The Great Art Debate

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think the "corrupting temptation" you're arguing against is a product of you spending too much time in front of the Tory Party Conference on the telly. That said, I wouldn't want to see the 50% tax rate extended and I'm not overly keen on it in the first place as a means of raising Revenue as it's so marginal at a "total" level

You are joking - nobody would ever dare speak out against the corrupting temptation of progressive taxation at a Conservative Party Conference!

And I'm sorry, perhaps I do need you to step in and sort out the English for me, but are you now agreeing at the 50% is a bit of a waste of time in terms of raising revenue?

[Worthy4England]

The higher earners should put that bit extra back into a society that has served them well. Simples.

But don't they put extra back if we have a flat rate of tax?

They put more, not extra.

Flat rate taxation is regressive, had been tried to the best of my knowledge 3 times in the past - all of which have caused civil disorder.

[americantrotter]

Regressive taxes are evil. Just my 2 cents. How in the world anyone can actively lobby for the poor to pay more of a tax burden is beyond me. Of course the Republicans have done quite a good job dismantling the progressive tax system here.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The higher earners should put that bit extra back into a society that has served them well. Simples.

But don't they put extra back if we have a flat rate of tax?

They put more, not extra.

Flat rate taxation is regressive, had been tried to the best of my knowledge 3 times in the past - all of which have caused civil disorder.

Hang on, let's be clear here - a flat rate income tax is, by definition, neither regressive or progressive in itself.

So then we get to talking about the tax system as a whole, and I would agree that it should be corrected so that it isn't regressive in its entirety.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Can we change the title of the thread to the great tax debate now?

[Worthy4England]

I think the "corrupting temptation" you're arguing against is a product of you spending too much time in front of the Tory Party Conference on the telly. That said, I wouldn't want to see the 50% tax rate extended and I'm not overly keen on it in the first place as a means of raising Revenue as it's so marginal at a "total" level

You are joking - nobody would ever dare speak out against the corrupting temptation of progressive taxation at a Conservative Party Conference!

And I'm sorry, perhaps I do need you to step in and sort out the English for me, but are you now agreeing at the 50% is a bit of a waste of time in terms of raising revenue?

Sort of yes and sort of no.

It will certainly raise some revenue but estimates vary wildly as to how much, as tax avoidance becomes an issue in many of our higher paid earners. The Government wants £3bn, the Treasury's own figures @ the original proposal of 45% could be interpreted as "It might raise £1.2bn", I believe it will be around the £1bn - £1.5bn figure. Which is significant enough to want in your bank account.

[Worthy4England]

The higher earners should put that bit extra back into a society that has served them well. Simples.

But don't they put extra back if we have a flat rate of tax?

They put more, not extra.

Flat rate taxation is regressive, had been tried to the best of my knowledge 3 times in the past - all of which have caused civil disorder.

Hang on, let's be clear here - a flat rate income tax is, by definition, neither regressive or progressive in itself.

So then we get to talking about the tax system as a whole, and I would agree that it should be corrected so that it isn't regressive in its entirety.

Apologies - flat rate of tax is regressive, flat rate of income tax isn't (well it is marginally but on the higher rather than the lower paid) Misinterpreted what you were saying.

[William the White]

The higher earners should put that bit extra back into a society that has served them well. Simples.

But don't they put extra back if we have a flat rate of tax?

They put more, not extra.

Flat rate taxation is regressive, had been tried to the best of my knowledge 3 times in the past - all of which have caused civil disorder.

Hang on, let's be clear here - a flat rate income tax is, by definition, neither regressive or progressive in itself.

So then we get to talking about the tax system as a whole, and I would agree that it should be corrected so that it isn't regressive in its entirety.

Apologies - flat rate of tax is regressive, flat rate of income tax isn't (well it is marginally but on the higher rather than the lower paid) Misinterpreted what you were saying.

It's still appropriate for the tax rate to recognise the necessity to contribute to the common good of society... so those who are disproportionately wealthy pay a disproportionately higher part of their income to aid the people who are disproportionately poorer...

An experienced, reasonably promoted teacher might pay 40%... Higher incomes would pay 10% more... This is a very modest ask of - say - bankers on a £10 mill bonus - or footballers on - say £5 mill a year - or the tiny proportion of artists on - say - £1 mill plus - not sure, but suspect, this might include Emin...

