Labour supporters admit it: taxes are to punish the rich, not to raise revenue

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100257586/labour-supporters-admit-it-taxes-are-to-punish-the-rich-not-to-raise-revenue/

They are too thick and so full of hate that they are hurting themselves. The rich will put up two fingers. Labour will spend based on their incorrect projections and the middle will be squeezed to death.

If you think we've had a cost of living crisis in the last few years wait until Labour spend us into the wall again. It will be a lot tougher next time.

I'll say it again the rich don't have to be concerned they are rich enough to move away from the baying thickos in the Labour mobs.

Thought this was a news board not a history one.

Wow, that columnist/blogger is really putting words in other people's mouths.

sphinx wrote:Thought this was a news board not a history one.

From todays Telegraph Sphinx.

Ben is he really I don't think so. The subtext of all this argument isn't about raising revenue. When Thatcher reduced the rate to 40% from Labours punitive 83% and 98% respectively revenues rose!!!

Avoidance stopped over night.

When rates rose to nearly 66% again under Labour (50% plus NI) guess what avoidance went into overdrive. QED it isn't about revenue it's about envy.

For the first time ever when this happened we took financial advice to avoid tax. Like many people we don't like getting fleeced to pay for bone idle wasters like Scatman.

Clarkson wrote:

sphinx wrote:Thought this was a news board not a history one.

From todays Telegraph Sphinx.

Ben is he really I don't think so. The subtext of all this argument isn't about raising revenue. When Thatcher reduced the rate to 40% from Labours punitive 83% and 98% respectively revenues rose!!!

Avoidance stopped over night.

When rates rose to nearly 66% again under Labour (50% plus NI) guess what avoidance went into overdrive. QED it isn't about revenue it's about envy.

For the first time ever when this happened we took financial advice to avoid tax.  Like many people we don't like getting fleeced to pay for bone idle wasters like Scatman.

I was being sarcastic - it could be from any when because it is nothing new.

how much does a person need to live on ???

Ben_Reilly wrote:Wow, that columnist/blogger is really putting words in other people's mouths.

He's a Tory and a wee bit eccentric and a bit of a loon and those are just the words of David Cameron but I suppose it's these qualities that endear some cap doffers to his points of view.

Asked about Hannan's remarks, Cameron replied: "He does have some quite eccentric views about some things, and political parties always include some people who don't toe the party line on one issue or another issue. But no one should be in any doubt: the NHS is our No1 priority ... It is one of our greatest national institutions and we want to expand it and improve it."

Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said the MEP had done the NHS and Americans a disservice by presenting a "negative and partial view".

He was over in the USA a few years ago doing the circuit talking down the NHS at the same time as he had a book to launch. So there you go.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/aug/14/health-nhs

Clarkson wrote:

sphinx wrote:Thought this was a news board not a history one.

From todays Telegraph Sphinx.

Ben is he really I don't think so. The subtext of all this argument isn't about raising revenue. When Thatcher reduced the rate to 40% from Labours punitive 83% and 98% respectively revenues rose!!!

Avoidance stopped over night.

When rates rose to nearly 66% again under Labour (50% plus NI) guess what avoidance went into overdrive. QED it isn't about revenue it's about envy.

For the first time ever when this happened we took financial advice to avoid tax.  Like many people we don't like getting fleeced to pay for bone idle wasters like Scatman.

But if it's not about revenue, does that automatically make it about punishment? That sounds like a false dichotomy. I, for example, feel that the rich don't pay for all the benefits they get from their nations, and support higher taxes on them not to punish them but for the sake of fairness.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Clarkson wrote:

From todays Telegraph Sphinx.

Ben is he really I don't think so. The subtext of all this argument isn't about raising revenue. When Thatcher reduced the rate to 40% from Labours punitive 83% and 98% respectively revenues rose!!!

Avoidance stopped over night.

When rates rose to nearly 66% again under Labour (50% plus NI) guess what avoidance went into overdrive. QED it isn't about revenue it's about envy.

For the first time ever when this happened we took financial advice to avoid tax.  Like many people we don't like getting fleeced to pay for bone idle wasters like Scatman.

