Where would you go to work if you were on a high salary?

 

                Top rates of Income Tax:

United Arab Emirates        0%

Hong Kong                            15%

Singapore                              20%

USA                                          35%

Switzerland                           40% (including  cantonal tax)

Germany                                41%

UK                                             50%  (plus extra NI)

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

126 Comments

  1. lifelogic
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    You could add Isle of Man/Channel Islands 20% and rather closer to UK. Switzerland is much lower than 40% with local deals being agreed on the basis of if you pay x P.A. that will be fine.

    People are much more mobile with the internet and it does not help that Cable, Huhne, Cameron and the rest are so anti-business and heading in the wrong direction. Furthermore Osbourne calling certain business people “leeches” hardly helps to set the right tone.

    The UK should do such Swiss deals too. Most taxpayers 90%+ pay less than 6K in income taxes anyone who is prepared to pay say £50K PA should be welcomed with open arms by the UK not called a “leech” and taxed at 50% (plus NI and the inflation tax too).

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 9:17 am | Permalink

      Also Ireland as UK people can be NonDom there I understand and make very considerable tax savings with low corporation tax and tax only on local earnings if structured well.

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 18, 2011 at 5:33 am | Permalink

        Other places can work too with certain special rules that apply. The more of Osbourne’s “leeches” (as he calls many of them) that leave the UK the sooner Osbourne (or hopefully someone else) will have to move towards sensible tax rates and take a pro business line for a change.

        Also (in addition to all usual low tax areas) then for certain specific situations France, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Cyprus & Malta can all work very well and the weather, crime rates, services, infrastructure and food is usually better too.

    • Nick
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 11:14 am | Permalink

      The negotiation only works in CH if you don’t work.

      The big difference is that mortgage interest is tax deductable. Load up on mortgage interest, buy BTL in the UK, and you will pay very little tax.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

      “anyone who is prepared to pay say £50K PA should be welcomed with open arms by the UK not called a “leech” and taxed at 50%”

      You mean anyone who wants to be paid £50K p.a. should be welcomed. Also you’re only taxed at 50% if you’re paid over £150,000.

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

        No I mean anyone prepared to pay over £50K PA in income tax/NI to HMRC about 90% of working/taxpayers only pay about £6K PA to HMRC

      • Willsteed
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

        The 20% tax rate in Singapore only kicks in at S$300k, that is circa £150k. A lot of people pay no income tax at all. The tax return (which most citizens never have a need to complete) is one page long. Plus, there is no CGT, or tax on income earned abroad.

    • oldtimer
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

      The other advantage of the IoM is the fact it is outside the EU and all of its petty-fogging, interfering regulations and directives. I am sorely tempted, despite my advanced years.

      • Geoff not Hoons
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

        oldtimer….if you do dont bother with the west of the ireland it is far to windy. Look around Laxey or up to Ramsey, the area is almost lush compared to the west side.

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

        Also in the IOM the unemployment is less than 1/4 of the UK rate and you are far less likely to be a victim of crime and have no VAT to pay.

    • Tim
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

      Tax should be considered an evil of last resort to pay for essential services for the indigenous population only. Taxes should therefore be reduced accordingly. Everything else should be paid for by the individual. It stifles enterprise and dynamic individuals and enterprise who are saddled with paying not just for the temporary less fortunate but bone idle and feckless. The Lib Dems should be looking at the 370,000 households where NO NONE has ever worked before they dream up ever more taxes of envy for those self sufficient individuals who have achieved and contribute on their own merit. Give poeple a handup and not a handout. As in the USA make benefits for the able bodied time limited or loans and certainly limit the number of children. Why should we charge our students but not the feckless idle? The welfare state has been too soft for too long with far too many entitled to benefits with no shame. Even those who just arrived on our shores looking for the free “bank” and housing. Smaller state and less tax will always drive enterprise. Look at your list Mr Redwood and see the achievers. You should put a list of benefit rules and eligibility beside each as well.

      • disaffected
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

        I still fail to see why the UK should provide free university education to our EU competitors. If this is not a self-defeating economic policy then I don’t know what is.

        As stated above, the number of HOUSEHOLDS where no family member has ever worked has increased in the past 10 years from 170,000 to 370,000. What proportion is making up the 2.5 million unemployed? What is Clegg and Cable doing to make them work? In the US they make welfare claimants work to change their mindset. They are paid the difference between their job and welfare benefit. It saves taxpayers’ money and crucially the mindset that they have to work.

        Welfare payments should be a loan not a gift with a limit for how long a person can claim. Cameron announced last week that if a person could not speak English and this was preventing them getting job he MIGHT, yes MIGHT, stop their benefit. What planet is he on!!

        The Bank of England has injected dollars into the EU banking system? I thought the UK was not going to get involved in bail outs to Europe or foreign banks??????????? Is this another back door policy of the Coalition to act in contrast to what it tells the public? The bankers continue to get billion pound bonuses when we are still bailing them out??? I don’t get it.

        Cameron/Coalition gives away billions each year in overseas aid, EU contribution, bail outs and it then wants to tax us more.

        • lifelogic
          Posted September 18, 2011 at 1:49 am | Permalink

          England/Wales do not provide free university education to our EU competitors (perhaps in Scotland) but I understand they provide cheap loans for it. These are probably far less likely to be repaid than such loans made to UK residents. So the effect is similar.

        • uanime5
          Posted September 18, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

          There are large numbers of workless households because there is currently a larger working population than there are jobs. Unless the Government creates more jobs then there’s nothing the Government can do to make the unemployed work.

          • Winston Smith
            Posted September 19, 2011 at 11:02 am | Permalink

            Stop importing cheap labour?

          • lifelogic
            Posted September 22, 2011 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

            And stop paying them not to work.