Is this hard to work out?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It's still appropriate for the tax rate to recognise the necessity to contribute to the common good of society... so those who are disproportionately wealthy pay a disproportionately higher part of their income to aid the people who are disproportionately poorer...

An experienced, reasonably promoted teacher might pay 40%... Higher incomes would pay 10% more... This is a very modest ask of - say - bankers on a £10 mill bonus - or footballers on - say £5 mill a year - or the tiny proportion of artists on - say - £1 mill plus - not sure, but suspect, this might include Emin...

Is this hard to work out?

If it's possible to describe someone's income as 'disproportionate', surely it would follow that taxation from that person would also be 'disproportionate', even at a flat rate?

Not sure where the figure of £1millon comes from... we're talking about the rate above £150k. I too would guess Emin's income exceeds the former, but it certainly does the latter.


Of course I can work out what you're saying, but in today's global village the likes of Emin, footballers, businessmen can and will choose to work elsewhere if our tax system appears to put an extra penalty on success... the brain drain in 1970s is not a creation of the Right, and the fact is that we now have the highest top rate of tax in the G8 group.

[William the White]

It's still appropriate for the tax rate to recognise the necessity to contribute to the common good of society... so those who are disproportionately wealthy pay a disproportionately higher part of their income to aid the people who are disproportionately poorer...

An experienced, reasonably promoted teacher might pay 40%... Higher incomes would pay 10% more... This is a very modest ask of - say - bankers on a £10 mill bonus - or footballers on - say £5 mill a year - or the tiny proportion of artists on - say - £1 mill plus - not sure, but suspect, this might include Emin...

Is this hard to work out?

If it's possible to describe someone's income as 'disproportionate', surely it would follow that taxation from that person would also be 'disproportionate', even at a flat rate?

Not sure where the figure of £1millon comes from... we're talking about the rate above £150k. I too would guess Emin's income exceeds the former, but it certainly does the latter.


Of course I can work out what you're saying, but in today's global village the likes of Emin, footballers, businessmen can and will choose to work elsewhere if our tax system appears to put an extra penalty on success... the brain drain in 1970s is not a creation of the Right, and the fact is that we now have the highest top rate of tax in the G8 group.

In that case i won't bother to respond to your semantic points above... just to say... I m remarkably comfortable about the fleeing of the 'talent' you describe. Heart unbroken... fear less than relief...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

In that case i won't bother to respond to your semantic points above... just to say... I m remarkably comfortable about the fleeing of the 'talent' you describe. Heart unbroken... fear less than relief...

I can work out what you're saying, but let's be clear here that you were the one guilty of semantic manipulation, not me, when you used 'disproportionately' in a sense that was either meaningless, or an unhelpful synonym for 'unusually'.

Perhaps you are calm about the number of rich and talented people who might find it more attractive to take their money and talents elsewhere - the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and plenty of other types with no particular partisan or ideological motivations, do not share your calmness.

[Dujon]

Back to the subject for a moment if I may.

In Australia the city of Melbourne, rightly or wrongly, has been christened the heart of art. As part of the annual Winters of Masters at the National Gallery of Victoria - an event that has been running for the last five or six years - this year's exhibition was a 'retrospect' of Salvador Dali. It included some 200+ paintings, sculptures and other Dali creations. What the 'other' in that description means I have no idea.

Anyway, the exhibition ran from 13 June to 4 October of this year which, by rough calculation, is 115 days. During that time some 350000 bodies attended. I don't doubt that many of those made multiple visits, but 3000 visitors per day over such an extended period (the gallery opening hours I understand were from 10AM to 5PM) is quite remarkable. If you break that down further it's 7 people per minute - on average.

On the day before the exhibition was to close it was decided by the powers-that-be to leave open the gallery rather than shut the doors on the penultimate day. Being somewhat of an insomniac I was listening to my local national broadcaster (akin to the UK's BBC) at 2:30AM on that final morning. It seems that the crowd gathered for the opportunity to view the exhibition for the last (or first) time was legion. Then again, surely anyone banging around a gallery featuring melting clocks at that time of night would be entitled to do so.

