Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

NHS vs. Red Cross - a humanitarian crisis?

1457910

Comments

  • edited January 10

    bobmunro said:



    Should income tax be raised to pay for further NHS funding? Yes for example 20% up to £40k - 40% £40k-£80k - 45% £80k-£120k - 50% above £120k. But we know it won't happen.

    A 50% tax rate on high incomes has been proven to raise less tax not more which is the reason it won't happen.
    How/why does it raise less tax?
    People either work less hours, move abroad, avoid or evade the tax or get paid in some other form that circumvents the tax (pensions, shares etc.)

    When France whacked up the top rate of tax they saw an exodus of their highest paid workers fleeing to other more tax-friendly areas, including the UK.

    There are ways the Government could limit the damage that raising the tax would do but they would never be able to fully stop it.

    The Laffer Curve is a crude approximation of the issue and boils down the concept so the Layman can understand it. Like most simplified models in economics it has its flaws but it does a good job of describing the general situation.
  • bobmunro said:



    Should income tax be raised to pay for further NHS funding? Yes for example 20% up to £40k - 40% £40k-£80k - 45% £80k-£120k - 50% above £120k. But we know it won't happen.

    A 50% tax rate on high incomes has been proven to raise less tax not more which is the reason it won't happen.
    There is and argument to say this has been debunked. The logic is that filing of parts of accounts where held over until the following financial year when the lower rate kicks in.

    Just for the record, I don't agree with a 50 percent rate, not that it is ever going to bother me personally. I am also just putting forward an argument I listened to rather than putting this forward as fact.
  • Fiiish said:

    bobmunro said:



    Should income tax be raised to pay for further NHS funding? Yes for example 20% up to £40k - 40% £40k-£80k - 45% £80k-£120k - 50% above £120k. But we know it won't happen.

    A 50% tax rate on high incomes has been proven to raise less tax not more which is the reason it won't happen.
    How/why does it raise less tax?
    People either work less hours, move abroad, avoid or evade the tax or get paid in some other form that circumvents the tax (pensions, shares etc.)

    When France whacked up the top rate of tax they saw an exodus of their highest paid workers fleeing to other more tax-friendly areas, including the UK.

    There are ways the Government could limit the damage that raising the tax would do but they would never be able to fully stop it.
    What a load of old twaddle spouted out by those high income individuals who don't want it to happen and never actually proved.

    Work less hours? Highly paid individuals don't normally get paid by the hour.

    Move abroad? Bye then - plenty of others to fill your role who will pay the higher tax rate. Oh and as you emigrate, the Government then stuffs you with 40% tax on selling your house and on all the investments you withdraw.

    Tax evasion is illegal. Ensure you employ enough IR staff to go through high earners returns with a fine tooth comb.

    If you increased the top rates of tax (after all we operate a progressive tax system) to say,

    50% £500k +
    60% £1m +
    70% £5m +
    80% £10m +

    I suspect that the Government coffers would be bulging within a couple of years.



  • edited January 10
    If the public stopped using companies that avoided paying UK tax, these companies would soon cough up and only then would you see the Government coffers bulging.

    Blaming it on Joe Public is what Murdoch would like you to do
  • edited January 10
    Addickted said:

    Fiiish said:

    bobmunro said:



    Should income tax be raised to pay for further NHS funding? Yes for example 20% up to £40k - 40% £40k-£80k - 45% £80k-£120k - 50% above £120k. But we know it won't happen.

    A 50% tax rate on high incomes has been proven to raise less tax not more which is the reason it won't happen.
    How/why does it raise less tax?
    People either work less hours, move abroad, avoid or evade the tax or get paid in some other form that circumvents the tax (pensions, shares etc.)

    When France whacked up the top rate of tax they saw an exodus of their highest paid workers fleeing to other more tax-friendly areas, including the UK.

    There are ways the Government could limit the damage that raising the tax would do but they would never be able to fully stop it.
    What a load of old twaddle spouted out by those high income individuals who don't want it to happen and never actually proved.

    Work less hours? Highly paid individuals don't normally get paid by the hour.

    Move abroad? Bye then - plenty of others to fill your role who will pay the higher tax rate. Oh and as you emigrate, the Government then stuffs you with 40% tax on selling your house and on all the investments you withdraw.

    Tax evasion is illegal. Ensure you employ enough IR staff to go through high earners returns with a fine tooth comb.

    If you increased the top rates of tax (after all we operate a progressive tax system) to say,

    50% £500k +
    60% £1m +
    70% £5m +
    80% £10m +

    I suspect that the Government coffers would be bulging within a couple of years.



    1) If they move abroad it is does not necessarily mean they stop working in the same role, just their tax base. With this globalised economy, the most highly paid individuals generally work for multinationals who have offices all over the world. As I said, France saw an exodus of workers who moved abroad to avoid the tax. Many sought new roles but some would have remained in the same company.

    2) Which Government will introduce the capital controls to prevent ex-pats from taking their money with them? Thatcher was the one to bin these so certainly not the Tories and I doubt any of Labour's donors will support this.

    3) Yes tax evasion is illegal and aggressive tax avoidance can be dealt with either with good legislation or through HMRC challenging such cases in court but IR is woefully under-resourced for such a task.

    This isn't twaddle, this is well established theory with plenty of historical evidence to back it up (including this story from Mali where people can choose what rate of tax they pay). If there was a good, simple tax system with good, airtight legislation to enforce it, and a well-resourced HMRC to tackle avoidance and evasion, along with international bodies such as the EU that also clamp down on tax issues on an international scale (such as Apple in Ireland), then a progressive system with taxes of 60% upwards could work. But before then there would have to be both the political will and the enforcement of it for this to happen. Unfortunately there are too many places to hide your money and too many places to run to to make such a system effective.
  • How about giving it a go, just to see?

    At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.
  • A significant number (majority?) of high earners are not employed and thus taxed via PAYE, but self-employed or company owners (eg. musicians, sportspeople, actors, hedge fund managers etc.) - they can very readily decide how much to work and just as importantly where. They can also decide when to receive their income (for example via dividends). Meanwhile even some of those high-earners that are paid via PAYE (eg. footballers, investment bankers) can easily move overseas to ply their trade.

    The idea that this country would benefit from 50%+ marginal tax rates is completely absurd and illogical and would send us back to the 1970s.
  • Addickted said:

    How about giving it a go, just to see?

    At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.

    The point is that since most of the richest countries have no capital controls, taxes are just as much about attracting people and businesses to your country as they are raising revenue.

    Take two countries, A and B. A has an income tax of 50% and a corporation tax of 20%. B has an income tax of 40% and a corporation tax of 30%. Both countries have a double taxation agreement so no one can be taxed in both countries at the same time.

    MegaCorp sells soap in both A and B. They set up their corporate HQ in A to pay the lower tax, but the CEO works in the office in B to pay the lower income tax.

    Now imagine this example is repeated thousands of times over across the globe, there are thousands of consultants advising people and companies where they can get the best deals, and there are also tax havens where they can all just stash their money anyway.

    Unless all the countries involved work together to limit tax fiddles then they are in direct competition with each other to attract the rich and successful through lower tax rates.
  • Addickted said:

    How about giving it a go, just to see?

    At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.

    Just to be pedantic, I'd have thought it was the 'poor that don't pay their way' as the personal allowance, basic rate tax etc. disproportionately helps them over the relatively small number of high-earners (the '99th percentile' for UK earnings is 'only' £170k or so whilst just 350,000 people pay the highest 45% rate of tax).
  • If the public stopped using companies that avoided paying UK tax, these companies would soon cough up and only then would you see the Government coffers would be bulging.

    Blaming it on Joe Public is what Murdoch would like you to do

    You mean companies that pay millions in other taxes. Such as VAT, Business rates etc. On top of the number of people they employ in this country who will all pay Tax and NI. They could easily move those jobs abroad if they wanted. Then we have more people out of jobs and less tax receipts. Those same companies are also respected for the way they treat their staff through sick pay/pensions etc and so reduce the long term bill on the government.

    The argument no one should use them frankly makes me laugh as all that would do is force their activity abroad so we lose tax revenue, jobs and their services...
  • Sponsored links:


  • Just to put some HMRC figures on it, during the 2015/16 tax year the UK's 48,000 highest earners (each >£500k) paid £24bn in income tax at an average rate of 39.5%.

    By comparison the UK's 12 million lowest earners (each <£15k) paid £10.1bn in income tax at an average rate of approx. 5%.

    So whilst we can reasonably debate whether the UK has an inequality problem, can we knock on the head the idea that the 'rich don't pay their way'?
  • A significant number (majority?) of high earners are not employed and thus taxed via PAYE, but self-employed or company owners (eg. musicians, sportspeople, actors, hedge fund managers etc.) - they can very readily decide how much to work and just as importantly where. They can also decide when to receive their income (for example via dividends). Meanwhile even some of those high-earners that are paid via PAYE (eg. footballers, investment bankers) can easily move overseas to ply their trade.

    The idea that this country would benefit from 50%+ marginal tax rates is completely absurd and illogical and would send us back to the 1970s.

    What? Like the 50% top tax rate we had in 2010-13?

    I'm suggesting that a workable progressive income tax system, with sensible percentage increases, in definable bands, up to a maximum of 80% for those earning over £10m pa - whether self employed or PAYE - managed by a dedicated and forensic HRMC staff with heavy fines for avoiders/evaders would significantly increase the Governments income.

    All the self employed/company owners can be given a 'presumed income' status for taxation purposes and then they can argue or prove otherwise should they feel they are hard done by.

    Do you really believe hundreds of investment bankers who pays £10m a year in income tax is going to move to another country just because his income tax there is 'only' £9m?


  • If the public stopped using companies that avoided paying UK tax, these companies would soon cough up and only then would you see the Government coffers would be bulging.

    Blaming it on Joe Public is what Murdoch would like you to do

    You mean companies that pay millions in other taxes. Such as VAT, Business rates etc. On top of the number of people they employ in this country who will all pay Tax and NI. They could easily move those jobs abroad if they wanted. Then we have more people out of jobs and less tax receipts. Those same companies are also respected for the way they treat their staff through sick pay/pensions etc and so reduce the long term bill on the government.

    The argument no one should use them frankly makes me laugh as all that would do is force their activity abroad so we lose tax revenue, jobs and their services...
    I'm not sure Starbucks could do that.
  • edited January 10
    The 50% tax rate during that period was a classic Labour attack on the rich without any economic logic - after it was put back to 45% inevitably tax receipts rose.

    The investment banker you mention would more likely retire than move I would imagine thus denying the entire global economy (and the UK tax coffers) the benefits of his/her output.

    Longer-term no company considering new or additional investment would contemplate the UK if marginal tax rates were as you describe. Indeed of the 48,000 UK tax residents who earned >£500k in 2015/16, I wonder how many of them are even British citizens?
  • If the public stopped using companies that avoided paying UK tax, these companies would soon cough up and only then would you see the Government coffers would be bulging.

    Blaming it on Joe Public is what Murdoch would like you to do

    You mean companies that pay millions in other taxes. Such as VAT, Business rates etc. On top of the number of people they employ in this country who will all pay Tax and NI. They could easily move those jobs abroad if they wanted. Then we have more people out of jobs and less tax receipts. Those same companies are also respected for the way they treat their staff through sick pay/pensions etc and so reduce the long term bill on the government.

    The argument no one should use them frankly makes me laugh as all that would do is force their activity abroad so we lose tax revenue, jobs and their services...
    I'm not sure Starbucks could do that.
    No but amazon and Google for example could easily close all offices in the UK and move abroad.
  • Just to put some HMRC figures on it, during the 2015/16 tax year the UK's 48,000 highest earners (each >£500k) paid £24bn in income tax at an average rate of 39.5%.

    By comparison the UK's 12 million lowest earners (each <£15k) paid £10.1bn in income tax at an average rate of approx. 5%.

    So whilst we can reasonably debate whether the UK has an inequality problem, can we knock on the head the idea that the 'rich don't pay their way'?</p>

    This. As explained by beer in the below. (Copied from elsewhere)

    The tax system explained in beer!

    Suppose that, every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.
    If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

    * The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
    * The fifth would pay £1
    * The sixth would pay £3
    * The seventh would pay £7
    * The eighth would pay £12
    * The ninth would pay £18
    * The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59

    So, that's what they decided to do.
    The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement; until one day the owner threw them a problem.
    "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20." Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.
    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
    So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
    But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
    They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
    So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

    * And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
    * The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% savings)
    * The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28% savings)
    * The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings)
    * The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings)
    * The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings)

    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
    "I only got a pound out of the £20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "But he got £10!"
    "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved £1 as well.
    It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
    "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
    The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
    discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
    And that is how our tax system works.

    The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just
    may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
    For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
    For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
    Now who's round is it ?????
  • If the public stopped using companies that avoided paying UK tax, these companies would soon cough up and only then would you see the Government coffers would be bulging.

    Blaming it on Joe Public is what Murdoch would like you to do

    You mean companies that pay millions in other taxes. Such as VAT, Business rates etc. On top of the number of people they employ in this country who will all pay Tax and NI. They could easily move those jobs abroad if they wanted. Then we have more people out of jobs and less tax receipts. Those same companies are also respected for the way they treat their staff through sick pay/pensions etc and so reduce the long term bill on the government.

    The argument no one should use them frankly makes me laugh as all that would do is force their activity abroad so we lose tax revenue, jobs and their services...
    I'm not sure Starbucks could do that.
    Given only 3% of Starbucks' global stores are in the UK, I'm sure they could find a more profitable return on the tied-up capital elsewhere if their tax burden became intolerable.
  • If the public stopped using companies that avoided paying UK tax, these companies would soon cough up and only then would you see the Government coffers would be bulging.

    Blaming it on Joe Public is what Murdoch would like you to do

    You mean companies that pay millions in other taxes. Such as VAT, Business rates etc. On top of the number of people they employ in this country who will all pay Tax and NI. They could easily move those jobs abroad if they wanted. Then we have more people out of jobs and less tax receipts. Those same companies are also respected for the way they treat their staff through sick pay/pensions etc and so reduce the long term bill on the government.

    The argument no one should use them frankly makes me laugh as all that would do is force their activity abroad so we lose tax revenue, jobs and their services...
    I'm not sure Starbucks could do that.
    Given only 3% of Starbucks' global stores are in the UK, I'm sure they could find a more profitable return on the tied-up capital elsewhere if their tax burden became intolerable.
    Let them fuck off then.

    Good idea, they only employ 24,000 people here.
  • Sponsored links:


  • If the public stopped using companies that avoided paying UK tax, these companies would soon cough up and only then would you see the Government coffers would be bulging.

    Blaming it on Joe Public is what Murdoch would like you to do

    You mean companies that pay millions in other taxes. Such as VAT, Business rates etc. On top of the number of people they employ in this country who will all pay Tax and NI. They could easily move those jobs abroad if they wanted. Then we have more people out of jobs and less tax receipts. Those same companies are also respected for the way they treat their staff through sick pay/pensions etc and so reduce the long term bill on the government.

    The argument no one should use them frankly makes me laugh as all that would do is force their activity abroad so we lose tax revenue, jobs and their services...
    I'm not sure Starbucks could do that.
    Given only 3% of Starbucks' global stores are in the UK, I'm sure they could find a more profitable return on the tied-up capital elsewhere if their tax burden became intolerable.
    Let them fuck off then.

    Good idea, they only employ 24,000 people here.
    Didn't Naomi Klein accuse them of cluster bombing neighbourhoods forcing independants out of business?
  • Corporation tax is such a tiny % of tax receipts it's almost an irrelevance. It's just a way for the government to go 'Ohh look were not the bad guys those big evil corporations are'!
  • If the public stopped using companies that avoided paying UK tax, these companies would soon cough up and only then would you see the Government coffers would be bulging.

    Blaming it on Joe Public is what Murdoch would like you to do

    You mean companies that pay millions in other taxes. Such as VAT, Business rates etc. On top of the number of people they employ in this country who will all pay Tax and NI. They could easily move those jobs abroad if they wanted. Then we have more people out of jobs and less tax receipts. Those same companies are also respected for the way they treat their staff through sick pay/pensions etc and so reduce the long term bill on the government.

    The argument no one should use them frankly makes me laugh as all that would do is force their activity abroad so we lose tax revenue, jobs and their services...
    I'm not sure Starbucks could do that.
    Given only 3% of Starbucks' global stores are in the UK, I'm sure they could find a more profitable return on the tied-up capital elsewhere if their tax burden became intolerable.
    Let them fuck off then.

    Good idea, they only employ 24,000 people here.
    Didn't Naomi Klein accuse them of cluster bombing neighbourhoods forcing independants out of business?
    Quite possibly given she makes Jeremy Corbyn look like a wishy-washy centrist.
  • edited January 10

    Corporation tax is such a tiny % of tax receipts it's almost an irrelevance. It's just a way for the government to go 'Ohh look were not the bad guys those big evil corporations are'!

    Similarly on the fiscal spending side, only 0.3% of total government spending goes on unemployment benefits yet some on the right would like us to think that our deficit would be closed if only those pesky feckless 1.6 million jobless people would get off their backsides and look for work!
  • Corporation tax is such a tiny % of tax receipts it's almost an irrelevance. It's just a way for the government to go 'Ohh look were not the bad guys those big evil corporations are'!

    Similarly on the fiscal spending side, only 0.3% of total government spending goes on unemployment benefits yet some on the right would like us to think that our deficit would be closed if only those pesky feckless 1.6 million jobless people would get off their backsides and look for work!
    1) I'm not sure that 0.3% figure is correct? Do you have a source?

    2) unemployment benefit is just one benefit and a tiny amount of the welfare system which according to the ONS was 35% of got spending in 24/15.

    But yes I see your point.
  • edited January 10
    Addickted said:

    How about giving it a go, just to see?

    At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.

    We already have. It failed, dismally and spectacularly.

    The Harold Wilson Govt. had a so-called progressive tax regime with a top tax rate of 83% PLUS 15% on "unearned income" thus giving a marginal tax rate of 98%. What happened? The likes of The Stones and The Beatles based themselves elsewhere. In truth they had no choice. Bill Wyman said he got £70k out of every £1mn earned and if he hadn't left the country he couldn't actually afford to pay the imposed tax.
    There were songs about it: you may remember The Beatles Taxman; The Kinks Sunny Afternoon and, of course, what is now considered to be The Stones best work is called Exile on Main Street for a reason.

    Squeezing the rich is a stupid and counterproductive measure. These days it's not just pop stars who make large sums of money. Footballers and international bankers are typical other examples. They can all ply their trade anywhere and would pack their bags at a moments notice.

    Of course, this means that the money they spend here would go too, meaning the Government would no longer get an extra 16.7% of what they spend through VAT receipts, as their spending would vanish with them. Those they employ, gardeners, jewellers, Bentley salesmen, etc, etc would, too, find themselves less well of (or unemployed) meaning UK plc would be in a right mess.

    BTW, the rich already pay far more than their fair share. Presently close to half the working age population pay no income tax at all. (Primarily because of George Osborne raising the income tax personal allowance from £6,475 to £10,600.)

    Here's the relevant extract from The Institute of Fiscal Studies report:

    "the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23 million people.

    Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax." (My emphasis)

    You really, really want them to pay more?

    Edited to add: Over the Xmas holidays I went to watch some amateur show-jumping (don't ask). (The jumps were set, to my eyes, at a ridiculously low level. I reckoned I could have got round without a horse. Although, as one of the entrants was an ex-Grand National winner, I could have been wrong.)
    Nonetheless a horse and rider combo both looked hopelessly inadequate even to my untrained eye. They were an accident waiting to happen and should not have been competing. But on they went. At one jump the horse did a complete 360 hurling the rider to the floor. Thankfully the horse was okay. The idiot rider less so with a smashed collar bone and broken ribs.
    Of course, this required an ambulance and A&E treatment. All costs borne by the NHS and all entirely preventable.

    Anyway, my point I suppose is that I object to fruit-loops cluttering up the health service with their self-imposed injuries. Horse riders, drunks and the like should be charged a fee for their treatment.
  • Indeed of the 48,000 UK tax residents who earned >£500k in 2015/16, I wonder how many of them are even British citizens?

    More than 1.2million people are earning over £100,000 a year, if a new survey of reported incomes is accurate.

    This is just below 4 per cent of the UK working population, which stood at 31.6million in the first three months of the year, according to official figures.

    The number of those who said they earn more than £200,000 a year is much smaller at 235,000, according to a survey of more than 1,000 people by global currency business Centtrip.

    Meanwhile, the survey suggests the number of people saying they earn more than £1million per year is about 47,000,


  • If the public stopped using companies that avoided paying UK tax, these companies would soon cough up and only then would you see the Government coffers would be bulging.

    Blaming it on Joe Public is what Murdoch would like you to do

    You mean companies that pay millions in other taxes. Such as VAT, Business rates etc. On top of the number of people they employ in this country who will all pay Tax and NI. They could easily move those jobs abroad if they wanted. Then we have more people out of jobs and less tax receipts. Those same companies are also respected for the way they treat their staff through sick pay/pensions etc and so reduce the long term bill on the government.

    The argument no one should use them frankly makes me laugh as all that would do is force their activity abroad so we lose tax revenue, jobs and their services...
    I'm not sure Starbucks could do that.
    Given only 3% of Starbucks' global stores are in the UK, I'm sure they could find a more profitable return on the tied-up capital elsewhere if their tax burden became intolerable.
    Let them fuck off then.

    Good idea, they only employ 24,000 people here.
    People like coffee shops. Starbucks do one and open the way for independent coffee outlets that would employ people and perhaps even pay the correct amount of tax.

  • cafcfan said:

    Addickted said:

    How about giving it a go, just to see?

    At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.

    You really, really want them to pay more?

    Yes.

    Have you seen the title of this thread?

  • cafcfan said:

    Addickted said:

    How about giving it a go, just to see?

    At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.

    We already have. It failed, dismally and spectacularly.

    The Harold Wilson Govt. had a so-called progressive tax regime with a top tax rate of 83% PLUS 15% on "unearned income" thus giving a marginal tax rate of 98%. What happened? The likes of The Stones and The Beatles based themselves elsewhere. In truth they had no choice. Bill Wyman said he got £70k out of every £1mn earned and if he hadn't left the country he couldn't actually afford to pay the imposed tax.
    There were songs about it: you may remember The Beatles Taxman; The Kinks Sunny Afternoon and, of course, what is now considered to be The Stones best work is called Exile on Main Street for a reason.

    Squeezing the rich is a stupid and counterproductive measure. These days it's not just pop stars who make large sums of money. Footballers and international bankers are typical other examples. They can all ply their trade anywhere and would pack their bags at a moments notice.

    Of course, this means that the money they spend here would go too, meaning the Government would no longer get an extra 16.7% of what they spend through VAT receipts, as their spending would vanish with them. Those they employ, gardeners, jewellers, Bentley salesmen, etc, etc would, too, find themselves less well of (or unemployed) meaning UK plc would be in a right mess.

    BTW, the rich already pay far more than their fair share. Presently close to half the working age population pay no income tax at all. (Primarily because of George Osborne raising the income tax personal allowance from £6,475 to £10,600.)

    Here's the relevant extract from The Institute of Fiscal Studies report:

    "the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23 million people.

    Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax." (My emphasis)

    You really, really want them to pay more?

    They're paying more of the tax because they've hoarded more of the f**king money
Sign In or Register to comment.