But if it's not about revenue, does that automatically make it about punishment? That sounds like a false dichotomy. I, for example, feel that the rich don't pay for all the benefits they get from their nations, and support higher taxes on them not to punish them but for the sake of fairness.

Well 40% is still higher than the others.

In fact, if everybody paid 20% - they'd still be paying the most.

You do understand that don't you?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Clarkson wrote:

From todays Telegraph Sphinx.

Ben is he really I don't think so. The subtext of all this argument isn't about raising revenue. When Thatcher reduced the rate to 40% from Labours punitive 83% and 98% respectively revenues rose!!!

Avoidance stopped over night.

When rates rose to nearly 66% again under Labour (50% plus NI) guess what avoidance went into overdrive. QED it isn't about revenue it's about envy.

For the first time ever when this happened we took financial advice to avoid tax.  Like many people we don't like getting fleeced to pay for bone idle wasters like Scatman.

But if it's not about revenue, does that automatically make it about punishment? That sounds like a false dichotomy. I, for example, feel that the rich don't pay for all the benefits they get from their nations, and support higher taxes on them not to punish them but for the sake of fairness.

The thing is do you want them to pay more

Or

Do you want it to look like they are charged more?

Raising the headline rate lowers revenue because the rich start paying less by using avoidance - is that what you mean by fairness?

Yes, and that has nothing to do with what I said. The column is about motivation for wanting higher taxes on the wealthy. I don't, as I said, believe tax should be higher because I envy the rich or want to punish them, but that's what the columnist is saying.

In fact, the only people I know who actually envy the wealthy are conservatives. It's part of the materialistic mindset that starts with the notion that being rich is really great, so you want to be like those people, so you support the policies that favor them.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Clarkson wrote:

From todays Telegraph Sphinx.

Ben is he really I don't think so. The subtext of all this argument isn't about raising revenue. When Thatcher reduced the rate to 40% from Labours punitive 83% and 98% respectively revenues rose!!!

Avoidance stopped over night.

When rates rose to nearly 66% again under Labour (50% plus NI) guess what avoidance went into overdrive. QED it isn't about revenue it's about envy.

For the first time ever when this happened we took financial advice to avoid tax.  Like many people we don't like getting fleeced to pay for bone idle wasters like Scatman.

But if it's not about revenue, does that automatically make it about punishment? That sounds like a false dichotomy. I, for example, feel that the rich don't pay for all the benefits they get from their nations, and support higher taxes on them not to punish them but for the sake of fairness.

The thing is do you want them to pay more

Or

Do you want it to look like they are charged more?

Raising the headline rate lowers revenue because the rich start paying less by using avoidance - is that what you mean by fairness?

No, I want them to pay what the law requires, and I want the means for them to avoid paying tax to be eliminated. If they can't abide by the laws of their country, why should they enjoy the wealth-creating opportunities of it?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Clarkson wrote:

sphinx wrote:Thought this was a news board not a history one.

From todays Telegraph Sphinx.

Ben is he really I don't think so. The subtext of all this argument isn't about raising revenue. When Thatcher reduced the rate to 40% from Labours punitive 83% and 98% respectively revenues rose!!!

Avoidance stopped over night.

When rates rose to nearly 66% again under Labour (50% plus NI) guess what avoidance went into overdrive. QED it isn't about revenue it's about envy.

For the first time ever when this happened we took financial advice to avoid tax.  Like many people we don't like getting fleeced to pay for bone idle wasters like Scatman.

But if it's not about revenue, does that automatically make it about punishment? That sounds like a false dichotomy. I, for example, feel that the rich don't pay for all the benefits they get from their nations, and support higher taxes on them not to punish them but for the sake of fairness.

Ben, I remember this extract from an article written by Peter Oborne for the Telegraph a few years ago. Says a lot about tax avoidance and our society today...

It is not just the feral youth of Tottenham who have forgotten they have duties as well as rights. So have the feral rich of Chelsea and Kensington. A few years ago, my wife and I went to a dinner party in a large house in west London. A security guard prowled along the street outside, and there was much talk of the “north-south divide”, which I took literally for a while until I realised that my hosts were facetiously referring to the difference between those who lived north and south of Kensington High Street.