[Prufrock]

In that case i won't bother to respond to your semantic points above... just to say... I m remarkably comfortable about the fleeing of the 'talent' you describe. Heart unbroken... fear less than relief...

I can work out what you're saying, but let's be clear here that you were the one guilty of semantic manipulation, not me, when you used 'disproportionately' in a sense that was either meaningless, or an unhelpful synonym for 'unusually'.

Perhaps you are calm about the number of rich and talented people who might find it more attractive to take their money and talents elsewhere - the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and plenty of other types with no particular partisan or ideological motivations, do not share your calmness.

Feck it, what's the worst that happens, we end up like Norway, no Tracy Emins, but everyone pays their due, and we get you know that thing good ol' Maggie said doesn't exist (which if you assume it doesn't for 20 years...wont), begins with an 's'....?

It has always struck me as a massive con when people start talking about 'fair taxes' for the rich. I'm not even talking about equal oppurtunities and people being lucky, more the whole system is geared towards the rich at the top. A man gets paid £7 per hour in a factory, yet makes far more than that for the company per hour. Is he being paid for what he creates, what some may argue he 'earns'? No. He is getting paid a market rate, ie the lowest the top brass can pay him to keep dragging his sorry arse into work every day to keep making them money. For them to then turn around and say that, within a system massively geared towards them, asking them to pay more for the upkeep of society is brassfaced. You want fair taxes, flat rate taxes dependent on how much you earn? Then how about we have have flat rate pay, dependent on what you earn, not what you are 'worth'?

[bw@bw]

It's still appropriate for the tax rate to recognise the necessity to contribute to the common good of society... so those who are disproportionately wealthy pay a disproportionately higher part of their income to aid the people who are disproportionately poorer...

An experienced, reasonably promoted teacher might pay 40%... Higher incomes would pay 10% more... This is a very modest ask of - say - bankers on a £10 mill bonus - or footballers on - say £5 mill a year - or the tiny proportion of artists on - say - £1 mill plus - not sure, but suspect, this might include Emin...

Is this hard to work out?

If it's possible to describe someone's income as 'disproportionate', surely it would follow that taxation from that person would also be 'disproportionate', even at a flat rate?

Not sure where the figure of £1millon comes from... we're talking about the rate above £150k. I too would guess Emin's income exceeds the former, but it certainly does the latter.


Of course I can work out what you're saying, but in today's global village the likes of Emin, footballers, businessmen can and will choose to work elsewhere if our tax system appears to put an extra penalty on success... the brain drain in 1970s is not a creation of the Right, and the fact is that we now have the highest top rate of tax in the G8 group.

For those with long memories, the experience of the 1980's came as a great shock.

Lower tax RATES produced higher tax RECEIPTS

And since international mobility has increased massively since then, increasing rates will most probably reduce receipts- which is exactly the opposite of what the government wants.


It is not right or fair, but those with the highest incomes are often the most mobile, and the most able to afford accountants fees to structure their finances in ways that reduce tax.

So whether they live in this country (and provide some jobs for the rest of us) or live abroad in a lower tax regime (e.g Isle of Man Mr Davies) they can reduce their tax burden in ways that the rest of us cannot..

And international tax competition is real - it created the (now limping) Celtic Tiger in Ireland- and is helping La Liga via the "Beckham Tax Rate " of 24%

[Hoboh]

In that case i won't bother to respond to your semantic points above... just to say... I m remarkably comfortable about the fleeing of the 'talent' you describe. Heart unbroken... fear less than relief...

I can work out what you're saying, but let's be clear here that you were the one guilty of semantic manipulation, not me, when you used 'disproportionately' in a sense that was either meaningless, or an unhelpful synonym for 'unusually'.

Perhaps you are calm about the number of rich and talented people who might find it more attractive to take their money and talents elsewhere - the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and plenty of other types with no particular partisan or ideological motivations, do not share your calmness.

It ain't happening because of the Tax system charges, its the scum system why people are leaving.
People I talk to who are considering upping and leaving (we are talking computor programer, a doctor,two teachers and a civil engineer prjects manager (yep all hobos pals ain't thickos ) all say its the no future and the take take take society we are creating they are worried about and paying tax to support this!! not the amount, the way its spent

[BWFC_Insane]

Thats the problem. It isnt simple.