  2. Peter van Leeuwen
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    If I cannot stay in my beloved Netherlands (52%) I’d go to Scandinavia, because I feel that my tax money would be put to good use. It is good to live in a country with not too much inequality as British research demonstrates: (see http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why ).
    Naturally a good start would be a 100% tax on any bonuses, teaching people to find better motivation for working than just personal gain (I have no problem with high salaries)

    • Richard Manns
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 10:54 am | Permalink

      But surely bonuses simply differ from salary in that it can be reduced without breaking the law?

      Now, that hasn’t been the case always, as the bonuses to CEOs during the recession have demonstrated, but a bonus given all the time is just a salary.

      Oh, and whilst income inequality is high here, I’d avoid referencing organisations with a clear bias.

      • Peter van Leeuwen
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 11:41 am | Permalink

        You have a point about bonuses – if you think back of the old days when a bonus was still like a 13th month and related to overall company performance. But some huge very personal bonuses of today don’t make sense to me.

    • Mark
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

      Expats don’t pay 52% in the Netherlands. They pay 30%, plus Dutch national insurance.

  3. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    A good question to address to the Business Secretary before the LibDem conference, where he and the rest of your coalition colleagues will be peddling the politics of envy.

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

      Well on past performance he won’t have much to say if he does not. Apart perhaps from his plans to push all the banks away from the UK by misguided over the top regulation.

  4. Martin
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Perhaps you should add inflation rates, council tax, VAT, NI, water charges and interest rates for savers to your table.

    P.S. Hong Kong has a nice airport with lots of runways.

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 10:55 am | Permalink

      A few more runways – certainly one more each at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick are indeed clearly needed. But we have the Huhne and Cameron luddites standing in the way could they be moved along some how? How is he getting on with his or his wife’s speeding ticket?

  5. Pauline Jorgensen
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    Taxation policy in the UK is very confused and seems to be, thanks to the last Labour government, motivated by jealousy rather than revenue generation or common sense. For example, the government wants to encourage people to save for their retirement rather than be a burden on the state but then has a wholly illogical tax on very small salary increases which feed final salary pensions schemes.

    How about a flat rate of tax with high personal allowances which would not only be cheap and easy to collect, enabling a reduction in size of the overblown state, but also encourage people to work hard by allowing them to retain a fairer proportion of the money they earn!

    • uanime5
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

      How about a flat tax of 60% and a £55,000 personal allowance. No one should need more than 5 times minimum wage.

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

        How do you pay school fees for say 4 children and buy even a small house in the south east on £100K before tax and say £60K after tax and NI.

        School fees say £50K
        Mortgage say £25K
        Council tax, car/transport, food, clothes, fuel, insurance, furnishings, repairs a holiday and pay into a pension ………….

        Perhaps some would have them all at state school but then they would have to put the taxes up yet again to pay for more places at state schools.

        • uanime5
          Posted September 18, 2011 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

          Over 90% of the population manage to live on less than £55,000 per year so you should be fine.

          Send your children to a state school; £50K saved.

          Also many private schools are planning to close because the recession has hit too many middle income families. So don’t plan on using private schools.

          • Winston Smith
            Posted September 19, 2011 at 11:05 am | Permalink

            Not true. All the private schools in my area are over-subscribed.

  6. Jonathan
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    You forget National Insurance which increases the top tax rate here to 52%.

    To answer your question, I would chose Hong Kong or Singapore as their public services, infrastructure and so on is much better than the UAE, and I am happy to pay some tax to fund it.

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 10:56 am | Permalink

      20% look about right to me – more than enough to pay for essential infrastructure.

      • Bazman
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

        Essential infrastructure payments would have to include benefit payments or the policing of huge swaths of the population who are not willing to have nothing and be happy. What do you do with these people who are threatening something, but not leaving?

        • Mike Stallard
          Posted September 17, 2011 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

          Well there are several things, actually. One is to reintroduce stamps. I have been on the dole. I wouldn’t have minded at all if I had had to buy stamps because they would have provided an entitlement. It would have meant that I would have changed from a beggar into a businessman.
          If people do not work they should not be paid to be idle.
          Secondly, how about building a prison in somewhere awful like, say Wisbech, and making sure that porridge was the only food. No TV. No visits. Nothing for three months. Short sharp shock? Solitary?
          Thirdly, how about the death penalty for really shocking crimes administered immediately after the judgement, so no death row?
          It is a matter of will really and not being wussy.

          • APL
            Posted September 17, 2011 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

            Mike Stallard: “It is a matter of will really and not being wussy.”

            Put that to our Home secretary or Justice minister (whatever the name is now), see how far you get!

          • Bazman
            Posted September 18, 2011 at 12:37 am | Permalink

            The problem is Mike that the world has moved on.

        • lifelogic
          Posted September 17, 2011 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

          They will be too busy working in order to provide for themselves to cause too much trouble.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 18, 2011 at 10:26 am | Permalink

            That is exactly what they will not be doing. You are living in a middle class fantasy fuelled by your rich chums if you believe this.

    • Nick
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 11:15 am | Permalink

      Correct. Just another one of those little lies. NI is a tax, NI isn’t a tax, always changing.

    • Andrew Smith
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 11:20 am | Permalink

      And marginal top rates are even higher at certain income levels.

      The tax policies of the LibDems, who seem to control policy in this area (but maybe Dave is just using them to get what he wants anyway), are not designed to raise money but to inflict costs on people or activities they don’t like. Maybe it is jealousy or maybe class hate.

      There is no logic whatsoever in taxing personal homes that happen to have a market value above a certain arbitrary level while:

      1 not allowing a deduction for related liabilities
      2 taxing other real property of a similar value
      3 aggregating all homes and/or property with individual values below the start point
      4 taxing other assets

      Under Vince Cable’s proposals, a home valued at £1.1 million with a large outstanding mortgage (say £700k) would be taxed whereas a house valued at £400k in a cheaper part of the country would not. Nor would a jewellery schedule or art works collection valued at (say) £2 million.

