Welcome to Fortress Brighton

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlexG:
Can you point me to your source material that suggests a higher tax bracket on the 'super earners' would reduce the tax yield - I have searched and searched and found nothing, although I am coming down with a heavy cold and my powers of thought are diminishing rapidly.

Not helped by a typically frustrating time at the local football ground (my admission was £22, which is roughly the amount of WFTC I have recieved in the past fortnight - cheers Mick!!)

---

Alex,

I'd say that £22 to your local football club is an astonishing waste of WFTC - unless it's Burnley.

I must admit that I didn't have any specific source material, I was just going on what I've read and heard many times in the past.

However, since you prompted me to research this (using the world's greatest ever encyclopaedia) I find that actually there isn't much empirical evidence one way or the other. I find this frightening. What the heck do we pay these damn economists for anyway?

Anyway, I did manage to dig up some stuff, much of which seems a little too 'iffy' for a forum of this one's quality. The best I can do quickly is this Glossary in The Economist (see the section entitled "Income Tax").

Apparently, Professor Arthur Laffer was the main man for exploring the relationships between tax rate and tax revenue, so if you want to research further "Laffer income tax" is probably the best phrase to put into Google. Meanwhile, try The Economist Glossary once more, checking the section entitled "Laffer Curve".

I hope that you recover quickly from your cold. I understand that vitamin C, although ineffective in reducing the incidence of such conditions, will enable a more rapid recovery (Source: BBC2 Horizon on vitamins).

Steve

STOP PRESS: This short piece is worth reading on Income Tax and the Laffer Curve "You're having a laffer" - Thomas E Nugent, NRO

quote:

---

Similarly, where, one wonders, did the billions that the treasury received from the sale of radio frequencies to the mobile phone companies disappear to?

---

I expect the same place as the oil income from the North Sea during the 70s, 80s and 90s.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlexG:
Are you Rod Smith the Wine Journalist?

ag

---

Er, depends. If you read Decanter, Wine Magazine (now Wine International), or on occasion The Independent, then yes, guilty as charged. however, I have a namesake in the States who also does wine journalism, and I am not him, although we have spoken.

In fact, he received lots of telephone calls to congratulate him on passing the M.W. exam - which he hadn't - so he made contact and requested that I did not use my own name in print or professionally!!! His missive to me ended with the foreboding phrase "I have checked with my lawyers."

Not something you want from an American.

Malheuresement for him, however, a friend of mine is a lawyer in pesonal identity matters for one D. Beckham esq. So I checked with him... the result is that Californian Rod can bugger off with his "rather you didn't use the name" claptrap.

Wine journalism is not especially lucrative, however, so I continue also and mainly to do corporate events, teaching, copywriting and wine investment advice stuff.

In essence if you read it and liked it, then I wrote it. Obviously. If it was shite, however, it would've been him...

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlexG:
'nuff said.

ag

---

I don't think so...
Can you elaborate? Privately if need be? I'd love to know. Really.

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

'nuff said?

er no!

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
Don't you just hate it when that happens?

---

Err....is this the end of the thread then, or do you just want the gossip?

Don't know and not really (I was just kidding).

RWS
the IR has been guilty of many things in the past the the selling off of their building was not one of them true it was done but by Goverment not the IR apart from the embarrassment it has caused to the occupants the maintenance of the said buildings has fallen to a unacceptable level with over crowding now the norm, a great plus in moral and a incentive to work harder on our behalf
oldie.

The notion of n% of the population owning N% of the wealth is a highly seductive invitation to becoming a socialist.

However, just as there is an optimum price level for given goods for maximising profit, there is also an optimum taxation level that maximises revenue, that if exceeded results in falling revenues.

Labour governments have a history of exceeding this optimum level, and when they later realise that revenues are falling instead of rising, the temptation to exceed this level even further as a counterproductive fix is just too hard to resist.

This is exactly what happened with the Wilson/Callaghan governments of the 70s, and if Labour stays in power for much longer it will inevitably happen again.

