regular jobs paid under PAYE would pay more but anyone with more flexible compensation arrangements would no doubt get around it. The only way to get more tax from the rich is to make it more worth their while to pay the tax than to pay their accountants.


Re: Well said Frank Field (#5)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:16:44 PM GMT

I'd support an increase in direct tax on the highest earners, but an extra 10% might be a bit steep.


Also, Frank should be looking at cutting taxes for the lowest earners as well. This is what a progressive government should do.


Re: Well said Frank Field (#6)

by sgthowie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:34:08 PM GMT

Even though the guy is somewhat of a maverick, it was good that he has called for the debate. 

What is more astonishing is that it is coming from someone as ultra-blairite as him.  I do notice, however, that it is qualified with the usual 'that is what Mrs Thatcher would have wanted' tag on but the net effect would result in a redistribution of wealth that would be significant.

Interestingly, I have heard it reported that Gordon Brown has already ruled out any increase in the top rate for the 2009/10 general election.  If Blairite Frank can favourite, surely Gordon can? 


[ Parent ]

Re: Well said Frank Field (#10)

by RedRooster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:10:08 AM GMT

I'm almost positive Field stole this idea from Tony Giddens.


Re: Well said Frank Field (#11)

by jljb2 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:35:11 AM GMT

I don't want our welfare to be contingent on the crumbs from rich men's tables, I want a properly-funded welfare state based on truly progressive taxation. I can only repeat that it is utterly wrong for 'philanthropists' to be able to choose which 'good' causes (read glamorous, and preferably not anything that helps those nasty scroungers in council houses) their money goes to. It is OUR money by right, to do with as we please: they should have no more say in how their money's spent than anyone else. I have no patience with the Bill Gates' of this world: if they really want to make a difference, let's see them do it democratically by lobbying for higher tax rates.


Re: Well said Frank Field (#17)

by JM on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:33:13 AM GMT

While I see you're point about democratic accountability, I don't think that's the only progressive arguement to make.

If there is more money going to charities then a multitude of NGOs, alongside government, will be trying new and different ways to improve the lives of the least well off. The more different approaches are tried, the better the chances of finding new and better ways of relieving poverty, providing education and a host of other social goods that all Labour supporters can get behind.

My arguement is simply that a mulitude of providers  means that there's more room for innovation - and that raises standards across the board.


[ Parent ]

Well said Frank Field | 39 comments (39 topical)