      The proposal is ill thought out even for the purposes of envy and jealousy.

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

        “The proposal is ill thought out even for the purposes of envy and jealousy” – of course it is – it come from Vince and the LibDems.

        • uanime5
          Posted September 18, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

          Better envy and jealousy than the greed of the richest 1%.

          • Winston Smith
            Posted September 19, 2011 at 11:11 am | Permalink

            Communist regimes, which you appear to desire, always replace the earned wealthy class, with the Party wealthy. The workers or the Prols are kept poor with no prospect of advancement.

          • lifelogic
            Posted September 19, 2011 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

            Most of the richest 1% are not greedy and often live quite frugally they perhaps just happen to own a company or investments worth a lot of money. They often just reinvest the money it generates to create more wealth and more jobs. Greed is rarely their motivation.

            You can only eat and drink so much and go on so many holidays anyway. What they spend just makes jobs for others anyway. Most of the rich I know hate holidays.

    • Susan
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

      Jonathan

      That is incorrect actually, the top rate of tax for high earners is more than 52%. High earners have lost their personal allowance at incomes over 100 thousand pounds and NI insurance is much higher than you have said. The tax take for high earners over 150 thousand pounds comes in at about 62% plus.

      This tends to be the mistake many people make that tax take for high earners is around the 50% when it is not.

      Furthermore the last two years have seen punitive measures on high earners pension contributions with the special annual allowance, again another back door tax.

      This makes Britain unable to compete in the World because the tax take is far too high.

      • Jonathan
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

        The 62% rate applies to earnings between £100,000 and £114,950. After that point, you have lost all of your personal allowance, and you pay 40p + NI on every extra £1 you earn above that level, then the rate goes up to 50%, again + NI.

        • Susan
          Posted September 18, 2011 at 9:58 am | Permalink

          Jonathan

          I know that Jonathan, I pointed the loss of personal allowance out in my post. Nevertheless when you are earning over 150 thousand pounds at which point the 50p tax kicks in, you have still lost the personal allowance which puts your tax take up. The NI for high earners is not just 2%.

          Therefore in your original post where you said the top rate of tax comes in at 52% with NI, is not correct, which was my point.

      • Mark
        Posted September 18, 2011 at 1:35 am | Permalink

        Nobel economist James Mirrlees worked out the figures: at £150,000+, the tax is 50% plus 2% employee National Insurance, but there is 13.8% Employer Contribution on top, so the effective combined rate is 100x(50+2+13.8)/113.8, or 57.82%. He went on to point out that further indirect tax is taken through VAT etc. on spending of take home pay which he assessed as being about 14% on average: with that added in the overall take is 57.82% +14% of (100-57.82), or about 63.7%.

      • Robert
        Posted September 19, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

        You also then forget non-discretionary consumption taxes!

    • norman
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

      I spent 2 years working in Abu Dhabi and the infrastructure there is second to none.

      Companies there offer attractive deals to get the ex-pats they want. The salaries aren’t that high but there is no tax, then you get school fees for your children paid for you, all your bills taken care of, rent taken care of – basically you could live without putting your hand in your pocket and just leave your tax free salary in the bank if you wanted.

      Quite a relaxed regime too, I felt very comfortable and safe. Gets a bit hot mind you!

  7. A different Simon
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    You have to look at what jobs are valued and respected in the UK and pay well .

    They are not neccessarily the ones which are capable of pulling the UK out of the doldrums .

    The following make a real difference to our prosperity yet in the main attract naff wages and have very high levels of unemployment :-
    – engineers
    – scientists
    – even I.T. specialists

    My point is that we should be worrying more about those people who add real value who should be earning more in the first place and should concentrate on providing them the opportunities in the UK .

    A rate of half of income going in tax is phycholigically sending out an appauling message . For goodness sake drop it to 45% if you can’t drop it to 40% .

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 11:02 am | Permalink

      50% plus say 5% inflation means you need 10% return on capital (just to retain you wealth and not make a penny).

      If you put it in a dodgy UK bank you might get 3% pre tax at best and risk loosing it all.
      If you look at the current costs of insuring RBS bonds against default then perhaps the latter looks rather more likely than the former.

      • Bazman
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

        Dodgy UK banks? Seem pretty safe to me and most of the banking profession, maybe that is because they are underwritten by the British taxpayer and cannot fail. They have got us down as a bunch of mugs and apologists. It would be interesting to know which banks all the bankers have all their loot stashed. Not a Russian one which I am sure they will not be working for, despite their talents being in demand all over the world….!

        • Mike Stallard
          Posted September 17, 2011 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

          I really do hope you are right. From what I hear they never got over the dodgy mortgage racket. Now they are buying up Greek debt. I do not think they are that safe.
          Anyhow, would you, if you were Mr Brown, have stood by and watched Northern Rock collapse right in the Labour heartland?
          Or the royal Bank of Scotland go under in the country where your heart lay?

        • lifelogic
          Posted September 17, 2011 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

          So why does it cost so much to insure RBS bonds against default?

        • lifelogic
          Posted September 18, 2011 at 1:55 am | Permalink

          From the telegraph last month:

          Credit default swaps (CDS) on RBS were trading at 343.54 basis points, meaning the annual cost to insure £10m of the state-backed lender’s bonds against default is now £343,540.

          Perhaps even higher now?

          • Bazman
            Posted September 18, 2011 at 10:37 am | Permalink

            Meaningless numbers.
            Imagine the reaction of the public if the currency collapsed and the cash machines stopped working? This is not about rich people loosing money, but anarchy, revolution and land. The British as a nation would not just lie back and take it listening to rich bankers and politicians pontificating on the financial system whilst they starve and are put on the street. As I keep pointing out to you the peasant living off the land in serfdom is gone forever in Britain. Or in reality having nothing and being happy with it.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

      The 50% tax rate only affects 1% of the population so it’s unlikely to send a bad message to the other 99%. It may even make it more bearable to known that someone earning 6 time your salary is paying much more in taxes.

