to be glad that Hollande has finally introduced his 75% income tax rate?

(132 Posts)
longfingernails Mon 30-Dec-13 22:11:51

Now even more of the best and brightest French people will be driven away, and London is a natural destination for them. Also we are able to see what a disaster Red Ed style socialism is, without having to experience it ourselves.

An arithmetical note for our French friends: 75% of 0 is 0.

whois Mon 30-Dec-13 22:20:26

What income level does it kick in at? If I was being taxed at 75% I would not feel like bothering. 40% feels like enough if a kick in the teeth.

RedPencils Mon 30-Dec-13 22:22:15

Bloody hell. Would I get my own personal doctor and gold played roads?

lunar1 Mon 30-Dec-13 22:23:51

Why would anyone stay in a country that taxed at that level? If you earn enough to meet the criteria then you can afford to leave!

MyBachisworsethanmybite Mon 30-Dec-13 22:23:52

Why wouldn't they go to Belgium: Francophone country...

Nancy66 Mon 30-Dec-13 22:25:57

it kicks in at 1million euro. So about £830k

It's ridiculous. The wealthy should pay more but nobody is going to want to forfeit three quarters of their income.

DoYouLikeMyBaubles Mon 30-Dec-13 22:27:24

Jesus! That's ridiculous. I just wouldn't want to bother.

It's not three quarters of their income though

They get to keep almost a million first and are then taxed above that

longfingernails Mon 30-Dec-13 22:29:30

Many do go to Belgium. Bernard Arnault, who used to be France's richest man (boss of Louis Vuitton?) applied for Belgian citizenship I think - though maybe he didn't go in the end?

Anyway, the billionaires, actors and footballers get in the news when they leave. But most of the rest of the rich don't - and between them they create millions of jobs.

ImagineJL Mon 30-Dec-13 22:29:32

Presumably it's not 75% of their total income, but 75% of their income above 1 million euro?

Nancy66 Mon 30-Dec-13 22:29:55

Laurie, yes you're right. I think it's a retrospective tax though so high earners will have to pay for the previous tax year as well as the next one.

it's still too high though. People will just leave

lunar1 Mon 30-Dec-13 22:32:09

It's sad to think of all the people who will lose their jobs when they go.

Liara Mon 30-Dec-13 22:33:40

Actually they've made it so that the companies have to pay rather than the individuals.

But yes, Hollande is taking the piss and people are and will be leaving.

This is just the headline grabbing one to make everyone else feel better about the million and one ways in which non-rich people's taxes are going up as well.

longfingernails Mon 30-Dec-13 22:36:04

lunar1 True, but it's France's own fault; they voted for socialism. I am sorry when anyone has to lose their job, but frankly, overall I'm quite happy that it's happened. Britain will benefit from it.

whois Mon 30-Dec-13 22:36:48

Ok so above €1m so won't affect loads of people, but still it will affect the very people you desperately want to keep in the country! The people who create jobs, and wealth, and exports etc

I don't agree.

I can't think of any job or any life where a million isn't enough and where I can't pay above that back.

And I certainly can't imagine leaving my country because of it.

I disagree with people earning that much fundamentally - any move (and I think this one is fairly pointless) to address high salaries in favour of dividing wealth a bit more fairly is fine.

There is no job that deserves that money. None.

Bankers and hedge fund managers are gamblers. They're not real fucking jobs - they just exist to increase wealth amongst the rich and create divisions.

I don't ask 'what would Jesus do' here but instead 'what would Bill Gates do' - and he's trying to give all his money away because he said he had enough a long time ago.

No one needs that much. And the gap between rich and poor is shockingly divisive.

longfingernails Mon 30-Dec-13 22:40:09

LaurieFairyCake Good luck convincing those earning over a million with that argument, especially if they have worked themselves up from nothing.

CinnabarRed Mon 30-Dec-13 22:41:00

Gerard Depardieu has been given Russian citizenship, and is open that the move to Russia is tax motivated.

David Beckham gave away all of his French football salary to charity, and was then pilloried in the French press for "avoiding tax" - which was very harsh given that he had genuinely given it away (and not retained some dodgy beneficial interest).

I know we don't agree with each other long, we've discussed this before - I know you're a Tory, you know I'm liberal left

Nurses can work their way up from nothing too. Not just people who earn a million.

DizzyZebra Mon 30-Dec-13 22:44:40

What Laurie said.

Phil Collins
Paul Daniels

The first 2 threatened to leave if Labour got into power in the 90's

Who gives a fuck?

What a fucking great loss they would be hmm

I'm sure France has some cunts like that too, they can't all be British

longfingernails Mon 30-Dec-13 22:51:32

I'm not a Tory. I'm a conservative. Small c.

