only search

Pay at the top: to each according to results? to social contribution? ... or to systemic privilege?

Are high executive and banking pay related to results? Or to social value added? Or does executive compensation simply ratchet upwards, irrespective of either? Jeremy Fox reviews work from the High Pay commission, the New Economics Foundation and Ha-Joon Chang suggesting the answers are "No", "No" and "Yes"

Taxation: revenue maximisation vs. the politics of envy

Is there any reason to set top tax rates at anything but the rate which maximises government revenues? And what is that rate? Jeremy Fox has argued that the 50p rate does not constrain growth. Michael Bullen returned with the argument that 50p is too high for public revenue maximisation. Jeremy Fox countered that 50p was too little and that equality is a good in itself. Here, Michael Bullen questions Jeremy Fox's numbers and his levelling instincts

Taxing the rich: 50p is too little

Michael Bullen argued against Jeremy Fox's charge of "blackmail by the wealthy" with respect to the campaign in Britain to abolish the 50p tax rate. Here, the author returns to the attack, proposing that the evidence suggests that 50p is, if anything, too low a tax for the welfare of all

Don't tax the rich any more: it will cost us more than it raises

Should the marginal rate of income tax be reduced for very high earners? Jeremy Fox argues that there is no obvious link to growth. But the link to government revenue is much better understood, argues Michael Bullen, and the numbers suggest that 50% is too high

Don't tax us, it harms the economy: a convenient argument from Britain's richest

Britain's 50 per cent tax rate for high earners isn't slowing growth. But many of the rich don't want to pay, so they're fighting dirty for its abolition
Syndicate content