[Politics] Owen Jones

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Sadly, when the exchequer squeezed industry and high earners in the early to mid 70s, they just moved elsewhere, it was one of the defining moments for our post war economy and our economic standing alongside our traditional and newly emerging competitors..... apart from a brief upward trend from the early 80s.... squeezing us all again now will simply put a lid on it in my view, progress that is.

Can't set social policy because of some fear of people buggering off like they may or may not have done 50 years ago.

Taxes need to go up. Loopholes need to be aggressively enforced. If someone genuinely does want to go and live in Bermuda or Monaco, bon voyage. My guess is that vanishingly few will. If they stay, I expect my government to levy a level of tax commensurate with the level of protection that society gives to them and their business.

 

[keaton]

If you tax the rich, they won't leave: US data contradicts millionaires' threats

Does raising taxes on the rich really trigger their migration to more obliging states or countries? This study of every million-dollar earner in the US shows otherwise

www.theguardian.com

 

[chickens]

Yes they do. I’ve worked with many clients who turned away work to stay below tax thresholds. Both the self employed and owner-managed companies.

Then they’re doing well enough to choose not to work more, which is an individual imperative, but the tax bands are marginal, they’re only paying the higher level of tax on earnings above the thresholds. That’s nothing to do with the Laffer curve, that’s an individual going “I’ve got enough on my plate” in every sense of the word.

To give an example take a complex manufacturing process that is performed by a specialist company. What they do is slightly profitable, but enables a highly lucrative outcome for those they supply.

They could be taxed at 99% and there will still be strong financial incentive for this work to take place. Tax is way too complex for something as simplistic as the Laffer Curve (drawn on the back of a napkin at a dinner somewhere) to have assumed the economic importance it’s been given.

Besides which, most real world studies have suggested that the optimal ‘overall’ tax rate is around 70%. So even as an oversimplified scribble it’s the wrong shape.

 

[heathgate]

Can't set social policy because of some fear of people buggering off like they may or may not have done 50 years ago.

Taxes need to go up. Loopholes need to be aggressively enforced. If someone genuinely does want to go and live in Bermuda or Monaco, bon voyage. My guess is that vanishingly few will. If they stay, I expect my government to levy a level of tax commensurate with the level of protection that society gives to them and their business.

Oh they did bugger off in the 70s.

Of course nobody knows for sure, and recent surveys of the super rich may just be tinged with politically expedient responses.... but the top 1% do indisputably pay a third of the income tax take.... just an observation in context with the topics discussed above.

 

[Weststander]

Then they’re doing well enough to choose not to work more, which is an individual imperative, but the tax bands are marginal, they’re only paying the higher level of tax on earnings above the thresholds. That’s nothing to do with the Laffer curve, that’s an individual going “I’ve got enough on my plate” in every sense of the word.

To give an example take a complex manufacturing process that is performed by a specialist company. What they do is slightly profitable, but enables a highly lucrative outcome for those they supply.

They could be taxed at 99% and there will still be strong financial incentive for this work to take place. Tax is way too complex for something as simplistic as the Laffer Curve (drawn on the back of a napkin at a dinner somewhere) to have assumed the economic importance it’s been given.

Besides which, most real world studies have suggested that the optimal ‘overall’ tax rate is around 70%. So even as an oversimplified scribble it’s the wrong shape.

There are behavioral changes section attached to each new apolitical Treasury document specific to a tax increase. These quantify the estimated yield in year one, then a marked reduction thereafter. A second example is Sturgeon who added one percent to higher rate tax, she said it would raise £53m, it raised £8m.

The Laffer curve effect is obvious. Set a discouraging tax rate, then enterprise, tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax planning are all affected. Were you aware that marginal income tax rate between rate between £100,001 and £125,140 is 60%. I've almost never seen anyone pay it. Someone who's profits or dividends may be heading for that band either reduce business/sales in the build up to 5th April or pay a pension contribution to take them to £100,000 total taxable income.

5.6m and possibly 2m others (spouses) are involved in small businesses, these are agile enough to actively manage arrangements to avoid punitive taxes. One way or another.

 

[Weststander]

If you tax the rich, they won't leave: US data contradicts millionaires' threats

Does raising taxes on the rich really trigger their migration to more obliging states or countries? This study of every million-dollar earner in the US shows otherwise

www.theguardian.com

'Moving' states is the US way for the rich. Florida is famous for low tax rates. It may be coincidence that many rich European sportsmen made Florida their home.

 

[BenGarfield]

As someone working with numbers and research leftist politics usually look sensible and right wing politics greedy if you actually DO the numbers not just talking about them. School meals are good examples. In Finland they have free school meals for students in primary and secondary schools at the cost of £2 per day providing children with 1/3 of all nutrients they need in a day. Normally we have 190 school days in a year meaning this would cost £380 for each student. Add extra spinnage and make it £400 to simplify a littlee
In the UK we have 10 320 811 kids going to school. 10 320 811 x 400 = 4 128 324 400
It would cost tax payers in the UK £4.1b per year to feed every kid in the UK 190 days per year.

