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. @Woosty: I suppose I am closed minded, in the sense that I do not entertain claims without evidence or at least logic showing some plausibility. My mind is definitely closed to the supernatural.

    However, my mind is not closed to the unexplained if there is evidence of some action or mechanism operating, but we do not know what it is. DNA is cut and spliced (by spliceosomes) within a cell; they are very reliable in picking the same splicing sites time after time, but we do not know the exact mechanism that locks onto a site, that distinguishes exons from introns. That remains unexplained, but there is obvious evidence that some mechanism is at work, the results are not random.

    So do not think that I believe we know it all. In fact I think we know very little, and a great deal of progress remains to be made. There are many, many unexplained phenomena to investigate, elucidate, and potentially exploit for our own benefit, in physics, medicine, psychology, economics, sociology, chemistry, geology, and other evidence-based science.

    But faith and religion and philosophy are fictions or frauds. I can find them entertaining or appalling, but my mind is closed to taking them seriously as long as they remain closed to experimentation and logic and testable claims.

  2. @Woosty: Well, I was joking about the Mob; about 70% of our taxes go to help people in need, which I agree with completely. The rest goes to unnecessary military action, unnecessary military weaponry, and unnecessary bribery to foreign officials. A good chunk indirectly goes to tax breaks and favors for wealthy corporations. But when it comes to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, education, welfare, food stamps, free health care, etc. I am on board.

  3. also;
    Tony C.
    1, December 24, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    “No, it won’t. I do not accept anything anybody says unless they can prove it from principles that I agree are self-evident to ME. My philosophy is not received knowledge at all, I do not trust anybody else to know the truth and tell it to me. Unlike you, I accept no philosophy that is not firmly grounded in reasoning from self-evident axioms with plain language.” ~Tony C.
    —————
    Holy wow, I’ve never seen a more perfected sentence of expression of closed minded….it is quite perfect….it may in fact be absolute!
    !

  4. Tony C.,

    I really wish I could agree with you but I jest cain’t….

    taxes do not exist simply to ‘pay politicians’….and politicians are not empowered to simply collect $$$$$$$, though it does appear, given the extraordinary temptations of lobbyists and lack of cahonas on the part of some to say no to same, that that is the sole raison d’etre of the genre….but it’s not and there are those who do actually attempt to ‘do the work’ without taking hostage and wreaking havoc on those whom they serve…. 😛

  5. @Polly: Of course he did, Polly. But thank you for demonstrating the foolishly moronic absolutist thinking of all Aynish, your anti-rational insistence that everything is either 100% good or 100% bad. Newton was a jerk, a magical thinking, jealous, and even cruel person. He was also very good at mathematics.

    Your problem is, and always has been, blind hero-worship. Newton was a human being, not a god. Newton does not get a pass on being a cruel jerk just because he discovered something important; it is possible for a person to be both good and bad in the same body, there is, after all, more than one hour in any given day.

    More importantly, you seem to think that I worship Newton, or Einstein, or some other famous personage. I do not, I have no reverence for any human living or dead. Good ideas stand on their own, that is all I care about, and I presume the humans that came up with them were subject to all the emotional foibles and pitfalls of life as anybody else. I could not care less what Newton might think of me.

    But clearly, YOU would care what Newton thought of YOU, because you are a hero-worshipper, you crave approval from people you think are superior to you. That is why you think you insult me by saying Newton would spit on me; it is projection: That would bother you, so you think it would bother me. That is sad and stupid of you, Polly.

  6. @Polly: Newton would spit at you.

    Newton was an alchemist that literally believed in magic. He was so jealous of Liebniz (the true inventor of the calculus we use today) that I think he stooped to lying, subterfuge and character assassination in order to take credit for it. Let Newton spit all he wants, he was an emotionally pathetic human being.

    1. >Newton was an alchemist that literally believed in magic.

      Thus he did not discover universal gravity and laws of motion, two of the most influential discoveries in history?! Your anti-mind ideas guide your method of using your mind. Youre causing yourself to be functionally stupid.

    2. Zombie,
      >Newton was a jerk, a magical thinking, jealous, and even cruel person.

      There is no rational concern with this in the context of Newton as scientist. Youre a conscious and deliberately destructive nihilist who attacks all values because they are values. You will now rationalize your desire to spit on Newton, the value-creator.

      >I have no reverence for any human living or dead.

      My point. You are evil, a death-worshipper. I revere Newton the scientist.

      >Good ideas stand on their own

      Thus you confess your conscious intellectual fraud of personal attack.

      >that is all I care about

      No, you care about nothing. Your ideas, your floating abstractions, are mere rationalizations of the evasion of reason. You have no values. You want to sacrifice all values. You have the soul of a Nazi death camp guard.

      >because you are a hero-worshipper, you crave approval from people you think are superior to you.

