Skip to comments.Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate
Posted on 11/28/2012 4:41:55 AM PST by NCjim
Almost two-thirds of the countrys million-pound earners disappeared from Britain after the introduction of the 50p top rate of tax, figures have disclosed.
In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.
This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.
The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.
It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.
George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.
Since the announcement, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000.
However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis.
Last night, Harriet Baldwin, the Conservative MP who uncovered the latest figures, said: Labours ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.
Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
There’s that wacky “rational man” theory leftists don’t believe in.
As I read the papers, those lost Brits fleeing a 50% rate will be likely replaced by rich froggies fleeing a 75% rate.
The vindictive Kenyan knows that The Evil Rich can live anywhere in the world. They do not have to stay in a country that despises them. And they take their wealth with them, leaving everyone equally poor and dependent on their government masters. He fancies himself as the dictator of such a country.
Who was the idiot Liberal (I know, redundant) that ‘cheered’ when R Limbaugh moved from NY to FL?
I also think he made some kind of insinuation that if he knew it was that easy to get rid of him, he would have raised taxes earlier.
The fool not only DROVE OUT a pretty good chunk of money etc, but broke the rule about ‘starting an argument with people who buy ink by the carload - or in this case one that ‘owns’ his own network.
I maintain that a “millionaire,’” whether enumerated in pounds or dollars, is one whose assets are a million or more, not one who earns a million or more per year.
If the British liberals are true to their beliefs, they will attempt to raise the rate to 60% to replace the loss. I wonder how that will work?
Left for where?
By libtard logic, if 2/3 of the millionaires left then the remaing millionaires should have their rate multiplied by three to make up for it.
Yes, but Britain is worth leaving, America is not.
We need to start working now to win back the Senate.
20 Dem’s up in 2014, let’s identify the RIGHT candidates NOW!
Even though the tax rates haven't gone into effect, the local demand for housing (in Northern Virginia) continues to climb ~
You are correct. The remaining cows must be milked more.
We need some details on that ~ you know, if we could get Obama to start tapping the Senate to replace some of the crowd leaving now we’d have more flexibility.
Sadly, liberal tax policies are driving wealthy, hypocritical voters into places like New Hampshire and Virginia and tipping the balance to the Dems. The ones who fled the high taxes in NYC and NJ will immediately vote for politicians who vow to do the same for the formerly low tax states. Liberalism truly is a mental illness.
When I moved to Fairfax county I got to know the two gentlemen most responsible for creating a Republican party here ~ one of them elected to take leadership of the remaining Democrat party structure and make sure it became Conservative.
We have subsequently inherited some Bostonian Democrats ~ like Jim Moran, who's been known to beat his wife, harrass children, engage prostitutes, and do a variety of other off color and possibly unlawul things. Democrats like that sort of thing of course ~ and as long as Jim keeps trolling for whores on the streets of downtown Alexandria he will continue to be elected to Congress.
That has nothing to do with economic theory of course.
I truly wonder how many Americans have left the country and took their money elsewhere.
Gee. Didn’t see that coming. /s
Tax havens for the mega-rich.
I was once a “millionaire” - on paper, that is, but when my investments tanked (thanks obama), I became homeless and had to move in with one of the children, and as soon as I moved here they redistricted me, and now I’m part of the Chicago machine, and I live in the ghetto!
East Germany had a way to fix that.
I think it is more important to win the elections boards, the school boards and replace the boards of regents.
I totally agree that we should start with the school boards!
You feel that way cause you haven’t lived long enough to know it use to be how much income you made in a year. 250,000 was introduced as millionaire by the democrats a few years back and no one called them on it...I think it might have been Gore that said it the first time...And it is a really stupid comment. Silly to the point of owning a house and car puts most people in that catagory...I know what we should do......lets all rent and let the guy renting to us take that huge tax bite...I wonder how long he will keep the rentals at a price anyone can afford...and thank you for adding that a millionaire makes 250000 dollars to our dictionary. Laughable, bet your not out of you teen years yet, at least that what it sounds like...and lets call a dog a horse while we are changing definations..
At the risk of seeming pedantic (well, being pedantic) perhaps it ought to pointed out that two-thirds of those earning a million or more a year is not the same, as claimed in the headline, as two-thirds of millionaires. There are plenty of millionaires with incomes lower than this, and theres no evidence here of what proportion of these have left. My guess is far fewer: since in many cases wealth is in property, and this discourages mobility. Also that the 50% rate has not been payable on the first £150,000 of income.