Most of the people in this very expensive street were every bit as deracinated and cut off from the rest of Britain as the young, unemployed men and women who have caused such terrible damage over the last few days. For them, the repellent Financial Times magazine How to Spend It is a bible. I’d guess that few of them bother to pay British tax if they can avoid it, and that fewer still feel the sense of obligation to society that only a few decades ago came naturally to the wealthy and better off.

Yet we celebrate people who live empty lives like this. A few weeks ago, I noticed an item in a newspaper saying that the business tycoon Sir Richard Branson was thinking of moving his headquarters to Switzerland. This move was represented as a potential blow to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, because it meant less tax revenue.

I couldn’t help thinking that in a sane and decent world such a move would be a blow to Sir Richard, not the Chancellor. People would note that a prominent and wealthy businessman was avoiding British tax and think less of him. Instead, he has a knighthood and is widely feted. The same is true of the brilliant retailer Sir Philip Green. Sir Philip’s businesses could never survive but for Britain’s famous social and political stability, our transport system to shift his goods and our schools to educate his workers.

Yet Sir Philip, who a few years ago sent an extraordinary £1 billion dividend offshore, seems to have little intention of paying for much of this. Why does nobody get angry or hold him culpable? I know that he employs expensive tax lawyers and that everything he does is legal, but he surely faces ethical and moral questions just as much as does a young thug who breaks into one of Sir Philip’s shops and steals from it?

Full article here...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100100708/the-moral-decay-of-our-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The thing is do you want them to pay more

Or

Do you want it to look like they are charged more?

Raising the headline rate lowers revenue because the rich start paying less by using avoidance - is that what you mean by fairness?

No, I want them to pay what the law requires, and I want the means for them to avoid paying tax to be eliminated. If they can't abide by the laws of their country, why should they enjoy the wealth-creating opportunities of it?

So you want to make it illegal for people with income over a certain level to leave the country and take up residence elsewhere?

That is one of the simplest and easiest forms of tax evasion - its why London now has vast numbers of rich French people living here - they can travel to Paris daily to work but not pay the 75% tax. They are not breaking any laws but are paying less.

And yet, these people would probably claim that they love their country! They should be slapped.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The thing is do you want them to pay more

Or

Do you want it to look like they are charged more?

Raising the headline rate lowers revenue because the rich start paying less by using avoidance - is that what you mean by fairness?

No, I want them to pay what the law requires, and I want the means for them to avoid paying tax to be eliminated. If they can't abide by the laws of their country, why should they enjoy the wealth-creating opportunities of it?

So you want to make it illegal for people with income over a certain level to leave the country and take up residence elsewhere?

That is one of the simplest and easiest forms of tax evasion - its why London now has vast numbers of rich French people living here - they can travel to Paris daily to work but not pay the 75% tax.  They are not breaking any laws but are paying less.

What is it with the right and putting words in people's mouths? If a "British" citizen decides he/she doesn't love his/her country enough to obey its laws, he/she should renounce citizenship and leave. I'm not advocating a closed border; that's ridiculous.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So you want to make it illegal for people with income over a certain level to leave the country and take up residence elsewhere?

That is one of the simplest and easiest forms of tax evasion - its why London now has vast numbers of rich French people living here - they can travel to Paris daily to work but not pay the 75% tax.  They are not breaking any laws but are paying less.

What is it with the right and putting words in people's mouths? If a "British" citizen decides he/she doesn't love his/her country enough to obey its laws, he/she should renounce citizenship and leave. I'm not advocating a closed border; that's ridiculous.

What about the British Citizen who is happy to obey its laws and pay only what the law says they must pay taking into account all the perfectly legal avoidance methods that are not breaking the law - say moving to Jersey or The Isle of Man? Or even Monaco - without renouncing their citizenship.

I would, of course, favor doing away with the avoidance methods -- in the U.K., in the U.S. and everywhere else.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I would, of course, favor doing away with the avoidance methods -- in the U.K., in the U.S. and everywhere else.

The only way you are going to achieve that is with either a one world government with every country having identical tax rules

or

Flat tax rates - which actually increase the amount the rich pay but make it look like it decreases the amount.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I would, of course, favor doing away with the avoidance methods -- in the U.K., in the U.S. and everywhere else.

