Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

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


Recommended Posts

So, I have read plenty of gush from the blatantly jealous who want anybody better off then them to leave the country.

There has been no shortage of pedants who cannot handle a counter intuitive idea and so retreat into the detail.

The reason for increasing the tax rate was to increase the tax take. There has been no evidence forthcoming that this has worked and the indications are quite the opposite.

This means that either the instigators were plain stupid or they were manipulating the base instincts of voters. No prizes.....

You mean they look for cold hard data that might back up the propaganda article and can find sweet FA? They then as i did look for data that disproves it and find HMRC data that quite readily does so, so rightly calls the article what it is - a load of garbage? Is that what a pedant is? Funny I thought what I did was seek the truth.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You mean they look for cold hard data that might back up the propaganda article and can find sweet FA? They then as i did look for data that disproves it and find HMRC data that quite readily does so, so rightly calls the article what it is - a load of garbage? Is that what a pedant is? Funny I thought what I did was seek the truth.....

How about looking at 100 years of history.

And it is hardly counter intuitive - if you steal everything people make they end up only making what they personally need to survive.

Societies that use Socialism to redistribute wealth in order to remove inequality always achieve their goal

its just that they achieve equality by making everyone poor.

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

The detail is important.

...

According to HMRC, the extra tax raised was about £1 billion....

From your link :

"The conclusion that can be drawn from the self-assessment data is therefore that the underlying yield from the additional rate is much lower than originally forecast (yielding around £1bn or less), and that it is quite possible that it could be negative," HMRC said in its 60-page report.

Thanks for confirming my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is for the 'open loop' thinkers. No concept of feedback, you see.

Sorry, wasn't having a go at you.

I just thought you were being over generous suggesting that the concept was difficult for people to understand.

TBH I don't think the problem is lack of intelligence, it's just the same old story

people see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence.

IMO we have clearly reached the point where any increase in any form of taxation anywhere in the economy will result in falling revenues either directly or indirectly.

Take the Green taxes on fuel bills which are hard to avoid - people will just have less money to spend on non essential items, therefore, less VAT will be raised and also people in retail could lose their jobs and end up claiming benefit.

There is only one way out of the mess we are in, but it will be extremely painful for those who work for and live off the state I'm afraid.

:blink:

Edited by Game_Over
Link to post
Share on other sites

From your link :

Thanks for confirming my point.

Because - "The analysis suggests that between £16bn and £18bn of income was brought forward to 2009-10 to avoid the additional rate of tax," HMRC says"

A one off tax shift meaning they could not do it in future years if the 50% rate was kept. Ergo ~10% or so of 16-18bn in tax gained in the following year.

Meaning the 50% tax rate generates about ~2.7bn extra tax revenue a year (1bn + the 1.7bn avoided). So a bit more than the 2.5bn HMRC originally forecasted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Higher taxes mean less revenue. Tax wealth creators and they will bugger off and take their incomes, jobs and investment with them.

-

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.

The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.

It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.

Since the announcement, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000.

However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis.

Last night, Harriet Baldwin, the Conservative MP who uncovered the latest figures, said: “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.

Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.

“Labour now needs to admit that their policies resulted in millionaires paying less tax and come clean about whether they would reintroduce this failed policy if they were in power.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9707029/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

it's not just about high taxes.it is about pointless/ninnying micromanagement as well.(actually I believe the first instance of this reported was in the bible(king jeraboam if I remember correctly....the high taxes and pointless regulation was a contributary factor in the split in ancient isreal in old testament days....history seems to repeat)

that is why revenues tumble.

...and the socialists,knowing full well that they have screwed up,then proceed to implement all sorts of schemes to suppress those that dissent.

and blame everybody else in the process for their own ****-ups.

however,this is not just an economic problem.it is a political one too.

Canada just passed the test.OUR politicians did not.(actually you just f***ed up bigtime!)

Please come and rescue us from these numpties.

I thought these politicians were listening.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/article6847234.ece/ALTERNATES/w300/http%3A-i.dailymail.co.uk-i-pix-2008-07-07-article-1032699-01DF800500000578-734_468x286.jpg

Edited by oracle
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because - "The analysis suggests that between £16bn and £18bn of income was brought forward to 2009-10 to avoid the additional rate of tax," HMRC says"

A one off tax shift meaning they could not do it in future years if the 50% rate was kept. Ergo ~10% or so of 16-18bn in tax gained in the following year.

Meaning the 50% tax rate generates about ~2.7bn extra tax revenue a year (1bn + the 1.7bn avoided). So a bit more than the 2.5bn HMRC originally forecasted.

It is only one billion if you really want to believe it. They openly admit that could be negative. Given the source - it's likely that they err on the side of taking more tax.

The 'one off' tax shift'? - I don't really think that has been proved either. Again, you must be predisposed to belief.

Should we not be sure about this stuff before robbing people, or does green eye really have the moral high ground?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is only one billion if you really want to believe it. They openly admit that could be negative. Given the source - it's likely that they err on the side of taking more tax.

