Tax Man Cometh, Earners Leaveth? Two-Thirds of Brits With £1 Million or More Annual Income Disappear From Britain After Tax Increase

800px-Pieter_Brueghel_the_Younger,_'Paying_the_Tax_(The_Tax_Collector)'_oil_on_panel,_1620-1640._USC_Fisher_Museum_of_ArtWe previously discussed the exodus from France of top earners after the imposition of a confiscatory 75% tax rate. Now England is facing the same shift, according to a new report. More than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million during 2009-10. That number fell to just 6,000 this year. This appears to be a combination of people leaving Britain and concerted efforts to avoid income.

We continue to disagree on this blog on tax policy. I opposed the moves in France and England as economically unwise. I also oppose aspects of the Obama plan, though I agree with the need to increase revenue. I believe both Obama and Congress have been incredibly reckless with their budgets and continue to spend wildly without any sense of priority in spending.

Cities like New York also report declines in top earner following heavy tax bills.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.

Source: Telegraph

547 thoughts on “Tax Man Cometh, Earners Leaveth? Two-Thirds of Brits With £1 Million or More Annual Income Disappear From Britain After Tax Increase”

  1. @Bron: I believe the poor ARE kept poor, and I do not believe it matters how hard you work if you are born without any exceptional ability.

    The reason some people refuse to put out effort is because they have learned by experience (and by observing failed adults in their environment) that it won’t matter if they do. When the only people you know from your neighborhood that “escaped” poverty are superstars, drug dealers, pimps and lottery winners, it isn’t hard for most people to figure out that, contrary to Lady Gaga, they are NOT a superstar or exceptional in any sense that matters. When there are no minimum wage jobs to be had even if you try and try again, it is human nature to give up and live on what you can get, or try the escape routes that they have seen work for somebody like them, no matter how improbable it may be.

    Unexceptional people are not only born into poverty, they are also born into the middle class and upper class. Those born into poverty did not choose that life and should not be required to be exceptional in order to have a normal life. When that is true, that is an unfair society, and it is an unfairness we can do something about, by giving them a more level playing field: Proper nutrition and health care, a safe neighborhood and shelter, and an education to the limit of their potential.

    That in fact would be better for everyone, not just them. More doctors mean more competition between doctors and lower health care costs; a greater supply of accountants or nurses or engineers should lower the cost of accounting or nursing or engineering.

    So why don’t we do it? Because what is better for everyone and better for the economy is not necessarily better for individual wealthy persons in regard to the tax they would have to pay; so they use part of their wealth to corrupt the government and save a larger part of their wealth, which keeps such programs unfunded and ultimately provides them immoral personal gains by perpetuating the pain of others.

  2. tony c:

    the poor are kept poor? I wasnt kept poor by anyone, I refused to remain poor. And if I become poor again it will be from one of 3 things, my lack of work or the economic environment created by the fools in Washington, DC or both.

    But I only have control of how hard I work.

    The poor are poor for 3 reasons:

    1. lack of knowledge
    2. illness either mental or physical
    3. inability (which goes to 2) or refusal to work/put out effort

    There are others but I think these are the main ones. Society should help with 1 and 2 but if you refuse to put out effort to improve your station in life then society has no responsibility for you.

  3. @Bron: life isnt fair.

    That is the whole point, Bron. Life isn’t fair. As humans we can understand that, and then invent ways to FIX that, so Life is more fair, and people and their potential are not wasted for no good reason other than the circumstances of their birth and family.

    I accept that life and nature are not inherently fair, I reject the notion that we should just accept that environment and that we cannot do anything to improve that situation.

    We can; we have the collective resources to give all citizens a fair start without deprivation (of food, shelter, healthcare and education), and I think it is our moral responsibility to do that, both to save them and save ourselves: Desperation due to poverty is a primary cause of crime against strangers, both violent and otherwise.

    If you want a strong economy with safer streets and less crime, stop wasting 30% of the population. It doesn’t even make sense to do that from an economic standpoint, by your own calculus you believe that 30% more college graduates, 30% more entrepreneurs, 30% more professionals would make more money, pay more taxes and of course buy more stuff and provide a 30% larger market to other entrepreneurs. Why else would you recommend it as a way to escape poverty?

    The poor are kept poor out of simple greed, and that causes pain for personal gain, and that is immoral.

  4. life isnt fair. you had a father and a mother, i didnt have that advantage. your family had more than mine on that fact alone.

  5. @Bron: Are you really that much of a simpleton, Bron, that you actually believe that load of infantile grade school crap? My god, I am conversing with a fool.

    Even if it were true (and that idea is bullshit), how is that fair in the least, that a person born into poverty through no choice of his own has to work ten or twenty times harder than a person born into wealth through no effort of his own?

    People born to wealth have better schools and teachers, better tutors if they need them, better nutrition and health care and thus fewer diseases and mental developmental errors. They don’t have to work while they go to college; all their youthful indiscretions are erased by lawyers and the influence of their wealthy parents, they can go to Harvard or Princeton because daddy will pay for it, if they want to start a business their daddy can fund it (as I did for my daughter’s business), they do not have to work more than 30 hours a week because they have real equity to replace sweat equity.

    If working hard meant escaping poverty, the vast majority of people in poverty wouldn’t be there. My father worked two full time jobs and my mother worked full time, and they never escaped poverty by working.

    You live in a fantasy world, poverty is not overcome by “ambition.” The few that escape were lucky, not ambitious, they were either lucky and won or somehow came into money, or they were lucky to be born with a talent that earned them enough money to escape.

    I fit in the latter category. I am not so egotistical to believe I worked any harder than any other janitor, dishwasher, temporary farm hand or military grunt. The average IQ is 100 by definition, and demanding that people born into poverty exceed that in order to not repeat their parent’s performance is essentially just condemning them to poverty through no fault of their own. That is what I meant by a self-perpetuating cycle of subjugation.

    The vast majority of people are not smart enough or talented enough or beautiful enough to win the race against others that only have to run one fourth the distance. That is inherently unfair to the poor, by definition. So your entire philosophy boils down to some totally unfair prescription, so you can tell yourself, “I gave ’em the solution, they just didn’t listen,” which means basically you just want some way to blame the victims of an unfair system, no matter how ridiculous it may be, so that you won’t have to do anything about it.

    That is immoral.

Comments are closed.