The only way you are going to achieve that is with either a one world government with every country having identical tax rules

or

Flat tax rates - which actually increase the amount the rich pay but make it look like it decreases the amount.

No, you could trade tax avoidance for citizenship. If you don't want to pay your country's taxes, renounce your citizenship and leave.

The people who can legally avoid paying the tax the government expects them to pay just put an additional burden on to those that are not in a position to do so to make up the difference.

You're a cheer leader for the wrong People.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The only way you are going to achieve that is with either a one world government with every country having identical tax rules

or

Flat tax rates - which actually increase the amount the rich pay but make it look like it decreases the amount.

No, you could trade tax avoidance for citizenship. If you don't want to pay your country's taxes, renounce your citizenship and leave.

And watch your country go bankrupt.

Irn Bru wrote:The people who can legally avoid paying the tax the government expects them to pay just put an additional burden on to those that are not in a position to do so to make up the difference.

You're a cheer leader for the wrong People.

No Irn - I understand that high taxes result in legal avoidance results in the rich paying less money and I do not support that.

I support the rich paying more money and it is proven that flat tax rates with no avoidance achieves that.

That is the difference between you and me - you want big headline rates and never mind that they reduce the actual take. I want to maximize the take and dont care what it looks like.

Wrong, you have fallen for them saying tax us less and you will get more. What they are actually saying is tax us more and we will make sure we pay people money to make sure we don't pay it, because we have not obligation to society, we are about it, sod 'em.

Sassy wrote:Wrong, you have fallen for them saying tax us less and you will get more.   What they are actually saying is tax us more and we will make sure we pay people money to make sure we don't pay it, because we have not obligation to society, we are about it, sod 'em.

But the fact remains they do pay more when they are taxed less.

Its called dealing with how reality is not how you think reality should be.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:Wrong, you have fallen for them saying tax us less and you will get more.   What they are actually saying is tax us more and we will make sure we pay people money to make sure we don't pay it, because we have not obligation to society, we are about it, sod 'em.

But the fact remains they do pay more when they are taxed less.

Its called dealing with how reality is not how you think reality should be.

No, it's called letting them get away with it and some of us are not prepared to let them walk all over us.   So you bring in a decent tax level, and it was a 50p in the £1 under this government to begin with, and then you stop all the lookholes which means they can get away with it, and if they say them will move abroad, you say fine, bugger off, but you give up your citizenship and become a citizen where you are going.   It is a complete fallacy to think they are the only people who can do those jobs, we are teeming with clever people who would love their jobs and be happy to pay the tax.

Sassy wrote:Wrong, you have fallen for them saying tax us less and you will get more.   What they are actually saying is tax us more and we will make sure we pay people money to make sure we don't pay it, because we have not obligation to society, we are about it, sod 'em.

The p;eople who don't care are those who wont work not those that do.

The point is and you don't get it is that even at the current rate of 45% when you add NI its 58% for high earners. They already pay more than half in tax.

If you can do your job elsewhere and only pay 40% in total guess what they will go elsewehere its a free world. In the seventies TV Celebrity pop stars etc absented themselves from the country for 6 months to avoid 83% taxes or 98% on unearned income. The exchequer got nothing 98% of sweet FA.

Which wuld you rather 50% of £3 million or 75% of sweet FA. For the challenged like Sassy that's £1.5 million or f--k all.

Now getting f--k all makes you envy merchants feel good but because the treasury loses a lot of £1.5 millions guess how many people on £25,000 will have to cover the difference.

If you do sweet FA because you choose to be on benefits you think why should I care well as the money runs out even you will be affected.

This isn't made up it is happening in France as we speak.


Milliband has set his stall out to drive out the wealthy what a complete donk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

But the fact remains they do pay more when they are taxed less.

Its called dealing with how reality is not how you think reality should be.

No, it's called letting them get away with it and some of us are not prepared to let them walk all over us.   So you bring in a decent tax level, and it was a 50p in the £1 under this government to begin with, and then you stop all the lookholes which means they can get away with it, and if they say them will move abroad, you say fine, bugger off, but you give up your citizenship and become a citizen where you are going.   It is a complete fallacy to think they are the only people who can do those jobs, we are teeming with clever people who would love their jobs and be happy to pay the tax.

