The Great Art Debate

[superjohnmcginlay]

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

Fooking hell thats confusing. How come they dont go past 2006?

As far as I can tell it says I'm overtaxed.

[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

Fooking hell thats confusing. How come they dont go past 2006?

As far as I can tell it says I'm overtaxed.

I suspect usually because it seems to take about 3 years to get all the comparitive data and produce a glossy report (usually by the OECD)...

[superjohnmcginlay]

Fair enough Worthy.

I notice we're top of the pile for property tax/council tax.

[Worthy4England]

Fair enough Worthy.

I notice we're top of the pile for property tax/council tax.

I believe you should probably be a politician. Being able to pick a single statistic out of the whole picture and make a story out of it is a key skill.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Fair enough Worthy.

I notice we're top of the pile for property tax/council tax.

I believe you should probably be a politician. Being able to pick a single statistic out of the whole picture and make a story out of it is a key skill.

And yourself. I noticed you only stuck to Income Tax.

[Worthy4England]

Fair enough Worthy.

I notice we're top of the pile for property tax/council tax.

I believe you should probably be a politician. Being able to pick a single statistic out of the whole picture and make a story out of it is a key skill.

And yourself. I noticed you only stuck to Income Tax.

Only because that was the topic at hand - Emin might leave for France because of a 50% higher tax rate...

I suspect politicians from all sides would join me in wishing her a pleasant stay and anything the Foreign Office can do to help expedite her move, she only needs to ask.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Fair enough Worthy.

I notice we're top of the pile for property tax/council tax.

I believe you should probably be a politician. Being able to pick a single statistic out of the whole picture and make a story out of it is a key skill.

And yourself. I noticed you only stuck to Income Tax.

Only because that was the topic at hand - Emin might leave for France because of a 50% higher tax rate...

I suspect politicians from all sides would join me in wishing her a pleasant stay and anything the Foreign Office can do to help expedite her move, she only needs to ask.

Indeed. I think we should keep it at 50% for the time being.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

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.

Well the two points are not unrelated...

As for the 'headline'... we're not writing or even reading newspapers here. I trust what I have read from the likes of the IFS on this.

Nobody is seriously talking in terms of a 'mass exodus' as a direct response to the tax regime... but as you and others have said, there are plenty of reasons already for not wanting to live and work in Britain, and the last thing we need in these times when we are looking to grow ourselves out of trouble, is another significant entry in the negative column. Even if the difference is marginal, the message that we are an enterprise-penalising economy is not one I would be keen to send.

You're right that the situation in the 70s was different, but it is evidence that talented people will move if encouraged to do so by the tax system, even if the difference now won't be as great. It's worth bearing in mind, of course, that people and their skills are much more mobile now than they were in the 70s.

I think you think I'm trying to make an argument in order to fit in with my personal distaste for progressive taxation, but I'm really not. Most people know that this increase doesn't raise a lot of money in the scheme of our problems, so why take the risk with what it symbolizes?

Oh and I think you're right that there are good reasons footballers would rather play in England than in France, but when British clubs go up against those from Spain, Italy, they will be at a serious disadvantage in the bidding process.. some have made observations to that effect already.

[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.

Well the two points are not unrelated...

As for the 'headline'... we're not writing or even reading newspapers here. I trust what I have read from the likes of the IFS on this.

Nobody is seriously talking in terms of a 'mass exodus' as a direct response to the tax regime... but as you and others have said, there are plenty of reasons already for not wanting to live and work in Britain, and the last thing we need in these times when we are looking to grow ourselves out of trouble, is another significant entry in the negative column. Even if the difference is marginal, the message that we are an enterprise-penalising economy is not one I would be keen to send.

You're right that the situation in the 70s was different, but it is evidence that talented people will move if encouraged to do so by the tax system, even if the difference now won't be as great. It's worth bearing in mind, of course, that people and their skills are much more mobile now than they were in the 70s.

I think you think I'm trying to make an argument in order to fit in with my personal distaste for progressive taxation, but I'm really not. Most people know that this increase doesn't raise a lot of money in the scheme of our problems, so why take the risk with what it symbolizes?