We have a litte more than 37 million people in working ages 16-64 and around 2.5 million businesses. If you divide the £4.1b with 40 million tax payers we end up with a little more than £100 per tax payer. Meaning if every working age person and every taxed business in the UK pay £8.5 per month we could feed every kid in the UK a good meal 190 days a year. But no instead we have hundreds of thousands kids going hungry in school because some are too ashamed to seek the free meals others dont know how to feed their kid the right things. Seldom would food quality be lower I have seen the school meals in Helsingfors. So basically were denying hundreds of thousands of kids proper nutrition meaning we are denying them proper energy to study hard meaning they likely end up in a state where society need to take care of them for a long time. How fast do you think whatever youre saving on that £8.5 a month (which is very cheap compared to what many parents pay today) are lost to pay the consequences? Right wing politics has a reputation of being "financially sound" but every time you break it down to actual numbers and think about the benefits of left wing economics right wing politics look dumb and greedy. (sorry long post important and interesting subject)

We could give kids good meals anyway, tax doesnt fund school meals - or anything that central government provides

 

[keaton]

'Moving' states is the US way for the rich. Florida is famous for low tax rates. It may be coincidence that many rich European sportsmen made Florida their home.

There was a very similar article recently stating people don't really move due to tax increases

 

[beorhthelm]

To give an example take a complex manufacturing process that is performed by a specialist company. What they do is slightly profitable, but enables a highly lucrative outcome for those they supply.

They could be taxed at 99% and there will still be strong financial incentive for this work to take place. Tax is way too complex for something as simplistic as the Laffer Curve (drawn on the back of a napkin at a dinner somewhere) to have assumed the economic importance it’s been given.

Besides which, most real world studies have suggested that the optimal ‘overall’ tax rate is around 70%. So even as an oversimplified scribble it’s the wrong shape.

i predict if you had 99% tax on such a business you'd sell it to one of the clients, it's simply not worth your time or investment if they see the benefits. meanwhile your client company burdened by such a tax would probably bugger off too. as happened in the 60's & 70's when it wasn't worth investing in business. the problem is not the Laffer Curve, it's not recognising that undue importance has been given by opponents not liking it. it's a bit of uncomfortable truth, such a simple thing explaining how too high tax rate will fail.

the funny thing is, saying studies show the optimal rate is 70%, you accept the model. likewise saying earlier business treat tax as a cost of business, which we know they try to reduce, accepts tax rates will change business plans.

 

[chickens]

There are behavioral changes section attached to each new apolitical Treasury document specific to a tax increase. These quantify the estimated yield in year one, then a marked reduction thereafter. A second example is Sturgeon who added one percent to higher rate tax, she said it would raise £53m, it raised £8m.

But it still raised £8m. And one should never trust politicians predictions of what future tax take will be, you make the change and when you have hard figures you can determine whether you’ve gained or lost. The Scottish people gained an additional £8m toward their housing, schools and hospitals and well done to them.

I agree with you that tax avoidance needs to be worked on hard, with way too many unintended consequences leaving businesses and individuals unsure as to whether what they’re doing is clever tax planning or a future lawsuit for evasion, but to do so with the current system is fiddling at the edges, the tax code has been butchered and rejigged so many times that it’s no longer fit for purpose.

The holy grail is a simple tax system where even the layman knows exactly where they stand in every instance, though this would have a cost in terms of those offering financial advice, which I assume is your current or past career.

In that scenario, legal avoidance becomes impossible. I almost yearn for a flat tax rate across the board (with a generous initial allowance of course)

 

[chickens]

i predict if you had 99% tax on such a business you'd sell it to one of the clients, it's simply not worth your time or investment if they see the benefits. meanwhile your client company burdened by such a tax would probably bugger off too. as happened in the 60's & 70's when it wasn't worth investing in business. the problem is not the Laffer Curve, it's not recognising that undue importance has been given by opponents not liking it. it's a bit of uncomfortable truth, such a simple thing explaining how too high tax rate will fail.

the funny thing is, saying studies show the optimal rate is 70%, you accept the model. likewise saying earlier business treat tax as a cost of business, which we know they try to reduce, accepts tax rates will change business plans.

Just to be clear, I don’t accept the model. That was a slightly facetious statement, the idea that any nation runs on a single tax and has a specific percentage that’s acceptable is a nonsense.

Take two examples. (Assuming a vastly oversimplified single tax rate)

1. A nation where the existing tax rate has been 20% for the past decade. In this example a rise to 25% is mooted. Cue outrage, business leaders complaining of “anti-business practices” and a generally hostile reaction from overseas press barons etc.