Im not forgetting anyone, higher earners in some instance such as the ones youve pointed out shoud pay extra.

Punishing people for working their bollocks off, sacrificing everything and seizing the opportunity when it arrives is wrong IMO.

You come accross as thinking these "opportunities" just fall in to people's laps when its simply not the case.

You're not punishing them though. You're saying that their earnings above a certain threshold are taxed higher as they are more fortunate than others. Now those who earn 15K a year and work their knackers off no doubt will be hoping they get the same chances. But as you know there is only so much money in society and therefore how it is shared is crucial.

I don't really see how taxing earnings at 50% over 150K is "punishing" anyone. Its simply saying, OK above that amount we'll take a bit more to let us fund our public services.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Thats the problem. It isnt simple.

Im not forgetting anyone, higher earners in some instance such as the ones youve pointed out shoud pay extra.

Punishing people for working their bollocks off, sacrificing everything and seizing the opportunity when it arrives is wrong IMO.

You come accross as thinking these "opportunities" just fall in to people's laps when its simply not the case.

You're not punishing them though. You're saying that their earnings above a certain threshold are taxed higher as they are more fortunate than others. Now those who earn 15K a year and work their knackers off no doubt will be hoping they get the same chances. But as you know there is only so much money in society and therefore how it is shared is crucial.

I don't really see how taxing earnings at 50% over 150K is "punishing" anyone. Its simply saying, OK above that amount we'll take a bit more to let us fund our public services.

We're just going round in circles here. I disagree.

[Worthy4England]

but in today's global village the likes of Emin, footballers, businessmen can and will choose to work elsewhere if our tax system appears to put an extra penalty on success... the brain drain in 1970s is not a creation of the Right, and the fact is that we now have the highest top rate of tax in the G8 group.

Goodie, now we have two problems with the 50% tax rate - 1) whether it'll raise significantly more Revenue and now 2) that it'll cause a mass exodus.

Couple of little points behind the headline.

At the minute we have the second lowest top rate of tax in the G8, so according to the logic, we should have been attracting talent from the rest of the G8 in droves for a while, all of whom have been making us very wealthy. Emin can go where the fu*k she wants to. I can't see footballers transferring to France in droves because they have a marginally preferential tax system - as their pay over here outweighs hugely the benefit they'd get from a marginal high rate tax differential. That just leaves "businessmen".

The brain drain in the 1970's was a completely different set of circumstances with a completely different set of tax rates, where there was a significant differential between UK and the US. Many countries including the US hit late 80% and mid 90% tax rates in the post-war years, in the mid 60's all the way up to 1980 it was 70% or above in the US, having been dropped from the 90% plus figure in 1963. The UK however was still at 83% for most of the 1970's which created a 19% gap between us and the US. At the moment, we're 10% lower than the highest G8 Figure, but I've not noticed a huge Japanese influx into the country. After the tax change there will be a 9% difference between 7 of the 8, G8 countries, with 5% covering 6 of them. Worth upping sticks and moving to France for a 2% difference? Maybe if you're super, super rich, but it doesn't convince me.

The other little pointer here, is that the Torygraph has been banging on about the brain drain since Feb 2008 - before the revised Tax Rate announcement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... years.html

Which given we currently have the lowest top tax rate of all the G8 barring Russia, must be largely putting it down to "other factors" than top rate tax. When you look at where the UK migrants generally head out to, it would appear the largest factor is probably sunshine, so I'd be delighted to hear Mr Cameron tell us today, what he's going to do to get us more of it.

House prices are also a significant reason cited - let's be honest - you can get something about 4 times the size of what you live in now in the US or Oz for about the same price. Again, not sure what specific policies we'd have in the UK to do something to change this and the ratio of building land to population is rather smaller I would guess in the UK than in either Oz or the US.

Oh, just as a by the way, the logic that the Country would be on its knees just because some people earning over £150k left, is significantly flawed. As is the "wealth creation is all down to people earning over £150k" argument.

[superjohnmcginlay]

What about when NI is included? Which is a tax on income no matter what you call it.

[Worthy4England]

What about when NI is included? Which is a tax on income no matter what you call it.

Plenty of stats here

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country ... tion&all=1

If you want to go look