The latest ONS data on pop[ulation growth revealed the extraordinary fact that now we have a 50% tax rate in the UK fewer people emigrated.
Why is that?
Certainly it doesn't suggest the rich are leaving in greater numbers.
Maybe it does suggest people like a more equal society.
And people came here in record numbers.
The myth that tax drives people away is, well, just a myth.
So' like the rumour of fairies at the bottom of the garden shall we treat it as a load of old baloney - because that is what it is?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
This is a joke, right? Unless you unpack the numbers you cannot possibly know whether a 50% tax rate is driving away people in the top tax bracket. In any case, you wouldn’t expect people to pack up and go immediately; they’d wait and see how things were working out. You would also expect a slow running effect of companies not locating high earners in the UK. Unless the left gets a bit more serious about its arguments it is going to have great difficulty in coming up with a credible alternative plant. We don’t need this kind of nonsense. Try harder!
Oh dear, have I hit a nerve?
Could it be that I have with considerable tongue in cheek drawn a somewhat simplistic conclusion from some data and stated a fact that it may not have entirely supported, just as the Daily Telegraph has for years, the Daily Mail does weekly, the Express does by the hour, and the right-wing blogosphere does by the second?
Could it be that by pointing out by my acting in that tongue in cheek way that there is no obvious tie-up between a 50% tax rate and emigration I’ve expose the entire myth that tax rates cause the wealthy to leave, which was the exact purpose of my writing in the way that I did?
And have you, by falling into the trap, agreed that I am right?
Because, I’ll tell you, I know I am: I’ve always said that this link is a nonsense, and this tongue in cheek observation was in exactly the same vein as everything that I’ve always said. It’s only you people from the right who fall into such absurd linear relationships that you think these things might be closely correlated: correlation you seek to prove by false reports in the press of people intending to leave the country, with gullible people being willing to put themselves forward to express their intent to do so to make a political point when it is very clear they have no intention of following through.
didnt WPP move out of the UK because of high taxes, didnt Guy Hands move out of the UK because of high taxes…… it does happen, but i suppose maybe people are waiting to see if the coalition government reduces the rates back again (I think Osborne has said the 50% rate is temporary), and obviously its a myth that the tax rate is 50%, factor in NIC and the rate is actually higher.
WPP is a company – unaffected by 50% tax
I think we can safely conclude from all we now know of his tax exile that Guy Hands is sad at best
You’ve hardly made a case – but still hang on to the myth I see
This post is meaningless. How do you know how many of the people leaving/coming here are wealthy people?
It’s entirely meaningful in the context in which I posted it – note above
Other’s seem to have fully appreciated the irony
Imagine if the ONS had produced statistics to show more people leaving the UK in the same period. How far do you think you would have to look for headlines like this – “50p rate drives taxpayers out of UK!”
I know more people who have left the UK because of the 50% tax rate (quite a few) than have come to the UK because of it (none).
That says something about you and your choice of friends
It says nothing about tax
I never said they were my friends. I just know them.
So Richard, when your posts are proven to be mathematical rubbish, your answer is that it was a tongue in cheek joke?
I guess we can all agree that your conclusions are always a joke.
My observation about irony was accurate
You all seem to note that this was a continuation, in effect , of the thinking on Peter Hargreaves – who said he’d go and didn’t
But irony apart – it seems to me that I have hit such a nerve there’s more to this – that actually the hypothesis has real merit to it
The fact is that the UK is a good place to stay
The fact is that it is a good place to come to, and work
The fact is that 50% tax did not change that – for the vast majority at the very least
And the fact is that many, many studies show tax is only a small factor in relocations, the same as pay is in job moves – but it’s used as cover for some other real reason
So the straightforward observation in the piece remains right – we had new higher rate taxes with no current prospect of change and people came here and people left in fewer numbers – which suggests it is not a major issue
And that upsets libertarian trolls who think that the only motive for action in life is greed and tax
Well, the evidence shows you’re wrong
Case closed
Is the reason you felt the need to write “tongue in cheek” three times in the first reply and countless references to “irony”, proof that the original post was written neither tongue in cheek nor ironic?
No
I’m a straightforward person
I wrote it as an ironic follow on the the Hargreaves story (you guys seem to forget that blogs are longitudinal narratives, not isolated essays)
And because as at least one person has rightly noted – if there had been net emigration you can be sure tax would have been claimed to be a factor
Which is what really upsets you – because you’ve been rumbled for what you are – which is hypocrites
Fantastic 🙂
Wonder how many companies increased salaries to cover the difference in take home pay when the tax rise was introduced, thus stopping staff moving? Unfortunately this would be extremely tricky to find out.
I remember when the tax rate was 90% in the sixties.It should go up to 60% at least for high earners.Even better 70%.Let them choke on the Champagne and Caviare when they read that.They will come up with the usual garbage that they make work for those lower down.Yes on minimum wage in most cases.
Well, unless my eyes deceive me, in the absence of a better argument, London’s Boorish Johnson has found something else to blame on the high tax rate: the loss of the men’s Wimbleton championship! (LOL) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8614808/Wimbledon-2011-Game-set-and-tax-why-Andy-Murray-will-always-get-clobbered.html
If I am not wrong, out of the so-called developed countries only the US has significantly lower income taxes than the UK,