What f--king nonsense!!! Can you play football? Are you as Nuclear engineer. Have you invented something that worth millions. Have you the ability to trade etc etc.

there are many high skilled jobs that command high salaries.

The whole HQs of large companies will move you dumb witch along with hundreds of high paid jobs to more benign tax regimes.

Because you could never earn such amounts you hate the fact that they do but you can't stop it. You can only make it difficult for the middle and lower income earners.

You are truly dense.

BTW Sassy it was 40% when labour came to power and had been for years. That worked well Labour fu-ked it up. It took a few years for Thatcher to get it from 83% and in the process she got more money into the treasury.

Why don't you get it you can't pen in the people and force taxes on them its A FREE WORLD!!!!!

Do you practice being dense?

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:The people who can legally avoid paying the tax the government expects them to pay just put an additional burden on to those that are not in a position to do so to make up the difference.

You're a cheer leader for the wrong People.

No Irn - I understand that high taxes result in legal avoidance results in the rich paying less money and I do not support that.

I support the rich paying more money and it is proven that flat tax rates with no avoidance achieves that.

That is the difference between you and me - you want big headline rates and never mind that they reduce the actual take.  I want to maximize the take and dont care what it looks like.

No, if people avoid the tax the government expects them to pay then those that can't do that have to make up the difference.

You're a cheerleader for the wrong people.

If they just paid the tax instead of avoiding it then the rate would go down for us all.

The message from them is.

50% we won't pay

45% and we will pay

Can't you see how morally repugnant that is?

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

But the fact remains they do pay more when they are taxed less.

Its called dealing with how reality is not how you think reality should be.

No, it's called letting them get away with it and some of us are not prepared to let them walk all over us.   So you bring in a decent tax level, and it was a 50p in the £1 under this government to begin with, and then you stop all the lookholes which means they can get away with it, and if they say them will move abroad, you say fine, bugger off, but you give up your citizenship and become a citizen where you are going.   It is a complete fallacy to think they are the only people who can do those jobs, we are teeming with clever people who would love their jobs and be happy to pay the tax.

No the last Labour government put it up to 50% a couple of months before the election after maintaining a rate of 40% for the rest of their stint. So actually this government has held tax at 5% higher than the labour government that preceded it did for over 90% of its tenancy.

It is not a fallacy as France is finding out as all its top wealth creators are hoping over the channel to live here.

Clarkson wrote:BTW Sassy it was 40% when labour came to power and had been for years. That worked well Labour fu-ked it up. It took a few years for Thatcher to get it from 83% and in the process she got more money into the treasury.

Why don't you get it you can't pen in the people and force taxes on them its A FREE WORLD!!!!!

Do you practice being dense?

Thatcher even lived with the higher rate for 9 years of her term in office. Did they all leave then?

They try to hold the country to ransom, but hey, that's ok cos they is rich they is. What is the 'lower orders' said, hey, they too much on what I earn, I'm not paying it! Wow, the roof would lift.

Irn Bru wrote:

Clarkson wrote:BTW Sassy it was 40% when labour came to power and had been for years. That worked well Labour fu-ked it up. It took a few years for Thatcher to get it from 83% and in the process she got more money into the treasury.

Why don't you get it you can't pen in the people and force taxes on them its A FREE WORLD!!!!!

Do you practice being dense?

Thatcher even lived with the higher rate for 9 years of her term in office. Did they all leave then?

No they had already left because of Labours rates and during those years were slowly returning as the rates lowered.

Thatcher began the process from the start. FACT BRU in the sixties and seventies there was major tax flight. Fact Bru when Gordon raised the rate avoidance went into overdrive. Its simple people don't like to be shafted by you lefties. Fact Bru my Mrs and I for the first time aggressively avoided. Dumping money into pensions etc. Moving assets to me as a lower rate tax payer.

Just pretending it didn't happen you donk doesn't make it so.

Taxes of 98% were ludicrous and only a small minded Jock like yourself would think otherwise.

Your ability to avoid facts is legendary. Are you really telling me you agree with such punitive rates and that you don't think tax flight happens??