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

        Many aspire to earning more, so it sends the wrong message and sets the wrong tone (as does Mr Osbourne calling people “leeches”), it raises less tax than a lower rate would anyway.

        Should one single person, earning say £1M, leave the country you need to create about 400 new ordinary jobs to replace the tax lost. This is because many of these earners will have children likely to be taking places at state schools and using other state benefits & services – so they contribute very little net to the state at all.

        I personally know 4 people, in this £1 million plus position, who are very seriously considering moving away. I would certainly advise them to do so.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 17, 2011 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

          A tax system based on the pandering of the rich? An interesting proposition. They are not as footloose as they would have you believe and like the weather needs complaining about. I bet you talk to them with the same deference you would to a new girlfriend, but they see you as little more than an insect. Tell them you live like they do, but with less money and see their faces drop. They often cannot understand they are of no threat to your lifestyle and feel threatened themselves. Says a lot.

          • lifelogic
            Posted September 17, 2011 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

            Perhaps it should be that anyone who pays say £90K to HMRC PA (about 15 times the 6K average that 90% of workers pay) should have to pay no more above that and be given an award by the Queen after say 20 years.

            That would send the right “UK is pro business and enterprise message” not calling many of them “leeches” which does not. It would also release countless lawyers, tax experts and purveyors of complex tax investment schemes to do something more directly productive for a change.

          • uanime5
            Posted September 18, 2011 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

            90% of the UK earn £44,900 or less, 50% earn £26,o00 or less, 25% earn £11,800 or less. It’s no wonder the rich pay so much tax when they pay their staff so little.

            The more you earn the more you pay in taxes. Welcome to real life.

        • uanime5
          Posted September 18, 2011 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

          400 ordinary jobs, rather than 1 high paid job would mean much less unemployment.

          Can these people who earn £1 million+ take their jobs with them? if not someone else will do the job for £1 million and the tax payer won’t suffer any loss.

      • Mark
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

        Anyone earning six times your salary is paying a lot more tax than you, be sure of that.

      • David Price
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

        Oh it sends a bad message alright. The question is who would be next when the genius action to overtax one section of the community doesn’t work. Who will you pick on then?

  8. ian wragg
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    I see on todays nerws Clogg is going to block scrapping of the 50% tax unless a mansion tax is introduced.
    Who votes for these clowns?????

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      Cameron gave no proper low tax, less EU, small state vision and went all “green” behind the ears – hence he lost. There was no one else to vote for really anyway.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

      23% of the electorate.

      • Winston Smith
        Posted September 19, 2011 at 11:20 am | Permalink

        Wrong. 15% of the electorate. 23% of the votes cast.

    • Bazman
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

      Some Russian Oligarch living here in a large house enjoying the freedoms of Britain paying only council tax, VAT. and car tax. You are a comedian if you think this state of affairs is acceptable.

  9. Nick
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Well, if you work in an area with IP and world wide income, you just move the company off shore, and then the lib dems get 50% of nothing. Mind you they must get a warm fuzzy feeling about it.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

      Unless we tax these people at less than 0% they’ll leave for a country with a 0% tax rate whether our tax rate is 20%, 50%, or 80%.

      Also 0% of something is the same as 50% of nothing.

  10. Javelin
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    I work at a hedge fund in London. When the 50% tax rate came in 50 traders moved to Switzerland.

    • A different Simon
      Posted September 18, 2011 at 12:45 am | Permalink

      Javelin ,

      Was it the psychological threshold of giving half of their earnings to the state which was the tipping point ?

      Would they have stayed had it have been raised to 45% ?

  11. uanime5
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    I’d go where the job was. I can’t work in the United Arab Emirates if the job is in the UK.

    So footballers who want to play for UK teams and actors who want to work in the UK have to pay UK tax rates. People who want to work in UK businesses have to pay UK tax rates. Those who want to live in the UK have to pay UK tax rates. Anyone else noticing a pattern.

    Also in countries with high tax rates there should be less competition for the top jobs as everyone will want to take the top jobs in countries with lower tax rates. Thus you’re more likely to get a high paying job.

    Any other flaws in this data anyone wants me to point out.

    reply: I don’t think you understand the tax arrangements of successful footballers!

    • Yudansha
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

      Nor does there seem to be any understanding of the tax arrangements of pontificating pop stars and actors/actresses

    • uanime5
      Posted September 18, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

      If the Government dislikes these arrangements they’re free to change the law.

      Of course if there’s a way to pay less than 50% tax then the 50% figure is for UK tax rate is inaccurate.

  12. Damien
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Over generous welfare and unfunded public sector pension awards that increase every year are being granted by this generation with the burden falling on future generations. This Ponzi scheme can only continue while there are enough taxpayers to fund the interest payments to operate the scheme. The Ponzi scheme breaks down when the current amount being claimed in welfare and pensions is exceeded by the taxpayers contributions. The Ponzi scheme is crashing in the periphery of the Eurozone and the same could happen here. The answer is to lower taxes while at the same time reducing the burden of today’s unfunded welfare and pension increases on future generations.

  13. disaffected
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Gibraltar has a better way of graduating tax, the percentage increases as you earn more. With a top level cap much lower than our own. It has increased the amount of tax the country collects.

    I am still lost why Clegg is allowed to have a disproportionate say in government when his party lost outright and got less of the vote and fewer MPs than the previous election. If he was not in coalition there would have been a leadership contest in the Lib loser party. Cameron needs to find a back bone soon and change his course pretty quick as the public’s patience is running out and the Tories will be in opposition forever.

    • Electro-Kevin
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

      I don’t know why the percentage has to increase.

      At a flat rate you earn more – you pay more.

      Even that doesn’t seem to be fair as those who earn more tend to pay for a lot of things privately and use state provision less.