Rubbish, they generally err on the side that suits the agenda of their current political masters. Their political masters wanted to get rid of the 50% tax rate, ergo they down play the tax collected.

The 'one off' tax shift'? - I don't really think that has been proved either. Again, you must be predisposed to belief.

Should we not be sure about this stuff before robbing people, or does green eye really have the moral high ground?

mmm perhaps simple logic is not your strong point. In 2009 labour said from next year there will be a tax rate of 50%. Ergo anyone over the 150k limit who could took money out of companies/sold shares/whatever a year early to pay only 40%. HMRC will have the earnings data for the tax years 2008-9, 2009-2010 & 2011-12. They also will have detailed statistical knowledge of what they expect earnings to be in those years based on the functioning of the economy. Based on that HMRC did the maths and found that -

"HMRC find that an astonishing £16bn of income was deliberately shifted into the previous tax year - at a cost to the taxpayer of £1bn, something that the previous government's figures made no allowance for whatsoever," the chancellor said.

Of course this was all determined by statistical analysis. But perhaps you don't believe in that sort of thing. You know, maths.

Should we not be sure about this stuff before robbing people, or does green eye really have the moral high ground?

You do post some nonsense don't you? Or do you believe HMRC is lying in this report? Or making it up?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Z6PJopWIOk4J:www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/excheq-income-tax-2042.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShTrlCs2W2AFoea3_dq4Mi8mpk0zcQkVWstgpuXL8EdcZKNojpw9A2ItZdu_ztygEODIs3eoJuaKTgBYPZ1v-cA54uVhzFQfPCehJaeLbRkyLWIaUpMiPs7cA1hdecDHVNay8I7&sig=AHIEtbSn6T2gKfhGw5ZzsS9ZOLGFjPn_8A

"The analysis shows that there was a considerable behavioural response to the rate change, including a substantial amount of forestalling: around £16 billion to £18 billion of income is estimated to have been brought forward to 2009-10 to avoid the introduction of the additional rate of tax."

Edited by alexw
Link to post
Share on other sites

mmm perhaps simple logic is not your strong point.

I am not bad at it, actually. Open loop thinking does fail here though.

My point, which in your zeal you missed, was that I don't think it's proved that the shift was one off. There was evidently a behavioural change - which is the point.

HMRC are predisposed to take more tax like a dog is predisposed to chase rabbits. Masters are all very well....

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point, which in your zeal you missed, was that I don't think it's proved that the shift was one off. There was evidently a behavioural change - which is the point.

which is why Osborne is mistaken in his belief that increasing taxes will reduce the deficit. Increasing taxes leads to behavioural changes; most individuals have less money to spend on the things they choose to spend their money on and the downward spiral of lower demand feeds into lower economic activity.

Any increase in taxation revenues becomes temporary as individuals restrict their spending even more because of their concerns of future uncertainty. And we find ourselves where we are now. With millions of suddenly lazy people!

Of course we don't become lazy there is less to do and employers respond by reducing the number of people they employ because there is less demand for the goods and services they produce. And so taxation revenues fall even more.

When you look at total taxation, include VAT, Corporation Tax included in prices we pay, Council Tax, RFL, IPT, etc, etc, etc we are all paying more than a 50p in the pound tax rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

which is why Osborne is mistaken in his belief that increasing taxes will reduce the deficit. Increasing taxes leads to behavioural changes; most individuals have less money to spend on the things they choose to spend their money on and the downward spiral of lower demand feeds into lower economic activity.

Any increase in taxation revenues becomes temporary as individuals restrict their spending even more because of their concerns of future uncertainty. And we find ourselves where we are now. With millions of suddenly lazy people!

Of course we don't become lazy there is less to do and employers respond by reducing the number of people they employ because there is less demand for the goods and services they produce. And so taxation revenues fall even more.

When you look at total taxation, include VAT, Corporation Tax included in prices we pay, Council Tax, RFL, IPT, etc, etc, etc we are all paying more than a 50p in the pound tax rate.

Yes but any decrease in taxation means that the government has less money to spend. The government has become the consumer of last result. Borrowing and spending because no one else will.

Edited by gf3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but any decrease in taxation means that the government has less money to spend. The government has become the consumer of last result. Borrowing and spending because no one else will.

The example I use to justify my bias is fuel duty and VAT thereon. The last tax rises caused consumption and therefore tax revenue to fall. I'm sure 20% VAT is one of the major factors causing the problems facing the retail sector.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This does read like a propaganda piece, and the central question to it remains unresolved.

"How many millionaires actually left Britain and how many actually just fiddled their taxes so that they appeared to be earning less?"

I'd suggest it's more likely the latter.

If they were able to just up and leave, what exactly were they contributing to our society and where and what were they actually doing?

This article just shouts "close more tax loopholes" to me. Trickle down economics don't work in this day and age when most of the money that is supposed to be trickled down ends up stashed in a tax haven abroad somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 433 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.