The economy can only prosper to the benefit of everyone if large chunks of capital are held by only a few people.

By making the rich poorer you make the poor poorer as well.

This has been proven time and time again, but nevertheless some otherwise highly intelligent people will just never learn.

Socialism is flawed for economic reasons as well as for the issues of individual liberty.

Perhaps the two are connected in that as their spend-tax-fail-borrow-fail-tax more-fail economic policies, er, fail, the Socialists desperately feel the need for more intrusive surveillance measures to grab more cash for the treasury coffers.

I don't feel that we are being watched just yet (for the benefit of the paranoia witch-hunters like Mekon and AlexG) but I do believe that ultimately the primary purpose of road pricing, and other such hi-tech surveillance measures will be for the government to track the movements of selected miscreants such as those they think may be avoiding or evading large amounts of tax.

As a humble sole-trader I have nothing to worry about, but that isn't the point...

Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Sun 03 October 2004 at 6:01.]

I wonder when La Chancer will comment on the ex IR Property revenues being invested by the buyers in offshore tax exempt areas, subsequently taking much more monies from the exchequer.

Good Old Camelot eh ?

G.G. v. Andilarfed.


I agree with our Mattt on this one:

I believe that the once-mighty Germany is failing as a result of higher taxes to feed the bottomless pit of Eastern Germany.

I will benefit from this tomorrow when I arrive in Stuttgart for their beer festival - restaurant and bar prices are so very low over there because the locals have precious little in the way of disposable income once they've paid their inflated direct taxes.

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Toy:
I believe that the once-mighty Germany is failing as a result of higher taxes to feed the bottomless pit of Eastern Germany.

I will benefit from this tomorrow when I arrive in Stuttgart for their beer festival - restaurant and bar prices are so very low over there because the locals have precious little in the way of disposable income once they've paid their inflated direct taxes.

Regards,

Steve.

---

Have a great time old Son, but I have to disagree with you about the German Financial philosophy, which unlike UK is more in tunew with seriously investing in the future, ex DDR's Communications infrastructure (much British tech there too) is far superior to many parts of the UK, and will remain so for many years to come, ie, Germany is going through an obvious transition, but strong Unions still talk with their bosses etc, and are reaklistic, UK has a brillinat economy as I've often said in the past and can't be disputed, but as always there is naver a comment on the FACT THAT UK IS IN HISTORIC AMOUNTS OF NATIONAL DEBT AS A NATION AND AS INDIVIDUALS, I'd rather be poor, and buy cheap beans me old son, beer is food ghere anyway and is always cheap and top notch.

Graham George Von Spontaneousdrabble ²

Cheers, & don't forget to eat lots of shoshages along with it.

quote:

---

I've often said in the past and can't be disputed, but as always there is naver a comment on the FACT THAT UK IS IN HISTORIC AMOUNTS OF NATIONAL DEBT

---

I know, and this does worry me. The UK wasn't in such a mess in May 1997 when our current Chancellor promised to continue the good deeds of his incumbent at that time until Socialist pressures eventually got the better of him...

quote:

---

but strong Unions still talk with their bosses etc, and are reaklistic,

---

I agree, and I have said as much earlier in this thread.

Thanks Graham, I will enjoy.

One day our little trips may well include one to BERLIN.



Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Toy:
The notion of n% of the population owning N% of the wealth is a highly seductive invitation to becoming a socialist.

However, just as there is an optimum price level for given goods for maximising profit, there is also an optimum taxation level that maximises revenue, that if exceeded results in falling revenues.

Labour governments have a history of exceeding this optimum level, and when they later realise that revenues are falling instead of rising, the temptation to exceed this level even further as a counterproductive fix is just too hard to resist.

This is exactly what happened with the Wilson/Callaghan governments of the 70s, and if Labour stays in power for much longer it will inevitably happen again.

The economy can only prosper to the benefit of everyone if large chunks of capital are held by only a few people.

By making the rich poorer you make the poor poorer as well.

This has been proven time and time again, but nevertheless some otherwise highly intelligent people will just never learn.

---

The same flawed thinking has been true of the politicization of the education system. We had Grammar schools (which were succeeding) and Secondary Modern schools (which were failing). Wilson's Labour government chose to close the Grammar Schools.

Envy should never dictate policy.

Incidentally, there is another compelling reason for keeping tax rates low, even apart from aiming to collect an 'optimum' amount of income tax revenue. The lower the taxes, the more money is circulating around the economy so the more money is spent. This leads to higher VAT revenues, fuller employment and, by boosting the economy, higher income tax revenues.

Steve

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Neither should greed.

---

Although there's nothing wrong with a bit of "for the common good".

Steve

PS: Has anyone seen the amazing TV advert for the new Honda Diesel engine? Loved it.

No, Humanity and understanding should.
STEVEN T.
What ever it is you take, could you please send me some, it must be great to pass through life in a state of wonderful euphoria total oblivious to reality.Alice in wonder land jumps to mind!!
Switch of the aircondoning in that taxi of yours,wind down the windows and let a bit of reality blow through or even just change shifts to see what happens during the Daytime and you might but it's a long shot I know see what is going on around you as you waft by, there is a whole world out there who's choice could well be to eat or take a taxi
oldie.

Having travelled all the way to deepest darkest Essex, initially to pay homage
to the humble beginnings of the famous Bush Clan that have revolutionised the
world as we know it, Mike the fish was sulkily looking into his half full glass
of Ridley's mild bitter. Not being a very popular sea creature these days
(though it bothered him not one iowa) and nobody would seemingly play with him
anymore ! he was contemplating firstly, how to help the Prime Minister tackle
corruption, miss-management, and sheer greed, so that all of the nicely planned
inland revinues could really end up where they were supposed to be going, a
very tough question indeed, though an admirable task t'be sure in anybody's
right-mind innit?
After ordering another pint from the friendly Asian chappy
behind the bar, and envying Berlin Fritz somewhat; as today he had the free
range of open days in every Mosque and Islamic centre's in Germanyland, and
could therefore peek into that great unknown without fear, namely the Muslim
Faith, he viewed the beautiful scene that beheld him through the thatched
windows. Luvvly Jubbly village of Stisted not far from Braintree, and thought to
himself loudly, 'soon if I return to my senses and act normally again I could
well end up back in my rightful place as the most respected and popular person
on this Forwum ?', then he left the beautiful old inn which incidentally was
called "The Dolphin", and immediately got whacked by a passing mountain-biked
copper who nicked him for being drunk and disorderly in charge of a beermat,
Mike grudgingly gave his details, paid the black gentleman with the quaint
Southend-Cockney accent a quick 'Score' for the police's local christmas party,
and was directed to the nearby curry house where he could carry on his hybrid
contemplations undisturbed, get drunker, and enjoy some of Britain's finest
quisine, what more could you ask for in the heart of Maggies wonderland ?
Cushty.

Graham George von Aaahinnitnice 10/'6 Guvnor

Tom, whilst numbers are being quoted, there was a Theatre Group set up in your now, neck of the woods called 7 84 Theatre Company,its name was derived from the premiss that 7% of the population own 84% of the availabe wealth. The Theatre group is still going strong ,and their founding name is just as true to day as it was when the Group first started
oldie.

I've just had a brilliant idea [ no it's not for the first time just before anyone points this out to me]We could solve at least two problems at one stroke, Why don't we let the pro hunting brigade loose with their hounds[up market dogs] on the wealthy/obscenely rich, [as they are basicly the same socioeconomic group they could help each other out] tear them to bits the same way as the fox is treaded[IT dosen't hurt honestly and they will enjoy the chase]and at a marvellous stroke get rid of both [self consumption]
oldie

7v said "For example, if the rate was reduced to 0%, less tax would be collected (clearly). If the rate was increased to 90% (for higher earners) few would argue that less would be collected overall. Mick gave the example earlier of Thatcher decreasing the tax rate from 80p to 43p and the overall revenue rising. Therefore, this is clearly not an issue that can be settled by debate."