      A privately educated child frees up a place at a good state school which, incidentally, the parent is paying for anyway.

      Ditto health care, municipal pools, care home provision etc

      • David Price
        Posted September 18, 2011 at 6:12 am | Permalink

        The percentage has to increase to incorporate the envy coefficient.

        Labour and the LibDems obviously operate on the basis that all your assets and income are really theirs and they decide how much you need and can keep. I used to think Conservative governments took the opposite view, that they weren’t entitled to your stuff and had to work for every penny of tax. I am no longer convinced of that considering their attitude to inflation, increasing government expenditure and taxes.

        • Electro-Kevin
          Posted September 18, 2011 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

          Very well put.

          A new angle for me to think about.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 18, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

      Clegg has so much power because

      1) Without him the Conservatives won’t have a majority.

      2) If he sides with Labour he can call a vote of no confidence and destroy the Government.

  14. Neil Craig
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Assuming the job was infinitely movable which few of them are.

    Singapore. Latest wiki shows they average 14% better off than Hong Kong which trumps a 5% tax differential. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(PPP)_per_capita

    Also Singapore has less crime and corruption and you can get a drink.

  15. Kenneth
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Instinct tells me that the 50% rate is damaging our economy. However I support George Osborne’s decision to await the outcome of the HM Revenue and Customs report into it.

    If the report does indeed confirm that the 50% rate raises less than if it were lower, I cannot see how Mr Clegg/Labour Party/BBC could argue with mathematics.

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

      Firstly why is the report not available now – it should not take more that on hour or two to produce anyway.

      Secondly figures are not really the LibDems strong point (just look at wind farms and green energy) – so they will argue anyway for what they see as political advantage – not that it is likely to help them at the ballot box anyway.

  16. Rebecca Hanson
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Those who move are likely to be those with no commitment to or particular ties with the UK. Many people do care about the communities and societies which nurtured them and choose to stay.

    While a tax rise may cause people to move away that is not what is being proposed. Looking at the table it is unlikely a tax drop to 40% will lead to a substantial influx of people who want to pay their tax here.

    It will certainly be reviled by the vast tracts of society who at financial breaking point due to price rises, the slow economy, redundancies and so on despite always having made prudent decisions.

    • Mark
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

      I wouldn’t be too sure of that. I have spent several periods working abroad, despite having strong family ties in the UK. But to move from anecdote to ONS statistics:

      In 1991-1996 emigration averaged 220,000 per year, of whom 130,000 were British, with 51,000 of those being “professional/managerial”, along with 24,000 similarly qualified foreigners returning home or going to onward postings.

      The corresponding figures for 2008 (when it became clear that taxes would be going up) are 409,000 emigrants, of whom 166,000 British, of whom 79,000 managerial alongside 68,000 foreign colleagues – almost double the size of brain drain compared with the 1990s.

      In 2009 (the last year for which detailed data are available) the figures were 337,000 emigrants, of whom 137,000 British, of whom 54,000 managerial with 74,000 foreign colleagues.

      Frankly, the scale of emigration from the UK is as troublesome as the scale of immigration: people are voting with their feet to get out.

      • Rebecca Hanson
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

        Mark – your figures seem to indicate exactly what I expected. There was an increase in emigration of Brits the year the increase happened and then that effect stopped (an average of 130,000 1991-1996, then 166.000 in 2008 than back to 137,000 in 2009). So the tax rise is no longer causing people to emigrate. Those who decided to stay have stayed.

        What you then have to consider is whether a reduction to 40% would cause the brightest and best in the world to return and John’s figures suggest not.

        So what’s your point?

        I suspect you live in the London bubble where people move around for these reasons. It doens’t happen much in the rest of the country. Out of London emigration happens more because people have been watching ‘A Place in the Sun’ and fancy a better/cheaper life and/or more sunshine.

        We’re all well aware that a lot of immigrant workers have gone home for reasons which are nothing to do with higher rate tax as they didn’t earn it.

        Did you know that at some stages higher rate tax has been far, far, higher than 50%?

        So – in the words of our esteemed leader

        “Calm down dear”

        It’s Saturday evening and it’s wine’o’clock. Things could be much, much worse and with Gove in charge of education they doubtless will be.

        • Mark
          Posted September 18, 2011 at 1:22 am | Permalink

          Under Wilson, tax reached 19/6 in the pound – 95%. He ended up having to go to the IMF for a loan because it wasn’t generating enough revenue. I paid over 50% tax in the 1980s – so yes, I remember just how damaging it all was.

          Please remember that foreigners who emigrate were paying taxes in the UK: many of them will have been earning top incomes. That’s why I quoted the numbers of managerial emigrants in both categories. There were just 75,000 such emigrants per year in 1991-96, compared with 147,000 in 2008 and 128,000 in 2009. The problem is that it takes only 20,000 emigrants in one year on average pay for the 50% bracket of £230,000 to mean that the tax costs revenue – fewer if they are paid rather more (as the traders in Javelin’s hedge fund who went to Switzerland almost certainly were). The numbers of extra managerial/professional emigrants should be a worry. They’re not just bankers either: top medical consultants and doctors are among professions that figure prominently. It’s not just the people that are leaving – it is the jobs in many cases too.

          • Rebecca Hanson
            Posted September 18, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

            Now that’s a more interesting post Mark.

            Could you possibly reference your figures?

            I’m particularly interested in your claim that the jobs are leaving too. Because in some cases clearly the individual will leave but the job will become available for another employee – possibly a British one who won’t be sending a big chunk of the money they earn (after tax) overseas.

            I’m also interested to know what is being done to build the pride of those who do pay substantial taxes properly in the UK. It’s interesting to see the public pressure that’s being put on bands like U2 not to use tax evasion in Ireland. Are we sure that all our politicians and leading figures in public life are leading the way in being open and proactive in fairly paying taxes? These things do help you know.