Are the tax refugees in |London a mirage then?

Are you all dense?

Yeah the wonderful rules French socialists have bought in mean the UK is getting 45% of large incomes while France gets 75% of nothing.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Clarkson wrote:BTW Sassy it was 40% when labour came to power and had been for years. That worked well Labour fu-ked it up. It took a few years for Thatcher to get it from 83% and in the process she got more money into the treasury.

Why don't you get it you can't pen in the people and force taxes on them its A FREE WORLD!!!!!

Do you practice being dense?

Thatcher even lived with the higher rate for 9 years of her term in office. Did they all leave then?

No they had already left because of Labours rates and during those years were slowly returning as the rates lowered.

You made that up

  

sphinx wrote:Yeah the wonderful rules French socialists have bought in mean the UK is getting 45% of large incomes while France gets 75% of nothing.

But they still want the protection of the French state and consular services they offer and the use of all their public services.

Wonderful people aren't they?

Bru the tax rates in this country are recorded even on the HMRC web site. The tax flight of major names is well recorded.

Tax flight stopped when Thatcher came in. God you really must hate private sector workers who ge3nerate the money to pay you? Have you got and inferiority complex Bru. Is your public sector job a non job???

Still at least you get out of bed unlike many of your kind.

Clarkson wrote:Bru the tax rates in this country are recorded even on the HMRC web site. The tax flight of major names is well recorded.

Tax flight stopped when Thatcher came in. God you really must hate private sector workers who ge3nerate the money to pay you? Have you got and inferiority complex Bru. Is your public sector job a non job???

Still at least you get out of bed unlike many of your kind.

Unlike you I have never held a public sector job.

Show me the stats on the Tax flight then.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:Yeah the wonderful rules French socialists have bought in mean the UK is getting 45% of large incomes while France gets 75% of nothing.

But they still want the protection of the French state and consular services they offer and the use of all their public services.

Wonderful people aren't they?

They will have paid more in one year than most French people will in a lifetime you dick.

One high rate taxpayer can be worth the same as hundreds of middle rate payer. If I though you were serious I could show you graphs of how much a few tens of thousand pay as much as 6 million people.

Lose half of them and we are in deep shit.

The people who fled France aren't to blame its people like Hollande and dicks like you who voted for him. They were told they could carry on having a free lunch as Milliband is saying now. Anyone knows there is no such thing except it seems people like you.

Clarkson wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:Yeah the wonderful rules French socialists have bought in mean the UK is getting 45% of large incomes while France gets 75% of nothing.

But they still want the protection of the French state and consular services they offer and the use of all their public services.

Wonderful people aren't they?

They will have paid more in one year than most French people will in a lifetime you dick.

One high rate taxpayer can be worth the same as hundreds of middle rate payer. If I though you were serious I could show you graphs of how much a few tens of thousand pay as much as 6 million people.

Lose half of them and we are in deep shit.

The people who fled France aren't to blame its people like Hollande and dicks like you who voted for him. They were told they could carry on having a free lunch as Milliband is saying now. Anyone knows there is no such thing except it seems people like you.

And they have left behind their fellow countrymen to pay what they won't. Yes, I can see why you admire them so much.

Irn Bru wrote:

Clarkson wrote:Bru the tax rates in this country are recorded even on the HMRC web site. The tax flight of major names is well recorded.

Tax flight stopped when Thatcher came in. God you really must hate private sector workers who ge3nerate the money to pay you? Have you got and inferiority complex Bru. Is your public sector job a non job???

Still at least you get out of bed unlike many of your kind.

Unlike you I have never held a public sector job.

Show me the stats on the Tax flight then.

I have debated this with you many times and posted supporting facts I will not waste my time A quick search will show all you need . I know you will waste my time because you are not serious. It must be one of your cohort who is a public sector worker. clearly you are just a doley then like Scatman.

If you were a successful person you would not be pressing for punitive rates.

I am old enough BTW to reme3ber the articles in the press about TV celebrities and Pop stars like the Rolling stones being tax exiles as they were called. Would you have stuck around to pay 98% are you truly that dumb????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Clarkson wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Clarkson wrote:Bru the tax rates in this country are recorded even on the HMRC web site. The tax flight of major names is well recorded.

