I think it was scrtapped in the mid to late 70′s

Effective rate on employees (incl. income tax, and employee’s and employer’s NI) is 40.6% up to £40,000 (or whatever the limit is) and 47.7% on incomes above that, so pretty flat but far from regressive.

Effective rate on dividend income is 30% for basic rate taxpayers (i.e. the corporation tax paid – no further income tax) and 47.5% for higher rate taxpayers (£100 profits of company less £30 corp tax = dividend £70 less higher rate tax of 25% on the cash dividend).

There are a myriad of regressive tax breaks that Richard could have pilloried (PEPs, ISAs, tax relief for pension contributions, agricultural subsidies etc), but he invented two that simply don’t exist. He could have railed against VAT, the worst tax of all and mildly regressive, by all accounts. But no, he’s tilting at non-existent windmills.

It’s a INVOLUNTARY payment into a social insurance policy where the coverage and eligibility is not guaranteed and unrelated to the amount paid in. Smells like a tax, quacks like a tax.

You’re wrong as ever

The contribution to the NI fund can be without limit – as the 1% rate proves.

And the 10% tax on investment income I propose is a tax – not NIC, but designed to both prevent abuse and maybe cut the basic rate of income tax using the funds realised

Being narrow minded does not help strategic thinking Tim

Richard