Which is why I said it was anything but a "nigh-on certainty".

The effect you are talking about (if you didn't know) is was first described by an Economist called Laffer and his eponymous curves showed that the rate of tax did not have a simple rising rate relationship with tax reveue revenue.

"A good idea of the effect of the income tax rate on the total tax collected may be obtained by looking back at historical consequences - both in the UK and overseas."

Your original argument, taken from Laffer's work, was used to justify supply side economics and Reagan's tax cuts in the early 80s. Although some economists disagree, there is much evidence that these tax cuts reduced revenue and led to the enormous budget defecits later in Reagan's administration, essentially becuase tax rates in the US were already quite low.

Anyway the point is that Laffer's ideas are frequently used by the right to justify tax cuts. Which is wrong as Laffer merely tells you that there is an optimum tax rate and does nothing to tell you about where on the curve your economy is and whether you should raise or lower them. If the traditional left only beleived in teh first half of the curve, the new right would basically have us beleive that there is only the right side of the curve.

Don said "You are simply wrong regarding "avoided tax" belonging to us. It doesn't."

My rationale is that this is money that the state clearly intends to collect. If you avoid paying it you are taking money inteded to pay for schools and hospitals and keeping it for yourself. That I believe is morally wrong and claiming that it's the state fault that you spent our money becuase they drafted the rules wrong doesn't change that.

To make an analogy, suppose I put £1000 in your bank account on the understanding that it's still my money and that I am not giving it to you. If you now spend it then although technically you had the legal right to (it was in your bank account after all) you still spent my money. I was going to use it to pay for my ailing Grandmother's hip replacement but you just had to have that new widescreen TV.

"If you want to collect more tax, say so, and write the rules clearly, so that we know where we stand. If you make a mistake in drafting the rules, then draft them again."

It's not, apparently, that simple and endless attempts to do exactly that have seemingly had little affect.

However, I do agree that the rules need redrafting and basically I would advocate a radical approach where the whole lot is ripped upped and we start again with a blank sheet and produce something much more simple.

Like I said earlier, the big problem with our tax system is that by letting the very rich off, and by having a lot of poverty we end up squeezing "middle England" very hard and still people live in poverty, have inadequate healthcare, have under-funded schools, etc. To solve this I say don't bother about the people fiddling £40 a week, have a look for people "avoiding" £40,000 a week.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
I've just had a brilliant idea [ no it's not for the first time just before anyone points this out to me]We could solve at least two problems at one stroke, Why don't we let the pro hunting brigade loose with their hounds[up market dogs] on the wealthy/obscenely rich, [as they are basicly the same socioeconomic group they could help each other out] tear them to bits the same way as the fox is treaded[IT dosen't hurt honestly and they will enjoy the chase]and at a marvellous stroke get rid of both [self consumption]
oldie

---

I second that whole-heartedly, though wouldn't it be construed as cannibalism Chief ?

The problem is that those that are avoiding £40,000 a week in tax are the sort of people who can afford to hire large accountancy firms to help them do it legally.

It's one thing to wipe the slate clean and start again with a new set of rules, it's quite another to make them watertight.

jon

My ex was a coopers/Lybrand babe, now Price waterhouse etc, what a load of fuckin crooks² with respectability.

Check "Iron Heel" Jack London, written circa 1908 ! miles ahead of his time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
To solve this I say don't bother about the people fiddling £40 a week, have a look for people "avoiding" £40,000 a week.

Matthew

---

Phew! That's me off the hook, then. Cheers Matthew. And I hardly slept last night'n'all (although this, I admit, could've been the mussels)...

What about people who buy booze in Calais? Are they tax-dodgers or merely canny? 'Tis a big issue in my industry, and one that the Treasury seems determined to "solve" by introducing more expensive and harder to implement systems of collecting the duty. Even though they created the problem in the first place. I detect a theme.

Rod