Tax revenue plunges in UK after 50% rate implemented

Here's more proof that raising taxes doesn't increase revenue.

When will the loony left grasp this very simple concept?

50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...9/50p-tax-rate-failing-to-boost-revenues.html

 

I say let them relocate abroad. If you're the kind of person who is so selfcentred that that leaves the country due to a small increase in real tax, then (*)(*)(*)(*) off!

Of course, the article does state "self assessed tax", which could well mean that people are simply cheating on their taxes.

We already know that when the initial increase came in, a bunch of people were saying the would leave, and we know now from the evidence, that they haven't. Meaning they are cheating their tax returns.

 

And, any tax increase is small if you don't have to pay it. But, when they have left, as Leffe wants, who will support the leisure class on the dole? As Ms. Thatcher asked, "What do socialist do when they run out of other people's money."

The article also said other taxes are up so it isn't simply that the economy is bad.

 

The article says no such thing and is just speculation on your part, unless you can prove that is the reason. The article does state however....

 

What a completely diinjenuous thing to say! On what basis do you hold that opionion of me? What evidence do you have that I hold that view?

Oh yes, sorry, I'm on the left, I'm a liberal, a progressive, therefore I want to subsidise people not working, with my tax money!

You really should engage your brain before typing buddy. It's in your interest.

 

So being smart at business and maximizing profits means being self-centered according to you? Well get a taste of your same (*)(*)(*)(*) you attitude leffe, because when the economy collapses because of the socialism, you will see that you need their money.

 

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011.

The hint is in the, errrr words.

 

I love it, when UK celebrities flee the UK's tax system. Talk about a slap in the face to progressives.


_

 

What? All you leffe's support socialism, it is rampant throughout Europe, and spreading. Your socialist empire is collapsing right before your eyes, and all you can say about business is (*)(*)(*)(*) you. Yeah, we all know who is brain dead hear leffe

 

It is the progressives that are the "bitter clingers". They are clinging onto bankrupt ideas.


_

 

You missed the fact that we have a Conservative government, and it was they who imposed the taxes. Not really a 'progressive' government at all. Confused?

 

Atlas shrugs.


Margaret Thatcher warned the Brits long ago... they seem to have forgotten the wisdom she shared...

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher.

 

The UK follows "Conservative" entitlement programs and labor laws?

 

They raised the taxes and revenue dropped, I'll bet for them the drop was "unexpected".

Newsflash: The top 5 percent of income earners accounts for about one-third of spending, and the top 20 percent accounts for close to 60 percent of spending. That is the spending that will boost the economy, not folks using unemployment to barely scrape by, pay their bills and feed their kids.

 

You and your inconvenient facts.

When are the liberals going to acknowledge that, "the top 5 percent of income earners accounts for about one-third of spending, and the top 20 percent accounts for close to 60 percent of spending"?

 

Firstly, the article doesn't say that.
Secondly many of them have been abusing international tax regimes for years.
Thirdly, we know statistically that few people who threatened to leave actually left.
Fourthly I wish they would feck off if they're not prepared to work toward a better society for everyone.

 

I am not a socialist. How many time do people have to say that before the moronic right listens? And, socialism is not letting people free load off the system.

Social security is to help people who have fallen on hard times, i.e. they have lost the job and are trying to get another, it's not a lifestyle choice, they shouldn't get to do it as a living. AND NO ONE WANTS THIS TO BE THE CASE.

Only the moroinic right, with their petty and pathetic attempts to smear people with slightly differing opinions than themselves, offer the opinion you've shared. NO ONE ELSE!

 

Well whether you want ot admit it or not, whether you want that to be the case or not, that is what happens.

It isn't "slightly differing" you are basically saying that people who don't want to help build your vision of a better society should get bent.

 

That is the widely held view of the left.

 

and libs will probably say raising the tax even more will cover the "lost" revenue

and don't forget to hire more enforcement agents since people must be cheating and not willing to pay their "fair share"

 

and thus you get ZERO revenue and actually end up losing more long term revenue

You libs really do not have a clue when it comes to Economcis 101

 

Of course it's inevitable, most things are. The game of rugby is one of the most rule driven games on the planet, the team that wins is generally the team that gets away with the most infringements. The stock market has rules, but how many times are people prosecuted for insider trading? Our societies have many rules, but how many murders are committed?

Of course people swindle social security, but that doesn't mean that we should throw the baby out with the bath water. What is does mean is that we shoud better checks and balances to keep the number of cases to an absolute minimum.

I don't think Western countries are particularly good at doing this, I believe that there are too many people taking the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of the system. I believe that the checks and balances should be bolstered.

To be clear; beyond the dumb opinions of some posters here, I do not want my tax money to pay for people to do nothing. I want to support people who are in hard times and actively looking for work.

Only an idiot would think that any human being wants to pay people to do nothing.

When push comes to pull, the differences are relatively minor.

• We both agree that private enterprise is the best for society.
• We both agree that people should work for a living and pay for themselves.
• We (probably) both agree that the armed forces, police, fire services etc... (the etc.. is of course debatable) should be paid out of taxation.
• We do not want the government involved in our private lives, but agree that to some level this is inevitable (laws on murder, theft etc...).
• We both agree on the principle of personal accountability.

The main problem in the US at the moment Silicon, is that Americans find it easier to point out the differences than the similarities. If you as a nation cannot get to the point where these shared values are seen and accepted, your country will go down the toilet.

In summary, it is not the differences in political ideology which is the problem for you guys, it is your inability to see the values that you all share.

 

It is not a widely held view on the left. Who in their right mind would want their taxation to pay for people to sit at home watching TV all day?

That's an insane assertion.

 

For a man who claims to understand economics, you clearly don't understand basic maths.

If 0.01% of the population leaves, the remaining 99.99% still pay taxes.

Thus your assertion that there would be "ZERO revenue" is wrong.

There are web sites which explain how to add and subtract, perhaps your time would be better invested there, instead of posting here?

 

Try Obama, Reid, Pelosi, the liebral media, and most compassionet libs

I am sure the libs in your country are pretty much like the libs here