            One of the problems this proposed tax cut brings is that there is a public perception that the main beneficiaries will be the members of this government, their friends and the people who influence them. For them to push through this cut in the face of such strong opposition would instead create the public perception that they want an ‘ever man for himself’ culture.

            Is that what you want for Britain? It’s certainly not the attitude we’re taking here where we’re suffering at the coal face of the recession. We’re planning actively and coherently to care for each other and our community. So if you do create the impression you are doing otherwise you will substantilly increase the ‘them and us’ gulf in society and the general repulsion we feel for this government.

            Blimey I sound like I have a political point to make! I don’t. I just want arguments to be presented in coherent and fully thought through detail.

          • uanime5
            Posted September 18, 2011 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

            Has the number of people earning over £1 million risen or fallen during this ‘exodus’? If it’s risen then the rich obviously aren’t taking the jobs with them.

    • Bob
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

      Rebecca, the question is do you want to raise enough revenue to balance the national budget or do you just want to punish people for earning more than you?

      When Margaret Thatcher’s government reduced the top rate of income tax to 40% the income from taxation increased. Why do you think that happened?

      • Rebecca Hanson
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

        So much is being written about how these proposed tax cuts will generate income because they will bring an influx of the brightest and the best but the arguments and figures behind that are thin and there is a complete blindness to the fact that THEY GENERATE INCOME.

        I’m more persuaded by the arguements of Warren Buffet than by those presented by people campaigning for this tax drop because they make more sense.

        You want to win your argument?

        WELL JUSTIFY IT IN MORE DETAIL. Yes I want to generate income to balance the nation budget but I’m not convinced by the arguments presented in favour of this change.

        The best way to generate national prosperity is to actively harness emerging communication technologies to help us rapidly generate intellectual capital and use it rapidly and effectively. And yes I can justify that in substantial detail.

        Waffling that Thatcher did it isn’t good enough justification by the way. She certainly wasn’t perfect and she operated in a different time and context to ours. You have to justify things in the context of the here and now.

        Not having much money isn’t so bad you know. It can be quite liberating.

        And no – I’m not into punishing anyone. I’m a live and let live kind of a girl. Unless you nick my chocolate in which case you deserve whatever you get.

        Anyway,
        Nearly time for X-factor, dairy milk, rose and kiddy cuddles. Better get the washing up done while I’m still capable.

      • David Price
        Posted September 18, 2011 at 9:07 am | Permalink

        Since there is an option of cutting costs by reducing the public sector shouldn’t the question be – do you want to balance the national budget or do you just want to punish people for earning more than you?

        Why wouldn’t a rational person simply reduce costs which are supposedly controllable to meet income which is clearly unpredictable? A 20% reduction of the public sector would go a long way to reducing our defecit and debt. An unemployed person on £65pw JSA is cheaper than a public sector employee on £478pw average, saving say £400m and subsequent pension costs per year.

        You may consider this a callous view, but then no-one in the public sector batted an eyelid when people in the private sector were being laid off in droves during 2000-2010, instead they grew by 25%, increased council tax above the rate of inflation, stole 10%+ from private pensions and gave themselves ludicrous salaries and benefits.

        Put simply, we can’t afford the public sector and welfare state. Punishing the productives and net tax contributors while forcing some to leave will not solve the problem, it will make it worse.

        • David Price
          Posted September 18, 2011 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

          Got my sums wrong. Assuming 6m headcount for the public sector then trimming 20% (growth in last 10+ years) is 1m.

          Average public sector pay is £478 per week all in (ONS for June 2011). Assume £400 per week saved after JSA, that is an average of £20,800 per person per year. S0 the overall saving would be nearer £21b per year (not £400m).

          • Rebecca Hanson
            Posted September 18, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

            Oh don’t be blooming ridiculous. You’re wallowing in at least two fantasies.

            One is that no-one in the public sector actually does anythign so if you get rid of them there will be no loss to society.

            The other is that if you suddenly make vast tracts of people redundant there will be no costs associated with that.

            Perhaps you’ve also a third fantasy going on about about either Cheryl Cole or George Osborne depending on your preferences which is clouding the depth and quality of your thinking.

            For heavens sake try to sharpen up.

          • uanime5
            Posted September 18, 2011 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

            The problem is that this would mean that £21 billion less is spent in the economy unless all the private sector magically creates enough jobs for everyone that pay the same salary.

    • English Pensioner
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

      I would strongly disagree with your first sentence.
      I know a number of people whose children or grandchildren have left this country fo what they believe to be a better life elsewhere. They tend to take the view that the country has driven them out with excessive taxation and excessive immigration. Unfortunately it looks as if out daughter and son-in-law could be joining them for the additional reason that they are not happy about the available state schools for our grandson.
      All these do care about the country, they believe that the country no longer cares about them.

      • Rebecca Hanson
        Posted September 18, 2011 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

        It should have been ‘those who move purely for tax reasons’.

        Heres an alternative source of insight and research for you English Pensioner.
        http://www.channel4.com/4homes/on-tv/a-place-in-the-sun/

        I suppose the key figures we need are the number of emigrants each year who pay higher rate tax. Does anyone have those?

  17. Bazman
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    £15000 pa. £12500 pm. £2884 pw often accommodation, car and an expense account included. Only about 1% of the population earn this and how many are just managers milking their companies. The problem is that these people could not care less about you and defending them and their tax burden is laughable. If they want to leave the country then the airport is not far away. We have seen how much of a genius many of them are. Do you seriously think that these people are somehow going to increase the prosperity alone of this country and us doffing our caps to a modern day serfdom? Their extra couple of quid is going to do nothing and anyone who seriously believes in the free market should tell them to sling their hooks and move to whatever motley country you choose. Isle of Man for you boy. How many would actually go and leave their families and contracts apart from a few wide boy traders and dodgy geezers. To quote many a manager I have met: “That is your decision” and “I don’t respond to threats”. Neither do we and we have seen the extent and results of their ‘talents’ so here’s your P45’s and don’t nick duty free on the way out.

