Err, no, I think not

Higher rate taxpayers will shoulder the burden of two thirds of Britain’s entire tax bill by the next election even though they represent just 16 per cent of the population, according to official figures.

People hit by the 40p and 45p rate will pay 67 per cent of Britain’s total tax bill by 2014/15, despite being outnumbered by lower paid workers at a rate of one to five.

Income tax in total isn’t even 67 % of the total tax bill.

Might well be that higher rate payers will pay 67% of the total income tax bill: but I’m fine with that, sorta the point of having a progressive income tax. Indeed, in my wilder moments I’m happy with the idea of no one on less than median income paying any income tax at all. That would certainly lead to a shrinking of the State.

9 thoughts on “Err, no, I think not”

  1. It would also lead to even more people being able to vote for higher income tax for other people (and more redistributive projects to spend it on) while not paying any themselves. You actually favour this?

  2. The point of having a progressive income tax according to Marx was to destroy capitalism. Hayek took a different view in The Constitution of Liberty:

    That a majority, merely because it is a majority, should be entitled to apply to a minority a rule which does not apply to itself is an infringement of a principle much more fundamental than democracy itself, a principle on which the justification of democracy rests.

  3. What Ian and DocBud said.

    We’ve been here before.

    Minimal taxes on low incomes gives everyone a stake in keeping taxes low.

    No tax at all on the low paid leaves them with no check on their demands to increase taxes on others.

  4. TheJollyGreenMan

    I subscribe to the Telegraph electronic newspaper and not the Telegraph print edition. Each time I click on one of your links I use up one of my 20 monthly free Telegraph articles, and that is a waste as I can see the article in my electronic print edition.

    Is there anyway you can start using a clue to your links like for instance : From the DT, from the DM, from the Guardian, the Times, The Independent, etc.?

    Regarding your article and post, discussing tax without mentioning the great contribution made by us nicotine addicted unworthy lot is not correct. The disproportionate contribution made by smokers should be highlighted at every opportunity.

  5. @TJGM

    Just move your mouse over the link before you actually click on it – and then read the name of the link (at the bottom of your browser, or wherever it is depending on the browser).

    Or reset the 20 by clearing cookies?

    If paying the electronic sub, why is one restricted to 20 articles?

  6. If you open a Telegraph link in an incognito window it will always open, regardless of how many you have already read.

  7. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Or, which is what I do, block cookies from This is easy to do in Chrome and Firefox (dunno about Exploder; if you are still using a Microsoft-provided browser you are in a state of sin). I won’t provide instructions since I assume that if you are capable of finding your way to Worstall Manor you are capable of using the Google.

  8. @ BICR

    Google’s garbage (disclaimer: imvho) – I am not sure it even knows where Worstall Manor is.

    Ie, try googling “” – any half decent search engine provides the site itself as the first entry. Perhaps it’s been banned?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *