Two-Thirds Of Millionaires Left Britain To Avoid 50P Tax Rate

[Bloo Loo]

As an example,

If someone sells shares in a shoe company and uses the money to build a house that they then rent out

this is clearly wealth creation, because they have provided someone with a home.

Previously they were providing people with shoes.

Wealth is all the things we need to survive, including shoes and housing.

the building the house is wealth creation...its something someone coulduse as collateral for a loan repayable with interest.

The shoe shares....not neccessarily...could have been boosted by money printing or ponzi finance...see the house they built

So, selling the shares in any case is not wealth creation...

[erranta]

Please continue posting. America also became the richest nation in the world before the federal income tax came in 1913. That sort of reality drives the socialists and tax eaters here crazy.

Another bogus post to be "Picked and flicked"

Americans of that period were still stealing land from the Natives. They were awash with cheap, productive, virtually free land. (In fact they were given huge Prairie tracts free of charge just to settle there.)

In the UK all free land has been usurped by an imp-osing elite class which can only exist if they Socialise whats left for the proles.

Even the wolves in sheep clothing, members of labour, are committed to "saving Capitalism from the working classes"

[Ah-so]

yeah right.

No one earns £1m...how much actual wealth is required to be moved to give that return, and can one man do it...answer...no, its impossible. Its the old 0.01% again...entitlement, grace and favour, allied to unlimited public purse where any wealth one does earn, comes from the pocket of someone else...

Only in fat organisations are people taking £1m. And I reckon most will be in Legal and Banking.

A huge percentage of those earning more than £1m a year will be entrepreneurs who have set up their own businesses. Yes, you need a bit of luck and leverage, but there are plenty of people who do earn over £1m.

Yes, several thousand will be workers in the City, and I reckon that a large chunk of the decreae mentioned above will be as a result of falling bonuses over the past few years.

I think it is worth remember than 25% of income tax is paid by 1% of income tax payers.

[Sir Harold m]

A huge percentage of those earning more than £1m a year will be entrepreneurs who have set up their own businesses. Yes, you need a bit of luck and leverage, but there are plenty of people who do earn over £1m.

Yes, several thousand will be workers in the City, and I reckon that a large chunk of the decreae mentioned above will be as a result of falling bonuses over the past few years.

I think it is worth remember than 25% of income tax is paid by 1% of income tax payers.

I know of people who spent the exact same amount of time on the uk doing the same amount and type of business here and abroad earning the same high salary in the years up to 2009 and in the years after .

Their input / extraction whatever your view into out of the ul economy was identical over both periods.

The only difference is prior to 2009 they paid over half a million to hmt , since then they pay it to another treasury .

You lot are making up the difference .

Good luck and enjoy yourselves, your envy will be justly rewarded .

[alexw]

Trying to stop posting here because it's a complete waste of time,

however, the responses to this thread really take the biscuit.

Did the 20th Century not happen? did I just imagine it ?

Capitalism has delivered untold wealth but the ruling elite have managed to corner most of that wealth.

The answer is not to destroy wealth creation, the answer is to stop the unproductive. parasitic, political classes stealing all the wealth created.

How we achieve this is clearly problematic

but the idea that a failed 19th Century ideology is the answer to the challenges of the 21st Century is absolutely ludicrous.

CAPITALISM delivers unprecedented wealth, SOCIALISM destroys wealth.

SOCIALISM is not the answer and it's so bloody depressing that the new generations haven't got the wit or imagination to at least try suggesting something that might just stand a cat in Hell's chance of working.

Please feel free to ignore this post, as none of the likely replies will add anything whatsoever to the debate.

Please explain in what way?

Everyone has simply posted that the original article is a load of garbage and a propaganda piece. Which it is. They've rightly torn large holes in the story it tries to portray. It's not even hard to prove it's a load of garbage.

HMRC itself has said that some £16-£18bn was tax shifted to the prior year to avoid the 50% tax. ONS has also said that some £6.5bn has been shifted into the following year where it will attract the 45% tax rate.

http://blogs.channel4.com/faisal-islam-on-economics/budget-2012-tax-avoidance-and-the-50p-rate/16428

So how does people rightly pointing out that the telegraph is posting dailymail-esque rubbish "take the biscuit"?

[The Eagle]

Higher taxes mean less revenue. Tax wealth creators

Most of them are parasites, not wealth creators. You and me create wealth every day by doing the actual work, the millionaires live off our work.

A huge percentage of those earning more than £1m a year will be entrepreneurs who have set up their own businesses. Yes, you need a bit of luck and leverage, but there are plenty of people who do earn over £1m.

Wrong. A huge percentage of those making over £1m a year are rentiers (wealthy land owners, speculators, banksters, etc..). Any business owner knows that's very hard to make such an amount of profit for yourself, even if you have a multi-million turnover. Competition is strong and margins are tight, there are very few possibilities to end up with £1m+ a year in profits at the end of a year for an individual business owner.

Of course there are exceptions like overpaid footballers, but they are a small minority among the millionaires.

Edited November 28, 2012 by The Eagle

[Game_Over]

Please explain in what way?

Everyone has simply posted that the original article is a load of garbage and a propaganda piece. Which it is. They've rightly torn large holes in the story it tries to portray. It's not even hard to prove it's a load of garbage.

HMRC itself has said that some £16-£18bn was tax shifted to the prior year to avoid the 50% tax. ONS has also said that some £6.5bn has been shifted into the following year where it will attract the 45% tax rate.

http://blogs.channel4.com/faisal-islam-on-economics/budget-2012-tax-avoidance-and-the-50p-rate/16428

So how does people rightly pointing out that the telegraph is posting dailymail-esque rubbish "take the biscuit"?

The responses don't have much to do with the article - they are the same arguments that have been repeated over and over by the same people ever since I started posting here.

I don't know what the answer is, because no one ever really discusses any realistic or practical way forward, instead people just keep proposing solutions that have failed over and over again.

Even the Labour Party abandoned most of these ideas years ago - of course in opposition they see their role as opposing everything the Government proposes - but in Government they will persue the exact same policies.

I don't know what the answer is - but please try and come up with something better than a 100+ years old failed ideology.

[Traktion]

As an example,

If someone sells shares in a shoe company and uses the money to build a house that they then rent out

this is clearly wealth creation, because they have provided someone with a home.

Previously they were providing people with shoes.

Wealth is all the things we need to survive, including shoes and housing.

It is the monopolisation of the location which is where the primary rent seeking is occurring, not in the house building. Secondarily, you have various parasites in the financial industry, rent seeking due to forced/fiat currency being pushed on everyone.

Where ever there is a state enforced monopolies/regulations, there are sure to be rent seekers not far away.

[Jack's Creation]

and they will f*ck off and leech off someone else.

Good.

What about those that leach off the State, Frank?

[The Eagle]

What about those that leach off the State, Frank?

You mean the bailed out banksters? the sooner they leave the better it is.

[Game_Over]

It is the monopolisation of the location which is where the primary rent seeking is occurring, not in the house building. Secondarily, you have various parasites in the financial industry, rent seeking due to forced/fiat currency being pushed on everyone.

Where ever there is a state enforced monopolies/regulations, there are sure to be rent seekers not far away.

Humans have always paid rent with or without a state

rent is the energy humans have to expend in order to defend their land

without land humans cannot survive

Monkeys do the same, as do most other living creatures

even ant colonies fight each other.

[Game_Over]

Anyway - been thinking more about this and have come up with some facts.

Fact 1 - for most of our existence humans have lived at a subsistence level, barely clinging to existence.

Fact 2 - All through human history, there have been some humans who have had ideas that have enabled them to gain a competitive edge.

Fact 3 - Throughout most of history, these humans have only had the same access to resources as all other humans, so their impact on the overall wealth created by humanity was minimal.

Fact 4 - Capitalism is a system of organisation arrived at after many hundreds of years of experimentation whereby society channels capital to these wealth creating individuals which has enabled them to vastly increase the overall wealth and well being of the whole of humanity.

Fact 5 - Socialism is a system of organisation whereby capital is taken away from wealth creating individuals and distributed across the whole of society which inevitably results in the destruction of that wealth.

Anyone who disagrees with this analysis would have to explain why humans lived the same way for hundreds of thousands of years but then suddenly had an explosion of wealth creation.

The Greeks and Romans both had the capacity to have an industrial revolution, so why didn't they?

It could be that both had slavery and that capitalism is the first system that really gave people freedom, another reason why Socialism fails because essentially it is no different from Serfdom.

Just random thoughts.

[swissy_fit]

Anyway - been thinking more about this and have come up with some facts.

Fact 1 - for most of our existence humans have lived at a subsistence level, barely clinging to existence.

Fact 2 - All through human history, there have been some humans who have had ideas that have enabled them to gain a competitive edge.

Fact 3 - Throughout most of history, these humans have only had the same access to resources as all other humans, so their impact on the overall wealth created by humanity was minimal.

Fact 4 - Capitalism is a system of organisation arrived at after many hundreds of years of experimentation whereby society channels capital to these wealth creating individuals which has enabled them to vastly increase the overall wealth and well being of the whole of humanity.

Fact 5 - Socialism is a system of organisation whereby capital is taken away from wealth creating individuals and distributed across the whole of society which inevitably results in the destruction of that wealth.

Anyone who disagrees with this analysis would have to explain why humans lived the same way for hundreds of thousands of years but then suddenly had an explosion of wealth creation.

The Greeks and Romans both had the capacity to have an industrial revolution, so why didn't they?

It could be that both had slavery and that capitalism is the first system that really gave people freedom, another reason why Socialism fails because essentially it is no different from Serfdom.

Just random thoughts.

Why do you keep waffling about socialism?

It, like capitalism, has never really been tried, human nature doesn't allow for it, we're not hive insects.

Has anyone put forward socialism as an answer? I don't think so.

All people have done is point out the totally misleading nature of the article, purporting to show how the 50p tax rate decreased the tax take but in fact showing nothing of the kind.

As for your "Facts", they are mostly not facts at all but opinions.

[shipbuilder]

Trying to stop posting here because it's a complete waste of time,

however, the responses to this thread really take the biscuit.

Did the 20th Century not happen? did I just imagine it ?

Capitalism has delivered untold wealth but the ruling elite have managed to corner most of that wealth.

The answer is not to destroy wealth creation, the answer is to stop the unproductive. parasitic, political classes stealing all the wealth created.

How we achieve this is clearly problematic

but the idea that a failed 19th Century ideology is the answer to the challenges of the 21st Century is absolutely ludicrous.

CAPITALISM delivers unprecedented wealth, SOCIALISM destroys wealth.

SOCIALISM is not the answer and it's so bloody depressing that the new generations haven't got the wit or imagination to at least try suggesting something that might just stand a cat in Hell's chance of working.

Please feel free to ignore this post, as none of the likely replies will add anything whatsoever to the debate.

Given that you define anything you don't personally like as socialism or 'the left' and don't regard anything in the past few decades as capitalism, I'd say you're on a hiding to nothing.

[Game_Over]

Why do you keep waffling about socialism?

It, like capitalism, has never really been tried, human nature doesn't allow for it, we're not hive insects.

Has anyone put forward socialism as an answer? I don't think so.

All people have done is point out the totally misleading nature of the article, purporting to show how the 50p tax rate decreased the tax take but in fact showing nothing of the kind.

As for your "Facts", they are mostly not facts at all but opinions.

Which fact do you disagree with?

Capitalism has been tried and that's why we now have jet airliners, computers etc, etc and produce vast amounts of food, energy and raw materials.

This never happened before, why?

And clearly capitalism concentrates capital in the hands of wealth creating individuals

and as far as I understand it, the whole point of Socialism is to remove capital from people who have amassed it and give it to people who have failed to amass it.

If you had 10k to invest would you lend it to Bill Gates or a tramp?

The whole point of many posts on this thread is the idea that people with wealth have stolen it from the poor and that if the poor steal it back everyone will be rich.

This isn't how Capitalism works, or what has actually happened throughout history.

[shipbuilder]

Humans have always paid rent with or without a state

rent is the energy humans have to expend in order to defend their land

without land humans cannot survive

Monkeys do the same, as do most other living creatures

even ant colonies fight each other.

Everyone already knows this.

The point is the amount of rent paid and by whom. The state facilitates rent extraction that otherwise would not be possible, something that you have acknowledged consistently with your rants against the state.

You want the state to do the thing that you personally think are beneficial. Unfortunately so does everyone else. Everyone clearly can't have what they want and yet you are still a statist. This seems somewhat utopian.

Edited November 29, 2012 by shipbuilder

[shipbuilder]

Which fact do you disagree with?

Capitalism has been tried and that's why we now have jet airliners, computers etc, etc and produce vast amounts of food, energy and raw materials.

This never happened before, why?

And clearly capitalism concentrates capital in the hands of wealth creating individuals

and as far as I understand it, the whole point of Socialism is to remove capital from people who have amassed it and give it to people who have failed to amass it.

If you had 10k to invest would you lend it to Bill Gates or a tramp?

The whole point of many posts on this thread is the idea that people with wealth have stolen it from the poor and that if the poor steal it back everyone will be rich.

This isn't how Capitalism works, or what has actually happened throughout history.

No offence, but this is simplistic rubbish.

[Game_Over]

Given that you define anything you don't personally like as socialism or 'the left' and don't regard anything in the past few decades as capitalism, I'd say you're on a hiding to nothing.

I don't like death camps, secret police and slavery if that's what you mean

and neither did the millions of people who risked death in the 20th Century attempting to escape from Socialist utopias

to the evil capitalist west.

And at the end of the day if Socialism worked, I would be all for it

and so would everybody else.

[Game_Over]

No offence, but this is simplistic rubbish.

Apart from the fact it explains what has happened in the past, what is happening now

and what is going to happen in the future.

Perhaps we could get a room full of professors of economics to explain why they didn't expect the World economy to crash in 2007?

[shipbuilder]

Apart from the fact it explains what has happened in the past, what is happening now

and what is going to happen in the future.

Perhaps we could get a room full of professors of economics to explain why they didn't expect the World economy to crash in 2007?

If you've really read hundreds of history books and come to the conclusion that there is only one cause behind all the good in the past few centuries and one cause behind all the bad, then I would say that you've wasted your time.

On the other hand, as I said, if your definitions of capitalism and socialism are fluid enough to fit whatever you like, then I guess you'll have no problem moulding them to any historic event to make you right.

Edited November 29, 2012 by shipbuilder

[swissy_fit]

and as far as I understand it, the whole point of Socialism is to remove capital from people who have amassed it and give it to people who have failed to amass it.

There you go, you see you CAN do it.

That's an opinion, expressed as an opinion and not as a "fact".

I don't want to debate the opinion with you, you are entitled to it. What you are not entitled to do unchallenged is say that it's a fact.

IMO (see what I did there?) your political philosophy comes over as having been cribbed from some quasi-religious simplistic American right-wing outfit, portraying all that is left of centre as evil and all that is right of centre as good, with no recognition of the fact that without some of the success the left had in the past you probably wouldn't even have enough education to write the post and would have been cleaning chimneys aged 5.

All of this in a thread where I posted simply to agree with the other posters debunking the original article.

Edited November 29, 2012 by swissy_fit

[erranta]

You mean the bailed out banksters? the sooner they leave the better it is.

Yep

With the blatant manipulation of interest rates (going on for years) by the BOE whilst the psychotic City fekkers try to extract their core businesses out of bankruptsy,

- you can easily see how our economy has been manipulated by 'them' over the decades into financial booms and busts to feed their greed at the expense of ordinary UK population.

Ditto commodity faux bids up and down - bear NO relation anymore to product glut or scarcity just manipulated for their yearly bonus cheques.Oil, Gas, Food, Grain manipulated scandals which cost us dear whilst they get a slap on the wrist (fines paid for by the financia business they scam work for etc)

Bank management classes should be stuck in the White Tower as exhibits of pure evil and their bones thrown to the carrion crows/Ravens.

Edited November 29, 2012 by erranta

[alexw]

If you've really read hundreds of history books and come to the conclusion that there is only one cause behind all the good in the past few centuries and one cause behind all the bad, then I would say that you've wasted your time.

On the other hand, as I said, if your definitions of capitalism and socialism are fluid enough to fit whatever you like, then I guess you'll have no problem moulding them to any historic event to make you right.

He's certainly fluid enough, china is getting stronger by the year because it's capitalistic -

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=181441&view=findpost&p=909104555

but it's also apparently socialist-

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=177591&view=findpost&p=909015620

[Game_Over]

There you go, you see you CAN do it.

That's an opinion, expressed as an opinion and not as a "fact".

I don't want to debate the opinion with you, you are entitled to it. What you are not entitled to do unchallenged is say that it's a fact.

IMO (see what I did there?) your political philosophy comes over as having been cribbed from some quasi-religious simplistic American right-wing outfit, portraying all that is left of centre as evil and all that is right of centre as good, with no recognition of the fact that without some of the success the left had in the past you probably wouldn't even have enough education to write the post and would have been cleaning chimneys aged 5.

All of this in a thread where I posted simply to agree with the other posters debunking the original article.

The things I listed as facts are facts.

Capitalism channels money to wealth creators - that's why it's called Capitalism

Socialism takes capital away from people who possess it and gives it to people who don't.

I understand why people are unhappy with the facts, because they tend to spoil the party.

No doubt food production figures have risen every year in North Korea, but the fact is, everyone is starving.

[Game_Over]

He's certainly fluid enough, china is getting stronger by the year because it's capitalistic -

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=181441&view=findpost&p=909104555

but it's also apparently socialist-

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=177591&view=findpost&p=909015620

China is actually trying something unique.

It abandoned the economic aspects of socialism when 60 million people starved during the 'Great Leap Forward', but it retained the one party state, secret police, labour camp aspects.

So what it has become is a strange hybrid - one party Capitalism.

The problem is, Capitalism requires giving people freedom and once this genie is let out of the bottle, it is pretty hard to control.

China is heading for tremendous internal strife at some point in the next few decades IMO.