  18. Mactheknife
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    Having lived and worked in Dubai for 3 years recently I can confirm there is no income tax. However, everything has to be paid for by the individual including schooling, healthcare etc. There is also a “housing fee” introduced by the local government which is a tax to cover maintenance services (roads, lighting etc) but of course you already pay this via your service fee on your house which is a bit naughty.
    However, I can honestly say that if it wasnt for family reasons where I had to return to the UK, I would most definitely still be in Dubai. I earn 35% more salary in the UK than I did in the UAE, but with income tax, NI, council tax, VAT, “green taxes” via energy bills, I am substantially worse off in the UK.

  19. Electro-Kevin
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    I wonder what the sub £150k salary (50% tax) comparisons are internationally.

    Clegg is right to be concerned about the lower and middle groupings – 40% tax affects an awful lot of skilled people who are not rich but who are essential, in demand the world over and who are thoroughly sick of the weather, the crowding and of being forced to fund the very things that offend them.

    Britain seems to be an odd mix of communism and capitalism.

    • Bob
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

      @Electro-Kevin
      “… being forced to fund the very things that offend them. “
      Are you referring to the BBC per chance?

      • Electro-Kevin
        Posted September 17, 2011 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

        At least the licence fee is optional.

        I am as concerned at the high quality of emigrees. In fact it would be safe to assume that all of them are a loss to this country as their destinations have either strict entry regimes or no welfare to offer them.

  20. Richard
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    In a book I read about the Thatcher years it was said that an early decision to reduce the top rate which was over 80% in those days, down to a new top rate of 40%, was agonised over in Cabinet as being potentially too expensive or at best revenue neutral.

    The result of the reduction was a huge increase in revenues to the Treasury who had been predicting an enormous loss.

    The moral of the story is; set your tax rates to maximise revenues, keep the politics of envy out of it.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 18, 2011 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

      If only this story had a formula to determine the tax rates to maximise revenues, as it’s possible that Thatcher set them too low.

  21. sm
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Assuming
    1)you can transfer your own job as an employee.
    2)you can obtain some security of employment and future income
    3)you can obtain suitable re-location costs
    4)you have such a large choice of countries
    5)you have no family commitments or can fully privately fund state care not provided.
    6)you are motivated by the headline taxfigure
    7)the tax code in the UK does not change to tax all UK passport holders on worldwide income like the US.
    8)you are comfortable with the local host culture and laws
    9)the tax code in the UK does not change to tax all UK passport holders on worldwide income like the US.
    10) assuming you will be able to regain a similar position in the UK if you wish to return.
    11) Also economies and currencies can change quickly and violently.

    Its not a simple tax decision.

    Perhaps its time for a General Anti Avoidance Rule a maximum level of tax allowances with a 35% Flat tax.

    • A different Simon
      Posted September 18, 2011 at 1:18 am | Permalink

      Further to your point 5) ,

      – you really have to be in perfect health and every member of your family has to be in perfect health
      – you have to be able to save enough so you can continue to pay for these things even after you retire .

      For someone like me preexisting conditions health insurance premiums would run to thousands of dollars per month .

      – For education , there is no extra expense because if you want decent education in the UK you have to pay for it ; either directly or by moving into the post-code of one of the very few good state schools .

      I went through the state system and it pains me greatly but those which I know of are rubbish now ; victims of political meddling , political correctness and apathy .

      I’m sure there are plenty of substandard independent schools too .

      Things aren’t perfect but we get an awful lot for our taxes .

  22. forthurst
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Is the 50% tax rate designed to drive away law abiding successful people from this country?

    • uanime5
      Posted September 18, 2011 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      If it is then it doesn’t work. There are currently thousands of people who should be paying the 50% tax rate.

  23. Mike Stallard
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Singapore has a lot of hidden taxes. Cars, for example, are almost beyond the reach of everyone. Houses, too, cost a lot of money.
    UAE is tax free and is really is. You can make enough money there in a couple of years to buy a house in England easily if you keep out of Sharia Law and don’t be silly.

  24. rose
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    I would want to work where the quality of life is best, and where the future looks stable: i.e. not in an overcrowded run down country which is taking in 600,000 or so new people every year.

    • Bazman
      Posted September 17, 2011 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

      They could move to China, India or Russia then. Why are so many rich Russians here? The answer is stability and law. The quality of life contacts and social life is pretty good in London not to mention law and stability from regulations. If the rich think they can live here without any taxation and chucking a few quid at their favourite charity they are mistaken and can go and live where they threaten to go. Foreign prisons and alien lifestyles await. The bankers are leeches and this is as plain as the nose on your face, anyone proposing to tax them less is living in an apologists dream world. Lets see how many countries want them and if we get rid of to many as they do their employees, we will deal with that when we come to it. Any threats should be met with a torrent of abuse to put Tony Montana a.k.a Scarface to shame. Who does the work? Us! Who set this business up? Us! etc.

  25. Bernard Otway
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    You all must have seen my comments re Emmigration and Who is going ,it certainly is more than the figures shown for British Emmigrants,I have a very good friend who has two daughters and one son is AUS right now ,on student visas BUT all three intend staying on permanently and WILL qualify ,this is factual for many [the number is huge] Will they be counted when they stay having gone out as students albeit 24,26, 27 or will they Not.Also if looking at it as a P & L account ,the Loss [Emmigrants] of Uk citizens comes off that side of the account and REDUCES the indigenous population and the supposed gain[Immigrants]
    ADDS to the immigrant population which then has to LEARN all that say these 3 children
    have learned for the last quater century,I know which I would rather have. And for God’s sake do not label me the “R” word as all I am pointing out is the ASSIMILABILITY of the
    Immigrants.

