Reply to: Artist Emin may quit UK over tax

[The Lone Gunman]

This nonsense cliched argument is constantly peddled by special interest groups and is a pile of bollux.
Germany creates more wealth than the UK (documented fact) and its taxes are higher (documented fact).
So lets put this crap argument to bed once and for all.

HTH.

Not sure you are right there. Certainly income tax is higher, but I am fairly sure that once you add in all the other tax that the UK doesnt look so rosy.
Also the Germans earn a lot more. Best offers I have had on like for like permie work.
36K GBP UK. 95K Euro Germany. Seriously tempted with the 95 even if it does come with a 50% tax. I just cant quite give up my home or contracting.

[NickFitz]

as happened under the last Labour government in the 1970's and a some never returned (David Bowie for example).

Another good reason to vote Labour - first they got rid of one pretentious self-styled "artist" who had about as much talent as a turd, and now they're getting rid of another!

[Peoplesoft bloke]

as happened under the last Labour government in the 1970's and a some never returned (David Bowie for example).

Yeah, it's been a real nightmare living here since Bowie and (later) Phil Collins left.

[FarmerPalmer]

It sounds so simple, raise taxes for the wealth creators and get them to pay for everything!

This will not work, they will either leave the UK until the situation improves, limit their income to under the limit or pack in and stop creating further wealth, just a crazy idea.

as happened under the last Labour government in the 1970's and a some never returned (David Bowie for example).

[threaded]

Add Norway to that list...

Add Germany ...

[centurian]

If at least 4 higher-rate taxpayers stay, for every 1 who leaves, it will be a net gain for the exchequer. Experience suggests that the overwhelming majority of higher-rate taxpayers will not leave, only a few will but they will make a lot of noise.

Threaded, you are correct of course but they won't want to believe it.

Assuming they are all earn equal amounts, then yes. I think those earning millions will be more likely to leave, meaning you need - say 50 or so "lower" earners on 175K to cover the amount lost for one huge earner.

Also it isn't sufficient to simply be a bit better off than before. The expected yield from the tax rise has already been "priced in" to future budgets. If it doesn't realise the full amount (which probably assumes that no-one leaves the country), then the government will have to put up other taxes (or cut spending even further).

[Sysman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by WIKI

The highest rate peaked in the Second World War at 99.25% and remained at about 95% till the late 1970s.[citation needed]

In 1974 the top-rate of income tax increased to its highest rate since the war, 83%. This applied to incomes over £20,000, and combined with a 15% surcharge on 'un-earned' income (investments and dividends) could add to a 98% marginal rate of personal income tax. In 1974, just 750,000 people were liable to pay the top-rate of income tax. [4] Margaret Thatcher, who favoured indirect taxation reduced personal income tax rates during the 1980s. [5] In the first budget after her election victory in 1979, the top-rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%. [6] The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets - to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988. [7] The top-rate of income tax was cut to 40% in the 1988 budget.

I'm sure it was 102% for something but I can't now remember what.

I not only remember that 98% figure, but I remember a chap interviewed on the news the day it came down who gave the impression he thought he'd lost status somehow.

In the 83%/98% tax era I also heard tales of suitcases of money being taken to Ireland and holidays in exotic places paid for.

I can't remember details of the 102% rate either, but I'm pretty sure it did exist for certain cases.

People used to rent suits rather than buy them.

Or so I read somewhere.

I don't know how true that was except for that once a year dinner jacket, but from a stint at a mail order company I do know that folks would buy clothes (on tick) for weddings then send 'em back saying they didn't fit properly or the colour didn't suit them etc.

[lilelvis2000]

Who is she anyway? I'm still stuck in the 80's. If Rick Astley said that, at least I'd know who the heck he is!

[Scary]

They should tax people that have nothing better to spend their money on than her "work". Spend it on teachers or hospitals or something.

[gingerjedi]

She could have so easily ended up on NMW in a cafe or McD's but for the 1 in a million chance that some knob took her 'work' seriously... my heart bleeds.

I'd love to say feck it I'm off to France but I doubt I could even afford the ferry these days.

[singhr]

or her boyfriends

[singhr]

The real problem I have is the fact she earns £150k+pa for leaving her bed unmade and taking panoramic photos of her dirty bath.

Come off it - 'Bed' was outstounding - surely her seminal work?

[Doggy Styles]

The NICs are irrelevant to the discussion of whether a higher tax rate of 50% rather than 40% on income over £150,000 is much more onerous than before; or only a little more onerous, not worth dumping your country for.

Indeed, I'd included something about employers NICs for their limited companies but deleted it.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

50%, plus NICs.

The NICs are irrelevant to the discussion of whether a higher tax rate of 50% rather than 40% on income over £150,000 is much more onerous than before; or only a little more onerous, not worth dumping your country for.

But since you mention it, why do higher earners get away with a proportionately lower rate of employee's NICs? (because of the Upper Earnings Limit). That's a regressive tax - it hits the poor harder.

[Clippy]

I'm too young (just) to remember, but Labour did something similar the last time they were in power in the 70's. Right?

i.e. raise taxes which caused a lot of famous artisans, mainly musicians, to flee overseas.