Tax flight stopped when Thatcher came in. God you really must hate private sector workers who ge3nerate the money to pay you? Have you got and inferiority complex Bru. Is your public sector job a non job???

Still at least you get out of bed unlike many of your kind.

Unlike you I have never held a public sector job.

Show me the stats on the Tax flight then.

I have debated this with you many times and posted supporting facts I will not waste my time A quick search will show all you need . I know you will waste my time because you are not serious. It must be one of your cohort who is a public sector worker. clearly you are just a doley then like Scatman.

If you were a successful person you would not be pressing for punitive rates.

I am old enough BTW to reme3ber the articles in the press about TV celebrities and Pop stars like the Rolling stones being tax exiles as they were called.  Would you have stuck around to pay 98% are you truly that dumb????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

50% was the rate and they didn't leave. 45% has not pulled in any more money. Just a tax perk for the Tory pals and their donators.

You're being fooled.

Irn Bru wrote:

Clarkson wrote:

They will have paid more in one year than most French people will in a lifetime you dick.

One high rate taxpayer can be worth the same as hundreds of middle rate payer. If I though you were serious I could show you graphs of how much a few tens of thousand pay as much as 6 million people.

Lose half of them and we are in deep shit.

The people who fled France aren't to blame its people like Hollande and dicks like you who voted for him. They were told they could carry on having a free lunch as Milliband is saying now. Anyone knows there is no such thing except it seems people like you.

And they have left behind their fellow countrymen to pay what they won't. Yes, I can see why you admire them so much.

If I were very wealthy and my fellow countrymen voted for me to be ripped off by a Labour govt to waste why should I reward their envy with my money???

People who act out of spite and envy deserve f--k all and that my friend is what they will get from the rich and mobile. Indeed this not so rich person might absent myself along with my good wife if Milliband gets in. My wife still works and does so for an International company. She has transferrable skills and she is already minded to clear off if Labnour win  

Of course you would see that as a result no doubt. If you are at work Bru you will pick up the slack. I can still annoy you from abroad as Dean does.

Clarkson wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Clarkson wrote:

They will have paid more in one year than most French people will in a lifetime you dick.

One high rate taxpayer can be worth the same as hundreds of middle rate payer. If I though you were serious I could show you graphs of how much a few tens of thousand pay as much as 6 million people.

Lose half of them and we are in deep shit.

The people who fled France aren't to blame its people like Hollande and dicks like you who voted for him. They were told they could carry on having a free lunch as Milliband is saying now. Anyone knows there is no such thing except it seems people like you.

And they have left behind their fellow countrymen to pay what they won't. Yes, I can see why you admire them so much.

If I were very wealthy and my fellow countrymen voted for me to be ripped off by a Labour govt to waste why should I reward their envy with my money???

People who act out of spite and envy deserve f--k all and that my friend is what they will get from the rich and mobile. Indeed this not so rich person might absent myself along with my good wife if Milliband gets in. My wife still works and does so for an International company. She has transferrable skills and she is already minded to clear off if Labnour win  

Of course you would see that as a result no doubt. If you are at work Bru you will pick up the slack. I can still annoy you from abroad as Dean does.

Says it all.

You don't get it aggressive avoidance becomes the norm when people pay more than 50%. Once the rate reaches 2/3rds HQs wont be placed here. When it reaches 75% as in France people up sticks in droves.

Once it gains momentum its too late.

Again I ask is 45% plus NI not enough its more than half what is your problem?

Says what all Donk that people aren't stup[id enough to pay 75% or 98% etc etc. Why the hell should we reward you spiteful lefty gits???

Clarkson wrote:Says what all Donk that people aren't stup[id enough to pay 75% or 98% etc etc. Why the hell should we reward you spiteful lefty gits???

Those left behind would pay more. You support that.

Shameful

Dick they wouldn't go if you levied reasonable rates.

Thanks for proving the opening header to the thread. You are all about punishing the rich.



I'll remember this Bru says 98% is fair and people who are eligible should just stick around and pay.
I just read Milliband follows Joey Essex on Twitter. That's the level of intelligence of his voters.

A Jock joey Essex.

Good Night :D