  26. JimF
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    20% income tax seems about right for a successful economy. Below that probably means you haven’t enough to fund infrastructure and above that is confiscatory.

    Most folk in Switzerland pay around 20% but then health insurance is separate (as it should be), CGT only applies to private residences (hence their house price inflation is well controlled and people have an incentive to make money in business rather than their homes), IHT is around 3% although there is a nil rate band per beneficiary of about £500K. Oh, and VAT just increased to 8%. The other trick they have is that their productivity and salaries are twice those in the UK so even at 20% income tax they actually collect the same as a 40% UK taxpayer.

    Their problem is that they just hitched their lifeboat to the EU Titanic for a ride.

    • A different Simon
      Posted September 18, 2011 at 1:27 am | Permalink

      Why should health insurance be seperate ?

      The principal of insurance suggests otherwise :-
      “losses of the few being born by the premiums of the many”

      Do you or anyone in your family suffer from a serious health condition ?

  27. John Galt
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    He he,

    Getting the hang of it are we.

    Eventually ties to community and loyalty are stretched to breaking, country and community are sold out, paying for things we fundamentally disagree with, real wealth creators paying for ever bigger government and feckless politicians.

    I see Mark @4:19 among a few others has also got it, for the likes of uanime5 enjoy the ride, welcome to your brave new world.

    Given it all up and now smiling and laughing all the way to your end.

  28. REPay
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

    Bankers (when will Labour realize that more than 50% are foreign) have been exiting in droves. If you are a high tax, high spend government (every country in the western world except Switzerland has one) than you should love rich people. However, no one can say such a thing because of the innate chippiness of the British public. I would settle for trimming back the perks and pensions of the senior public sector people…I just learned we pay for many to have private health insurance. The irony beggars belief!

  29. APL
    Posted September 17, 2011 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    JR: “Where would you go to work if you were on a high salary?”

    I went to work in Saudia Arabia. John Redwood would censor my comments if I were to tell you what I thought about the place. But 0% income tax for Western. The only place in the world as far as I know where you have to navigate your road route based on your religion.

    Of the bill of fare offered, I wouldn’t mind Singapore or the USA.

  30. Bernard Otway
    Posted September 18, 2011 at 12:55 am | Permalink

    As I have said many times before,I every day advise younger people than me to go to the two countries that are our Kith and Kin [DOWN UNDER], this country is being taken over by a trojan horse that our rulers invited in KNOWING FULL WELL what they were doing,by the rulers I don’t just mean the Mp’s but all of the ruling society ie the law,public service,educational establishment [Excepting private schools],the medical profession,local govt,in fact EVERYTHING,there has been a Broederbond style infiltration by the left/liberal
    thinkers,who in turn have enlisted their underlings to their cause,in fact have co-opted them,which started at least 50 years ago.This infiltration has as I have said a SUB MARXIST MINDSET which is actually a DISEASE of the mind,in fact I would actually go so far as to say that science fiction films such as Invasion of the body snatchers and others of that ilk show HOW this infiltration has happened. I call what has happened to my friends THE MATRIX,because this BROEDERBOND has tried to ENTRAP all in the MATRIX they have constructed as surely as those poor human Cadavers used to collect their surplus electricity from as portrayed in the film trilogy of that name. BUT people have woken up and are going. AND when we are no longer in the majority the trojan horsers
    will take over and GIVE NOT ONE JOT OF THOUGHT to those who allowed them in,and they will be subordinate to the new rulers,I say SERVES THEM RIGHT when this happens
    it will have been A SELF INFLICTED WOUND. And (etc etc-ed)

  31. David Price
    Posted September 18, 2011 at 6:35 am | Permalink

    I wouldn’t pick somewhere solely on the basis of tax rate as climate and culture would have a lot to do with it.

    From your list I would probably plump for Switzerland, Germany or the non-metropolitan UK though I’d prefer a flat tax rate of 20%. I am iffy about having the UK on the list as I am fed up of having governments who put their own country last rather than first and the rapid decline in the values of our society.

  32. Edward
    Posted September 18, 2011 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    I’m still not clear at all of the virtue of progressive taxes. To my mind a proportionate tax system with high tax free thresholds holds out far more promise for a healthy society, provides incentives for work, is self evidently fairer (the more you earn the more you pay) and reduces poverty trap outcomes.

  33. Bernard Otway
    Posted September 18, 2011 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    John I cut pasted and sent the comment you censored to my SDLP cousin in Londonderry,
    I wonder what they think of you Airbrushing out the names of those two especially the deputy first minister.

  34. Jonathan
    Posted September 18, 2011 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    I’ve worked in Germany before and their infrastructure is head and shoulders above the UK; but I’d have absolutely no issue with working elsewhere. Tax is property theft there is no justification for taking over 50%.

  35. Steve Whitfield
    Posted September 20, 2011 at 1:11 am | Permalink

    I presume Mr Redwood’s analysis is alluding to the fact that the rate of taxation in the Uk is uncompetitive and likely to drive business away and stifle economic growth.

    Sadly Camoron won’t bother about a small detail like that when there is an opportunity to suck up to his new best mates in the Liberal party.

    Are things really so bad that economic policy is decided by what will play best on the 6’o’clock news. I hope not but it’s possible.
    So we have “we’re all in it together’ .. ‘the wealthy have the broadest shoulders and must pay the biggest share’ .Mr Redwood message will be buried because it’s ‘off message’ . Very depressing indeed.

  36. Michael R
    Posted September 21, 2011 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    I have always wondered, what are we paying taxes for anyway? Services? What services? Aren’t we paying for all services separately anyway? We pay NI to support the NHS. We pay road tax to drive on the roads, we pay council tax to have our bins collected, we pay through the nose for gas and electricity as these were all privatised; there will no longer be free education as students will have to pay £9000 a year. So what on earth is the government spending our taxes on? Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    I would understand high taxation in socialist states such as Scandinavian countries where it actually works, but here?!!!

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page