2. A nation where the existing tax rate has been 75% for the past decade. Here a cut to 70% is mooted. Hoorah! A pro-business government, crowds rejoice etc. etc.

I confidently predict that once the dust has settled and a few years have gone by, business will continue as normal in both of these fictional nation states.

 

[Weststander]

There was a very similar article recently stating people don't really move due to tax increases

Looks like we'll never find out in the UK, with similar tax policies amongst all votable parties.

Large companies are very much swayed by it. The CT havens of Ireland, Lux and Netherlands the European home to Dell, Starbucks, Amazon, MS, Apple, so that they pay bugger all tax on their entire European profits.

Whilst our new higher CT rate of 25% for large companies, isn't dissimilar to Sweden's 20.6%, Finland's 20% and Germany's 15.625%. No successful country it seems to want to break ranks with a much higher tax on profits.

 

[Weststander]

Just to be clear, I don’t accept the model. That was a slightly facetious statement, the idea that any nation runs on a single tax and has a specific percentage that’s acceptable is a nonsense.

Take two examples. (Assuming a vastly oversimplified single tax rate)

1. A nation where the existing tax rate has been 20% for the past decade. In this example a rise to 25% is mooted. Cue outrage, business leaders complaining of “anti-business practices” and a generally hostile reaction from overseas press barons etc.

2. A nation where the existing tax rate has been 75% for the past decade. Here a cut to 70% is mooted. Hoorah! A pro-business government, crowds rejoice etc. etc.

I confidently predict that once the dust has settled and a few years have gone by, business will continue as normal in both of these fictional nation states.

You're mixing corporation tax and personal tax rates.

See my post above, even social paradises in Europe charge low rates of CT these days, to keep large companies and to try to fend off the tax havens.

 

[keaton]

I have a great way to bring down inflation – make millionaires like me pay more tax | Phil White

We expect families on limited incomes to curb spending – yet it’s the rich who should be doing our bit with greater taxation on wealth, says Phil White

www.theguardian.com

 

[aolstudios]

Another...

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

On radio 5 now.

Apparently Starmer is "The most unpopular leader of the opposition since records began - in a party with such a massive lead in the polls"

What?

He sounds very young and excitable, like a polytechnic student who has taken some amphetamines.

 

[aolstudios]

On radio 5 now.

Apparently Starmer is "The most unpopular leader of the opposition since records began - in a party with such a massive lead in the polls"

What?

He sounds very young and excitable, like a polytechnic student who has taken some amphetamines.

I'd be astonished if he wasn't coked to the nines in some recent interviews

 

[JBizzle]

On radio 5 now.

Apparently Starmer is "The most unpopular leader of the opposition since records began - in a party with such a massive lead in the polls"

What?

He sounds very young and excitable, like a polytechnic student who has taken some amphetamines.

I keep being told that he's "unpopular" but it doesn't appear to be the case in any measurable way.

Is he perfect? No. Am I in favour of all of his policy decisions? No. On balance am I in agreement with his views on things? Yes. Is he a safe pair of hands? Probably. Is he better that any of the last 4 PMs? Unquestionably, yes.

People like Jones are as bad as the Mail and Express in as much as they despise Starmer because he's a) not Corbyn (Jones) and b) not Tory (Mail/Express), and their sole purpose is to chip away confidence in a leader that will likely be elected later this year to minimize the impact he can have in parliament.

Jones has become a screaming child who's personal wants for a leader are simply incompatible with ever being an electable one. In my opinion, of course

 

[aolstudios]

I keep being told that he's "unpopular" but it doesn't appear to be the case in any measurable way.

Is he perfect? No. Am I in favour of all of his policy decisions? No. On balance am I in agreement with his views on things? Yes. Is he a safe pair of hands? Probably. Is he better that any of the last 4 PMs? Unquestionably, yes.

People like Jones are as bad as the Mail and Express in as much as they despise Starmer because he's a) not Corbyn (Jones) and b) not Tory (Mail/Express), and their sole purpose is to chip away confidence in a leader that will likely be elected later this year to minimize the impact he can have in parliament.

Jones has become a screaming child who's personal wants for a leader are simply incompatible with ever being an electable one. In my opinion, of course

This ^
All of it

 

[rippleman]

On radio 5 now.

Apparently Starmer is "The most unpopular leader of the opposition since records began - in a party with such a massive lead in the polls"

What?

He sounds very young and excitable, like a polytechnic student who has taken some amphetamines.

Maybe his refusal to condemn the slaughter in Gaza and call for a ceasefire might just have impacted on his personal rating eh? He has said very little (being generous) on Labour policy and you know full well that Labour has a huge poll lead because of the serious and significant damage done to just about every aspect of life by 14 years of Tory greed, incompetence and mismanagement.

The Labour lead is despite Starmer not because of him.