Nurses are vital to any country. So what? That doesn't change the argument one bit.

Imagine for simplicity someone was previously earning 5 million euros a year. The previous tax rate was 41% (let's ignoring all the 'stealth' taxes in France) so they paid about 2 million in income tax. Now (whether it is paid by the company, or whatever) they will have to pay about 3.5 million euros in taxes. They decide that it's worth migrating to Britain if it saves them 1.5 million euros a year, and are not particularly moved by you calling them greedy bastards. Now France gets 2 million euros less in tax a year. The nurse has to pay more tax to make up the shortfall. It's quite simple really...

Oh fuck - I forgot Philip 'I've put all my money in my wife's name' Green - of course she lives in Monaco

What a pile of steaming shit.

How the fuck do we let them get away with this shit?

JollySantersSelectionBox Mon 30-Dec-13 22:54:25

Err Phil Collins did leave. His address is now Geneva.

I don't think the rich French will be piling into London to lose half their income when they can nip a few hundred km to Switzerland and pay 8% income tax, or Luxembourg for 30%.

You voted Tory, you told me you did.

Apologies if that doesn't make you an actual Tory confused

And your argument is daft :

1. No one will leave
2. The only direct impact would be if the company leaves - again unlikely, though the Uk are trying to tempt french banks/companies - French banks/ companies will NOT leave France

kmc1111 Mon 30-Dec-13 22:55:04

A few people will leave, most won't. The sort of people who were likely to leave already did when they first started making big money, they're already residents of Monaco and the like.

I've lived in countries with extremely high tax rates and extremely low tax rates. I'd much rather live in a country where I was being taxed to high heaven than a country where it's basically survival of the fittest.

JollySantersSelectionBox Mon 30-Dec-13 22:55:23

And speak their own language, I forgot to add.....

Thanks Jolly - lovely to know he did.

longfingernails Mon 30-Dec-13 22:57:27

LaurieFairyCake I once voted for Blair. I hate myself for it. I bet it's one of the few things we have in common!

But recently I have been voting UKIP in elections which don't matter much, to try to encourage the Tory party to a more Thatcherite point of view.

CinnabarRed Mon 30-Dec-13 22:57:41

But you do actually have to reside in Switzerland or Lux to benefit from their tax rates, and not that many people want to do that when push comes to shove.

Madonna fell foul of the same issue in the USA few years back - spent too long in California one tax year and became liable for millions in Californian state taxes.

You want to encourage more Thatcherism?

Are you old enough to have voted for Thatcher and what precisely is it about her policies that you think would be helpful now?


longfingernails Mon 30-Dec-13 23:01:16

kmc1111 We live in a globalised economy. It's not just a matter of who leaves the country. It's the fact that high taxes deter the people you want to come into the country. With Hollande in power, any foreign company looking for European expansion would be crazy to invest in France.

Cityofgold Mon 30-Dec-13 23:04:21

Laurie I agree with you 100%. Not only does no-one need to earn over £1M but I believe there should be a fixed differential ratio of earnings between the richest and poorest in a country. This news makes me want to move to France more than I already do and I'm probably considered 'well off' over here.

MissRabbitsOtherJob Mon 30-Dec-13 23:15:45

longfingernails you're spot on with your comments on the economics (and the support for Thatcherism IMO). Hollande's lunatic tax policy will be great for London and the country as a whole

JollySantersSelectionBox Mon 30-Dec-13 23:24:43

To reside in Switzerland you just need a property to open a bank account and spend a certain amount of time in it I'd imagine. It's not really much of a hardship.

For the super rich you can negotiate a tax amount within reasoning or so I have read.

I'm not a staunch Tory, I voted liberal but driving out the high earners does make it worse for the people in the middle surely?

Even if Phil Collins is paying 10% on his assets it's probably keeping a few schools running in Switzerland with 18 kids to a class maximum and great facilities.

I'd rather benefit from some of that money than none of it to be honest.

ReallyTired Mon 30-Dec-13 23:39:01

The super rich have accountants and are quite good at avoiding tax.

The UK affect has a stupdly high tax rate for single earning families who earn more than 50K and have three children.

Taxing high or even middle earners hurts the economy as it discourages hardwork. My husband has no financial moviation to get a better job or get a bonus at work as we would lose our child benefit.

Yes, agree ReallyTired - taxing people more around the 50k mark is a problem because of the child benefit threshold

But that's a way different income bracket to the millionaire where child benefit is not relevant.

