No, but quite often their money does, this is the much heralded "tax evasion" we hear so much about.
I doubt you will find much publish evidence to support this, that's the whole point really, the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance.
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
No, but quite often their money does, this is the much heralded "tax evasion" we hear so much about.
I doubt you will find much publish evidence to support this, that's the whole point really, the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-wealth-taxes-failed-11572910833
Whether it is 10,000 per year, or 70,000 overall, that's still a lot of people leaving because of high taxes, despite your assertions that it doesn't happen.
Also I would have to make a account to read the article, anyway you can post it on here in full ?
Last edited:
The best source i could find was 40k over a period of 6 years. Of course they emigrate anyway for tax purposes last year it appears 3k left France.
I suppose you want us to reduce taxes further so none of them money offshore? Or is the current rate which has periodically reduced decade on decade just so happen to be your favoured rate?
Just vote Labour.
God she’s dreadful. Hope she loses her seat.
The same information is contained in here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...eans-are-ditching-the-idea?mod=article_inline
In France the wealth tax was estimated to cost 7 billion a year in increased fraud and tax migration.
I'm not sure we should consider the "libcom dot org" Twitter account alongside Bloomberg. Wealth taxes work in theory but not in reality, especially not in a country that can't exercise a huge grip over it's citizens. France and the UK are alike in that a similar standard of living is available very close by. It is easy to move.
Just vote Labour.
But that analysis totally misunderstands her strategy. She doesn't care about 'sending signals' to Labour voters. She is targeting ex-Tory voters/tory remainers. Of course she is saying she won't back Corbyn.
She is targeting lib dem gains in tory marginals. She therefore has to rule out working with Labour and therefore avoid the implication that a vote for the lib dems is a vote for Labour.
If the recent 12.5% swing from the tories to the lib dems holds, they could gain 23 new seats in England, 18 of which are Tory. Higher swings put an extra 20 seats up for grabs, again, all tory held.
She's not looking for a majority, she's looking for seats to rebuild her party and re-establish greater influence (in what is likely to be a hung parliament).
Analysis here.
Yeah I can't the 70,000 number anywhere ?
Firstly the account is quoting a guardian article, I linked a LSE lecture(I'm guessing you didn't watch it) and finally its actually a really good source for the history of left wing moments.
Also most of Britain wealth is tied up in land btw.
Last edited:
Got to say, Labour are a lot more clear cut on Brexit than the Tories are long term. So the idea that you would not vote Labour solely because of Brexit is a bit ridiculous.
According to the WSJ article it's 70k since 2000, so around 3500 a year. According to Credit Suisse there are 2.1 million millionaires in France. So France seems to have suffered the staggering loss of 0.2% of its millionaires per year.
I think a far greater threat than the physical relocation of rich dudes are all the fancy tools available to vanish their assets to the Virgin Islands.
Why do you guys hate the LibDems so much?
I swear most of you would prefer BJ to JS!
I swear most of you would prefer BJ to JS!
I think it's the issue of trust, rather than dislike, Mr Colly.Why do you guys hate the LibDems so much?
I swear most of you would prefer BJ to JS!
There seems to be quite a few pundits on twitter making out that Labour's brexit position is confused. Either they're being completely disingenuous or are struggling with basic comprehension which for a bunch of journalists would be a worrying trend.
Cheers for this.
LSE talk I posted earlier - Millionaire leaving because of taxes makes for great anecdotes but not much else.
Glad it's clear, you're now going to outline what it is.
Something about getting this deal negotiated from scratch to Corbyn's fantasy position , not only that but also get a trade deal finalised, all that within the space of three months and not only that get firstly the EU and then parliament to agree it and then within another three months arrange a referendum which takes five months and then say the deal's rubbish and recommend remain.
Then we all returned from the Mad Hatter's Tea Party and back to the real world.
Jim Ratcliffe says "hi" (from Monaco)
1 x Jim Ratcliffe = 10,000 or 20,000 millionaires depending on his current value - he just moved to Monaco for the sunshine, I know.
So the Tories are clearer then? Like I said the problem seems to be beyond Brexit here with Labour which is fair enough.
Johnson managed to get a deal within a month and he came from a largely antagonistic position. Corbyn will probably be more likely cede from whatever fantasy position he has right now. Regarding Parliament agreeing, well I guess it depends on the make up of the next parliament. But if you're remainer then you're more likely to back a referendum anyway.
The Tories' deal is rubbish for the UK but if they get in, the UK are leaving, there will be a transition period of a year and they will be negotiating a trade deal for the next four or five years minimum. That's fairly clear.
If Corbyn cedes, which he obviously has to, what is he actually proposing that is clear, he still hasn't said about FoM and there is no way on earth that he's going to negotiate this within three months let alone have a trade deal as well. This sounds worse than May's ridiculous claims nearly three years ago.
If they are for remain then just put remain on a referendum. If Brexit goes ahead the fallout from this and onward negotiations will not stop any time in the next ten years.
They did a study of every worldwide billionaire on the Forbes list and approximately 95% of billionaires live either in the same country they were born, or the same country they lived in before they became billionaires. Only 5% moved abroad after earning their vast wealth. The high profile examples that get thrown about are the exceptions rather than the rule. You don't make policy based on outliers.
There are only 150 Uk billionaires and the biggest one is Ratcliffe.
Where are their assets is the question and how much additional money was obtained by a government supertaxing the rich because all this additional money is going to have to pay for a lot of things by the look of it.
Maybe fair questions but unlike you, I'd actually want to see some evidence of policy impact... rather than just making up my mind based on nothing and spouting an uninformed opinion.
The Liberals have a more honest position by suggesting we all pay a penny extra income tax. Labour's 'we'll spend shedloads and somebody else will pay for it' reminds me an awful lot of Trump's wall and Mexico.
Wouldn't you want some informed evidence that the policy would work before implementing it. Sounds like an uninformed guess and basing other policies around it sounds a tad dangerous.
Guardian said:
Why is that different from not implementing a policy based on zero evidence that it won’t work? Maybe what you advocate is fine if maintaining the status quo is desirable but I would say that clearly isn’t the case.
You trust JS less than BJ?
I mentioned previously that Jo Swinson is nothing but a massive pair of tits, and some people got offended.
Anyone who trusts this conservative party on not privatizing the NHS is a fool quite frankly. Half these feckers spent their earlier careers writing books and giving lectures about how we should move to a US style insurance system.
Their approach has always been to claim to love the NHS, strip it of resources and then bring in creeping privatization as a magic bullet to increase 'efficiency'. They know very well that letting the public see their final goal will kill them at the polls.
Yeah I can't just keep posting old posts. My response is just a few posts up.
That all ??
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money...millionaire-households-surges-29-2-years.html
Having said that, there aren't as many opportunities for UK residents to work in one country and then cross an international border to go home at night as applies to here which might explain the difference of 1.5 million between France and the UK.
There is a lot of rubbish spouted about the NHS. It is an iconic service and most loved in the UK because it represents a great safety net for the health of the nation. In truth I suspect most people don't care who runs it so long as the service provided is of a standard expected of our flagship provision and any Government that allows it to fail will pay the price at the ballot box.
It's not the first time that someone had a bright idea of supertaxing the rich, either in the UK or elsewhere. Did it work then?
It didn't work in my personal experience in the 60s/70s.
- Status