Is it?Clubman, the proposal would be designed to be revenue neutral.
(4) overtime, or extra work, would be more attractive to a lot of people
This was the precise reason why the middle rate was abolished in the early/mid 1990s. People whose earnings are at or near a tax band threshold are disincentivised from earning more for fear of going into a higher tax band. The abolition of the middle rate was designed to prevent this happening at two different levels of income, and succeded in doing so. I doubt if anyone wants reintroduce the anomalies that were got rid of back then.
How about a single taxrate for everything? Set it at we'll say, 20%. Then we could remove all tax loop-holes, and everyone would be happy!!
don't you think the rich would get richer and the poor poorer? how would they fund public services?
Problem is that the history has shown us that a third tax rate is not exactly fair and it does indeed trap spouses in the home (or at least disincentivise them from working or earning more at certain levels of family & personal income). I don't know if you were in the workforce in the first half of the 1990s but if you were I'm not sure you would be that anxious to return to the old way of doing things.anyhow, as regards the third tax rate - that would be fair, it would be progressive, it would allow for a much fairer family tax system in this country. it would not trap spouses in the workforce or trap them in the home.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?