Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Aph)
    Why do we need them? If they are going to contribute so little.
    We are forcing them out:zomg: pretty sure they are leaving of their own accord.
    What do you think the British economy is based on?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    What do you think the British economy is based on?
    Historical wealth and self employment.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Aph)
    Historical wealth and self employment.
    Yes... Now think carefully what high taxes will do....
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Yes... Now think carefully what high taxes will do....
    Bring more money into the state.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Aph)
    Bring more money into the state.
    No. Just no.

    You stated what you thought the British economy is based on and you still want to raise taxes which forces those people to look to better countries tax wise. Many are relocating to Asia and the ME as the tax breaks are amazing, especially for start ups and hell the US is also amazing when it comes to start up, tech ones especially.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    No. Just no.

    You stated what you thought the British economy is based on and you still want to raise taxes which forces those people to look to better countries tax wise. Many are relocating to Asia and the ME as the tax breaks are amazing, especially for start ups and hell the US is also amazing when it comes to start up, tech ones especially.
    Again 'forces' no they choose money over civic duty, if these people are so focused on money they don't care about anything else let them go, we can develop a fairer more equal society without them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have any evidence for this supposed flight of the rich? Every time I've seen it asserted on here as fact I've asked for proof but no one has ever been able to find me any.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by toronto353)
    qfa
    have you heard from faland yet? Really this should've gone to vote already. So could we send it to vote or at least cessation if you haven't heard anything.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    have you heard from faland yet? Really this should've gone to vote already. So could we send it to vote or at least cessation if you haven't heard anything.
    If I don't hear anything by tonight, I will put out an update myself. Could you PM this to remind me please?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Aph)
    Again 'forces' no they choose money over civic duty, if these people are so focused on money they don't care about anything else let them go, we can develop a fairer more equal society without them.
    Jesus. It's like talking to a wall, do you really think that the people will put up with high tax rates and less bang for their pound? Would you like a new USSR or a new China? Tax rates in both were and are low.
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Does anyone have any evidence for this supposed flight of the rich? Every time I've seen it asserted on here as fact I've asked for proof but no one has ever been able to find me any.
    Again look at France recently and then the history of the UK, the most recent for the UK was 2009 after the 50% tax was introduced. The UK loses out in the long run with high taxes.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Jesus. It's like talking to a wall, do you really think that the people will put up with high tax rates and less bang for their pound? Would you like a new USSR or a new China? Tax rates in both were and are low.

    Again look at France recently and then the history of the UK, the most recent for the UK was 2009 after the 50% tax was introduced. The UK loses out in the long run with high taxes.
    Tax revenues in France went up after the 'super tax'. Besides the odd high profile celebrity kicking up a fuss I've not seen any evidence of this exodus in France. I can't see the times article as I don't have a subscription.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Again 'forces' no they choose money over civic duty, if these people are so focused on money they don't care about anything else let them go, we can develop a fairer more equal society without them.
    The top 1% of earners pays ~30% of income tax.

    Surely a better solution is to continue to attract high earners while also continuing to remove the burden of taxation altogether from the poor.

    One does not need to punish people for being rich.. we can have our cake and eat it too.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Tax revenues in France went up after the 'super tax'. Besides the odd high profile celebrity kicking up a fuss I've not seen any evidence of this exodus in France. I can't see the times article as I don't have a subscription.
    France's 75% tax reduced government tax revenues through a hindered economic growth and a capital flight. In 2013 tax revenue was estimated at being 30bn euros but ended up being 16bn euros. Tax revenues from corporate taxes, individual income tax, and value-added tax (VAT) were down by 6.4bn, 4.9bn, and 5bn euros respectively. In 2014, no quarters saw economic growth above 0.8%. In my books the decrease in income tax revenue and the reintroduction of 45% replacing the 75% is a clear sign extortionately high income taxes are not the godsend Aph believes them to be.

    Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Georgetown economists have calculated the limit for income tax before revenue starts declining is 52%. Another research paper has placed the point of decline in tax revenues as being 50% exactly with some cases being 50-55% and some being 45-50%. The richest 1% already pay over 20% of all tax revenue, the way to improve the economy and increase equality is from bottom-up, pro-growth strategies.

    In addition to research about tax, over 100 British properties worth more than 1.7m euros were sold to French people in a 2.5 months period in 2012 following the announcement of the 75% tax which is a marked increase on the same period in 2011. Swiss tax accountants saw a 100% increase in inquiries from rich French people looking to funnel wealth out of France.

    If a decrease in revenue, increases in foreign property buying, and a double in inquiries for Swiss bank accounts does not equate to capital, or wealthy people fleeing the country I do not know what does. See, Aph, more tax equals less revenue and less productive potential.

    Further Sources:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27602312
    http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/201...Welfare-State/
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/1...t-farrage.html

    (Original post by tehFrance)
    QFA
    (Original post by Aph)
    QFA
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    QFA
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    France's 75% tax reduced government tax revenues through a hindered economic growth and a capital flight. In 2013 tax revenue was estimated at being 30bn euros but ended up being 16bn euros. Tax revenues from corporate taxes, individual income tax, and value-added tax (VAT) were down by 6.4bn, 4.9bn, and 5bn euros respectively. In 2014, no quarters saw economic growth above 0.8%. In my books the decrease in income tax revenue and the reintroduction of 45% replacing the 75% is a clear sign extortionately high income taxes are not the godsend Aph believes them to be.

    Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Georgetown economists have calculated the limit for income tax before revenue starts declining is 52%. Another research paper has placed the point of decline in tax revenues as being 50% exactly with some cases being 50-55% and some being 45-50%. The richest 1% already pay over 20% of all tax revenue, the way to improve the economy and increase equality is from bottom-up, pro-growth strategies.

    In addition to research about tax, over 100 British properties worth more than 1.7m euros were sold to French people in a 2.5 months period in 2012 following the announcement of the 75% tax which is a marked increase on the same period in 2011. Swiss tax accountants saw a 100% increase in inquiries from rich French people looking to funnel wealth out of France.

    If a decrease in revenue, increases in foreign property buying, and a double in inquiries for Swiss bank accounts does not equate to capital, or wealthy people fleeing the country I do not know what does. See, Aph, more tax equals less revenue and less productive potential.

    Further Sources:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27602312
    http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/201...Welfare-State/
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/1...t-farrage.html
    As your own sources state, tax revenues following Hollande's increased by 16bn Euro's. They may not have raised the 30bn that they had hoped, but they still increased by 16bn Euro's.

    Your CBN article is an opinion peice, the only statistics in there are from 2011, before the introduction of the tax.

    The Telegraph peice doesn't seem to have any data that supports this exodus.

    The other Telegraph peice contains nothing but speculation from high-end estate agents. Correlation does not equal causation and I don't think it's clear just how few people would need to emigate from France for the impact to be noticable at that end of the property market. This points to a very small number of people leaving France, not a mass exodus.

    I can find nothing in your sources that proves that this mass exoudus of the wealth from France has occured. All that can be said is that a very small number of wealthy people left France and dispite this tax revenues rose by 16bn Euros.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    As your own sources state, tax revenues following Hollande's increased by 16bn Euro's. They may not have raised the 30bn that they had hoped, but they still increased by 16bn Euro's.

    Your CBN article is an opinion peice, the only statistics in there are from 2011, before the introduction of the tax.

    The Telegraph peice doesn't seem to have any data that supports this exodus.
    Think of the reverse, that is not a 16bn net increase but an extra 16bn from taxes while there was a decrease of an unknown amount in potential economic growth. Focusing in on the specific 75% tax, Finance Ministry of France estimates the proceeds from the tax amounted to 260 million euros in its first year and 160 million in the second. It is almost certain the wealthy people who did leave, even if they left in small numbers, or businesses who chose somewhere else to invest to avoid the higher taxes, amounted to more than 160 euros. The revenue form the tax will always be falling too as new loophole are found. It just happens to coincide with the tax that unemployment increased to over 10% in France when the tax existed but fell as the tax was announced to end. I would recommend the report I sourced from the Journal of Monetary Economics as it perfectly shows, with numerous case examples and data, why an increase in tax doesn't always give an increase in revenue.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Think of the reverse, that is not a 16bn net increase but an extra 16bn from taxes while there was a decrease of an unknown amount in potential economic growth. Focusing in on the specific 75% tax, Finance Ministry of France estimates the proceeds from the tax amounted to 260 million euros in its first year and 160 million in the second. It is almost certain the wealthy people who did leave, even if they left in small numbers, or businesses who chose somewhere else to invest to avoid the higher taxes, amounted to more than 160 euros. The revenue form the tax will always be falling too as new loophole are found. It just happens to coincide with the tax that unemployment increased to over 10% in France when the tax existed but fell as the tax was announced to end. I would recommend the report I sourced from the Journal of Monetary Economics as it perfectly shows, with numerous case examples and data, why an increase in tax doesn't always give an increase in revenue.
    So as we can see, we've gone from a mass exodus of wealthy French people, plunging the French Exchequer into chaos into a small number of wealthy people leaving and the Exchequer benefiting from additional tax revenues.I still don't believe there is any evidence of this mass exodus from France, nor any evidence of exoduses from any of the other numerous examples of increases in tax on the wealthy. The Laffer curve is a related but seperate issue to this exodus.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Jesus. It's like talking to a wall, do you really think that the people will put up with high tax rates and less bang for their pound? Would you like a new USSR or a new China? Tax rates in both were and are low.
    By people you mean little babies who whine when they don't get their own way, at least that's what they are if they are so opposed to contributing that they would leave the country and personally I don't want to be used as a country just because we tax them less. I'd rather share the country with people who want to be here.
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The top 1% of earners pays ~30% of income tax.

    Surely a better solution is to continue to attract high earners while also continuing to remove the burden of taxation altogether from the poor.

    One does not need to punish people for being rich.. we can have our cake and eat it too.
    if you decrease tax, even if it does attract the rich in the time it takes for them to get here you will accumulate a significant amount of debt.and although I tend to disagree with taxing the poor if you reduce the tax you take from the rich you either have to tax the poor more or shrink the public sector. Both are undesirable. Also it's not a punishment and anyone who describes it as that are either really selfish and greedy or don't understand that it is helping the poor not punishing the rich.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    By people you mean little babies who whine when they don't get their own way, at least that's what they are if they are so opposed to contributing that they would leave the country and personally I don't want to be used as a country just because we tax them less. I'd rather share the country with people who want to be here.
    if you decrease tax, even if it does attract the rich in the time it takes for them to get here you will accumulate a significant amount of debt.and although I tend to disagree with taxing the poor if you reduce the tax you take from the rich you either have to tax the poor more or shrink the public sector. Both are undesirable. Also it's not a punishment and anyone who describes it as that are either really selfish and greedy or don't understand that it is helping the poor not punishing the rich.
    I'm not talking about cutting their tax, 45% is a fair (though a tad high) level. But there's plenty of cuts we can make or other taxes we can play with to find revenue.

    Instead of making taxing the rich the priority, the priority should be to free the poor from taxation via raising the IT threshold and scrapping vat and other taxes on bills.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm not talking about cutting their tax, 45% is a fair (though a tad high) level. But there's plenty of cuts we can make or other taxes we can play with to find revenue.

    Instead of making taxing the rich the priority, the priority should be to free the poor from taxation via raising the IT threshold and scrapping vat and other taxes on bills.
    Too low if you ask me.

    and I can't see how you are going to pay for these cuts and protect the public sector.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Too low if you ask me.

    and I can't see how you are going to pay for these cuts and protect the public sector.
    Foreign aid, pensioners welfare, eventual debt interest. Plus we can slow the rise of NHS budget too by restricting the number of services.

    The state right now is too fat, lets put it on the diet it needs.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 14, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.