Oh and I think you're right that there are good reasons footballers would rather play in England than in France, but when British clubs go up against those from Spain, Italy, they will be at a serious disadvantage in the bidding process.. some have made observations to that effect already.

I don't think we're a million miles apart on this one. I think it will raise at best marginal revenues (in country size terms) as do you. I think we only differ on the overall impact it will have. If we're only raising marginal Revenue, then surely the impact is also - in the scheme of things - marginal? You're C-in-C has just said he's not going to change it either - so I think it's probably not as big an issue as the Torygraph makes out.

[Montreal Wanderer]

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

Fooking hell thats confusing. How come they dont go past 2006?

As far as I can tell it says I'm overtaxed.

I suspect usually because it seems to take about 3 years to get all the comparitive data and produce a glossy report (usually by the OECD)...

Tax is part of a far broader picture that includes services for those taxes, or more generally quality of life.The UNDP publishes a more up to date Human Development Index in which Norway was top in 2009, Canada 4th and the UK 21st. Other surveys, like the Economist Intelligence Unit's Quality of Life do tend to be dated.

[William the White]

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

Fooking hell thats confusing. How come they dont go past 2006?

As far as I can tell it says I'm overtaxed.

I suspect usually because it seems to take about 3 years to get all the comparitive data and produce a glossy report (usually by the OECD)...

Tax is part of a far broader picture that includes services for those taxes, or more generally quality of life.The UNDP publishes a more up to date Human Development Index in which Norway was top in 2009, Canada 4th and the UK 21st. Other surveys, like the Economist Intelligence Unit's Quality of Life do tend to be dated.

And are taxes high in norway to attain this? i do realise that this will not be the only issue...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

From memory, income tax in Norway is pretty low... might be wrong, willing to be corrected by somebody who will find out.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

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.

Sorry Dujon - this has been a horrendous hijack. I blame the thread's 'curator'.

I did enjoy the punchline of that story,

[William the White]

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.

Sorry Dujon - this has been a horrendous hijack. I blame the thread's 'curator'.

I did enjoy the punchline of that story,

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 869381.ece

Yesterday's Sunday Times:

Penalising high-earners could cost us all dear

The planned increase in personal taxation to 50% for those earning more than £150,000 is already starting to kill Britain’s spirit of enterprise at the very time we need it most.

In repeated conversations I have had with the country’s wealth creators — the individuals who are essential for a sustained economic recovery — they have been universally angered by the decision to increase taxation rates. They say it penalises success and attacks those who generate profit and employment.

There is too much anecdotal evidence from small to mid-sized companies to ignore the growing resentment. Many of them have already engaged accountants to identify all possible ways to avoid it.

Even our FTSE 100 companies are looking at bringing forward bonuses into this tax year to avoid the tax increase. At a time when entrepreneurs should be giving all their time to their businesses, their attention is being diverted to tax-avoidance schemes. Because there is such a huge arbitrage between capital gains tax and personal taxation, everyone is now looking at share-based remuneration. That way you pay only 18% tax rather than 50%.

Brown and Darling are creating a nation of tax fiddlers. The government needs money, but it has to balance the books and tread a fine line between doing that and stifling the growth that will get us out of recession.

The concern is that it won’t be long before the tax threshold is reduced from £150,000 to £100,000. Taxpayers in that band are already being hit by changes to personal and pension allowances.

To mitigate the 50p tax, companies are increasingly looking at artificial loss generation schemes to offset against income. Others are going to defer income in the hope that a Tory government will cut taxes within a year. A lot of very wealthy people intend to live off the capital and not create income. In other cases, bonuses will be transferred into an offshore trust.

The result is, the amount of additional tax raised will be negligible, but the message to British enterprise and the talent drain resulting from it is terrible.

Ok, so that's just the same anecdotal, insubstantial stuff that I and others spout regularly.... is what I suspect some of you are thinking.

In there though is the point the guy who taught me tax law last year (Prof John Tiley, basically the top man in the field) would make - opening the gap up between CGT and income tax to 32% (18% v 50%) creates a huge incentive for tax 'planning' and actually isn't a terribly coherent or sensible way to run a tax system (and other countries do do it differently).