      Because I am a hero-worshipper, I approve some people. Your mention of approval from others in this context is bizarre. You dont want people to respect you because you know your soul is rotten, filled with destructive rage against an existence that wont grant your wish to be God and to get mindless, valueless, dutiful approval from others. You must feel empathy for all those school shooters. You are modern man at the end of his rope. See Munch’s “The Scream.”

  7. @Woosty: I think that is a pretty good analogy. Because, like the Mob, they seem to sell their services to the highest bidder, no matter whom it may harm, and like the Mob, the people that claim to be “serving” you and “protecting” you and “doing you a favor” are really just extorting you for their own breathtakingly selfish interest. (Read “breathtakingly” in both the literal and figurative sense.)

  8. @Woosty: Because there is no necessary work, we have no requirements on politicians to do anything whatsoever, they do not even have to show up for work. Ever. They can be sworn in anywhere. Nice job, right?
    —————————
    so my tax burden is a figment?
    WHEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    that’s a game changer!!!!!
    😉

  9. @Woosty: Because there is no necessary work, we have no requirements on politicians to do anything whatsoever, they do not even have to show up for work. Ever. They can be sworn in anywhere. Nice job, right?

  10. @Polly: The basic purpose of explanation is knowing that man faces a knowable, orderly universe and that his mind can achieve certainty in knowing reality.

    Bullshit. To what end? Who cares if the universe is knowable or orderly, or the mind can achieve certainty? What a pile of useless clap trap, a little tempest in a teapot that makes no difference to anybody’s reality.

    The point of explanation is to make a difference, specifically a difference in the real future, it is only useful to help us shape and guide the future we realize. That does not require either certainty or absolute order, it only requires probability, and that is what brains small and large are evolved to discern. Explanation that is not predictive or testable is religion.

  11. @Bron: Except I am not a Marxist, and not a socialist. I do not accept any philosophy except my own, grounded in neurological and evolutionary psychology principles of cooperative tribal society, for which I personally find the evidence provided to be compelling to the point of almost certainly true.

    Marx was wrong. Pure socialism is wrong. Somewhere around a 50/50 mix of socialism and capitalism, regulated to prevent harm and control sociopaths, is what I believe is the most productive and happiest path for humanity.

    I do not believe in limiting either personal wealth or poverty. I believe some gradient for individual improvement is necessary to tap the ambition of individuals to work and do better.

    However, I also believe in limiting hunger, homelessness, sickness and exploitation of desperation, so I do believe in free education, free police protection, safe food, safe products, and safe workplaces. I do NOT believe that providing the basics of life and opportunity will cause any but a small percentage of people to just kick back and live in their cubicle and eat their gruel. The vast majority will still strive and work for more; and that has been proven in the partially-socialist, partially-capitalistic countries that DO provide the basics of food, shelter, health care and education for free and regardless of personal effort. 95% of the people still want to work and earn money for the things they want, including non-minimalist shelter.

    It is just as easy to argue against a Marxist or pure socialist or pure communist as it is to argue against anarchy, Bron. You guys keep returning to calling me those things because you do not know HOW to argue against an actual, reasoned position with evidence.

    You are religionists, captured by false explanations, and all you can do is argue against extremes that do not apply to me.

  12. @Polly: You do not even know what “begging the question” means, it is just another one of the favorite Aynish phrases used to fraudulently dismiss any argument they do not know how to answer. Along with, “dropping the context,” another favorite all-purpose dismissal.

    I already HAVE prestige, Polly. If I was posting to get more of it, I would not be posting anonymously, now would I?

    You are the intellectual fraud; my work is scientifically predictive of actual real outcomes. You are just a parrot, you have no work of your own, and the drivel you parrot does nothing to predict anything, in fact for they Aynish it is anti-predictive of actual real outcomes. It is not science, it is religion, based in falsehood. Like all religions, it is capable of predicting nothing, but of course explaining everything, because that is the purpose of religion: False explanations that are carefully designed to predict nothing so they cannot ever be proven wrong by any experiment, observation, or statistic.

    You got suckered, Polly, like all converts to a religion. The allure of the false but grand explanations suckered you into belief for its own sake, but you forgot the whole purpose of explanations, which is to predict our most probable futures and what actions we can take to pursue a future we want, and through our actions make it a more probable outcome until it comes to pass. The Aynish “explanations” are non-predictive or counter-predictive, when you work from a false view of reality, reality usually wins.

  13. tony c:

    as a marxist/socialist your philosophy was not a cause of the enlightenment. Marx was a follower of Hegel, I believe and teaparty 1776 can correct me, who was a philosophical product of Plato not Aristotle.

    1. Zombie,

      >My form of “understanding” led directly to the Enlightenment, industrial revolution, modern science and the modern technological world;

      Newton rejected mere mathematical patterns for causes. Youre a throwback to the voodoo practice of sticking pins into representations of people. Youre a witchdoctor,not a scientist. Newton would spit at you. Your form of understanding lead to Marxist gulags and Nazi death camps because those politics were based on the denial of mind as independent.

      > “begging the question” “dropping the context,”

      You finally confess that your ideas rest on logical fallacies.

      > I already HAVE prestige

      From other nihilists

      > my work is scientifically predictive of actual real outcomes.

      Your work is coincidental w/actual real outcomes since you confess to uncertainty.

      > the drivel you parrot does nothing to predict anything

      It predicts that when man evades reason, a rotten moral character and practical disaster are created.

      > purpose of explanations, which is to predict our most probable futures and what actions we can take to pursue a future we want,

      The basic purpose of explanation is knowing that man faces a knowable, orderly universe and that his mind can achieve certainty in knowing reality. Lacking that knowledge, man’s mind disintegrates into…well,
      just introspect and you will know. Derivative from the basic purpose, explanation guides prediction and control for practical survival. Lacking explanation, man is reduced to mere probabilities and crisis-management as a way of life.

      > when you work from a false view of reality, reality usually wins

      “Usually?!” Tell us about falsehoods when you win and reality loses.

  14. @Polly: Bullshit, and as usual, exactly backwards. My form of “understanding” led directly to the Enlightenment, industrial revolution, modern science and the modern technological world; your form of Aynish understanding is precisely the kind of mystical BS based on nothing but false assertion that it overcame.

    1. Zombie,
      Youre begging the question. You want prestige, not reason. Youre an intellectual fraud, a nihilist destroyer.

  15. @Bron, Polly: If you do not believe there is anything BUT “observational” understanding, then why qualify “understanding” with the adjective “observational?”

    Why be redundant and waste that time? Thank you for proving my point, your lingo is meaningless, it is full of words that make no difference (like “observational”) and words that mean whatever you want them to mean at the time.

    People understand things when they discover a pattern or recurring state that we all recognize. You do not understand the word “sad” because you “observed” sad, you understand the word “sad” because when you were learning language you were repeatedly told that word in relation to feelings you were having, other people were having, characters in books or on TV or in a movie were having, people in the mall were having, and your brain figured out that “sad” was a label for a loose collection of negative emotions people felt, that were not anger or hate, that did intersect with “unhappy” but not precisely (e.g. a customer can be unhappy without being sad), that involved figurative emotional pain. “Sad” can intersect with “remorse,” but isn’t the same.

    You do not “observe” sad, you feel sad, and you recognize that feeling in others, and it doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean, you do not get to arbitrarily redefine “sad” to mean “joyful” in some obscure book somewhere, and thereafter expect people to understand what you mean.

    Learning the meaning of the word “sad” is not “observational” learning, it is just learning, it is neurons associating the word with mental states, both internal and as imagined in others both real and fictional, and figuring out the most probable mental states that trigger the word. The word becomes a label for those states, or actually a label that can be used in several situations because we know it will be understood in context. Attending a funeral, we understand the spouse of the deceased is very sad, and it is no laughing matter. When your brother in law, in an attempt to stencil a snowy Santa Claus on his window, steps back and declares his work “pretty sad,” we do not hesitate to laugh, because we know he isn’t really sad.

    The meaning of the vast majority of words is understood by inference, even concrete words like “cold.” You do not understand cold because somebody put an ice-cube in your hand and said, “cold.” Your mind has too many candidates in that situation. What does “cold” represent? Is it the cubic shape? The material it is made of? The slippery texture? An emotional state in the giver? The emotional state in the receiver? A ritual for a certain day? The act of handing something to somebody? A command to do something? If you have never heard the word “cold” it is difficult to associate it with “low temperature,” unless it is explicitly imparted or you hear it enough that “low temperature” is all that is left, it is the most probable meaning. At that point, you have inferred one of the meanings of “cold.”

    Words have meaning because they are labels for mental states, reproduced by associating the word with a neural network which it fires. Those neural networks are developed by a probabilistic learning process, distilled from experiences, situations, feelings, and sensory experiences common to most normal people. The commonality is what warrants having a word for it, a shorthand to trigger a small collection of predictive or explanatory neural networks.

    If you want to call that a “reason” for meaning then fine, but I think it is just a definition of communication and learning to communicate. When I say there is no “reason” words are understood, it is because I think that is a tautology. What is a word if it is not understood? It is just a sound or random pattern of letters. To be a word it must trigger nearly identical mental reactions in both speaker and listener, or author and reader. Words are understood, by their nature. If you don’t know the word, you can learn what it means, and then it is understood. If there is a “reason” words are understood it is just because nearly identical common meanings were learned by the speaker and listener, but I think that is picking nits. A word is intended to be understood, unless you are a fraud like Ayn Rand trying to trick people into accepting her psychopathic disability as virtuous.

  16. teaparty:

    maybe he has been doing that his entire life? that is what animals do. they take it in [observation] but they only process to a point.

Comments are closed.