[Prufrock]

"At a time when entrepreneurs should be giving all their time to their businesses, their attention is being diverted to tax-avoidance schemes."

Is that meant to be a criticism of the government, or to show rich folk up as ungrateful grabbers. That's no fecking excuse, stop grabbing, and start, for once earning the money. Let's just rememeber, as there are job cuts across the country, factory occupations, one day strikes, all amongst those suffering from the recessionl, who exactly caused it.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

"At a time when entrepreneurs should be giving all their time to their businesses, their attention is being diverted to tax-avoidance schemes."

Is that meant to be a criticism of the government, or to show rich folk up as ungrateful grabbers. That's no fecking excuse, stop grabbing, and start, for once earning the money. Let's just rememeber, as there are job cuts across the country, factory occupations, one day strikes, all amongst those suffering from the recessionl, who exactly caused it.

It's meant as a reflection of reality and whatever comes with that. It's perfectly rational for private citizens to respond to government action in their own self-interest. To most businesses, tax is a business cost to be reduced like any other.

As it happens, I would prefer to see a better-resourced Revenue (their resources are tiny compared to those who are trying to outwit them) preventing tax avoidance, as opposed to ineffective, 'message-sending' higher taxes.

By the way, how are you so clear about "who exactly caused it"... you seem to blame high earners in a very general and simplistic way. Surely you appreciate that a myriad of factors came together over a long period of time to 'cause it'?

[Prufrock]

"At a time when entrepreneurs should be giving all their time to their businesses, their attention is being diverted to tax-avoidance schemes."

Is that meant to be a criticism of the government, or to show rich folk up as ungrateful grabbers. That's no fecking excuse, stop grabbing, and start, for once earning the money. Let's just rememeber, as there are job cuts across the country, factory occupations, one day strikes, all amongst those suffering from the recessionl, who exactly caused it.

It's meant as a reflection of reality and whatever comes with that. It's perfectly rational for private citizens to respond to government action in their own self-interest. To most businesses, tax is a business cost to be reduced like any other.

As it happens, I would prefer to see a better-resourced Revenue (their resources are tiny compared to those who are trying to outwit them) preventing tax avoidance, as opposed to ineffective, 'message-sending' higher taxes.

By the way, how are you so clear about "who exactly caused it"... you seem to blame high earners in a very general and simplistic way. Surely you appreciate that a myriad of factors came together over a long period of time to 'cause it'?

Certainly, I have been vocal in arguing it wasn't 'all the bankers fault'. It certainly wasn't caused by workers though. It was caused by an inherently flawed system which rewards profit now, and encourages people to trade long term, and sensible thinking, for a short term profit. Now I understand not everyone in the rich class is rich because of this, but many are, because, when asked to regulate themselves, they fell spectacularly short. Short of going on a 'who caused the recession' witch hunt', the only fair way of going about it is to tax those who gained advantage from the system, and expect them to pay proper taxes, especially whilst those less well off, or successful as you'd probably put it, struggle to keep their heads above water.

I certainly agree about having a proper organisation to stop tax avoidance. Did I dream about talk maybe a year or so ago, if that, about clamping down on tax havens by an alliance of countries, of which I think we were one, and America another? If not, what happened?

[Lord Kangana]

Dyson Hoover man at Tory Party conference:" We need to make more stuff, to make more money for the country"

Tv interviewer(paraphrased): "And then move the entire operation to China presumably?"

Lord Dyson of do as I say not as I do: "Well, er, erm".

In short, the rich would like us to help them to maker them just that little bit richer. But not have to pay for it. We proles should. Thats what we're here for. Which neatly sums up the "I don't want to pay more tax" crap.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

In short, the rich would like us to help them to maker them just that little bit richer. But not have to pay for it. We proles should. Thats what we're here for. Which neatly sums up the "I don't want to pay more tax" crap.

Unless we're talking about lifting people out of poverty, which I'm not sure we are, are richer people supposed to make poorer people better off without their paying for it?

Do richer people not pay others to make them richer with remunerated jobs?