And I agree that the super rich will just avoid tax by using good accountants.

minifingers Mon 30-Dec-13 23:48:42

I love that the main rationale for not having a supertax is that rich people are selfish, greedy, unpatriotic cunts who'll run away and take their money with them when they go if we try to tax them, so we should probably just leave them alone.

Marmotte3 Mon 30-Dec-13 23:52:46

LaurieFairyCake - I'm just wondering why you included U2 in your list above? When all the members of the band are Irish. I'm not up to date on their tax avoidance situation though.

U2 registered for tax in the Netherlands for last 7 years.

longfingernails Tue 31-Dec-13 00:21:30

LaurieFairyCake Fundamentally, Maggie knew who was 'our people', and stood up for them, time and again. One of Cameron's problems is he wants the Guardian/BBC/Mumsnet and other leftist-liberal institutions to like him. They won't, whatever he does - and his attempts to do so make Thatcher's working class Tories despise him.

FudgefaceMcZ Tue 31-Dec-13 10:13:36

What Laurie and Minifingers said. I really doubt France will be destroyed by the loss of a tiny, disloyal, selfish minority who think 1 million plus 25% of any excess is not enough for them. Shame you think they'll come here, we have more than enough poncy knobbers, perhaps the Daily Mail should start a campaign about them 'flooding' our 'crowded island'.

JollySantersSelectionBox Tue 31-Dec-13 13:03:30

Less than 0.1% of the UK tax paying population is made up of those "poncey knobbers" (approx 29,000 people) but they actually pay 14% of the UK's total tax contribution.

So if you doubled it - to 60,000 poncey knobbers, just 0.2% of the population, they'd be taking care of almost 1/3rd of the tax bill.

FraidyCat Tue 31-Dec-13 13:41:37

I'd much rather live in a country where I was being taxed to high heaven than a country where it's basically survival of the fittest.

I suppose most of the people who think that do so because they are less fit than average. Presumably the more fit have the opposite preference, because that's what maximises their well-being.

I'm theoretically one of the losers from being in a high-tax country. In practice I have been quite good at minimising my tax bills, this year for various reasons is one of the first where I will be paying a substantial proportion of my income in tax. For me that means 38% marginal rate on any salary falling into the basic rate band, and if I didn't avoid the higher-rate band by making employer pension contributions, I would be paying 47% on salary in that band. Anything over 20% feels expensive to me, and over 30% has historically always made me uncomfortable enough to want to do something about it.

LadyRabbit Tue 31-Dec-13 14:00:05

Bring it. Terrible for Paris, great for London. There is a new lycée in North London now too, as if they foresaw what was about to happen. If it means that Kentish Town becomes the new South Ken that is excellent news. Plus proper patisseries instead of all these fucking cupcake places.

babybarrister Tue 31-Dec-13 15:51:47

Super rich with kids do not like Monaco as schools crap - that is why lots of French are indeed relocating to London - south ken estate agents are rubbing their hands with glee ...

longfingernails Tue 31-Dec-13 17:21:27

FraidyCat I don't entirely agree. In general, people are very supportive of taxes paid by Other People - but when it comes to income tax, it is a bit different - even people in low and medium tax brackets can and do dislike high top rates of tax, because they rightly aspire to be in that bracket themselves. Sensible people of all incomes know that envy isn't a good basis for running an economy; and that having rich people from around the world wanting to come and live in your country is a Good Thing.

tb Tue 31-Dec-13 17:40:21

It doesn't work, anyone with that sort of income can afford to pay a tax accountant to ensure they aren't caught.

In 1979, Britain's top rate of tax was, if I remember correctly, was 89%.

When the top rate was dropped by the Thatcher government the monies received by the Inland Revenue in tax payments increased. It just wasn't worth paying so as to pay less tax. The same happened in the US under Reagan at the same time.

longfingernails Tue 31-Dec-13 18:31:51

tb Yes, lowering income tax rates has historically increased the amount of income tax collected, and for good reason. It's because throughout the West, tax rates are on the top side of the Laffer Curve.

marzipanned Tue 31-Dec-13 18:49:11

JollySanters yes, I love the way the wealthy are so berated in this country, when they are the ones funding a large proportion of its services, services which some of them will rarely or never use.

GobbySadcase Tue 31-Dec-13 18:54:59

Blimey. I'm left wing but I think 60% is enough... Hope they don't have the ridiculous loopholes we did that are exploited by Starbucks, Amazon et al either.

If we did that it'd raise more than a big tax hike on paye.

JollySantersSelectionBox Tue 31-Dec-13 18:59:36

Marzipanned - then they are berated for not using the services. People get torn to shreds for Private School and Private Healthcare usage on here. I've never seen anything like it.

It also seems to me that people can't grasp the concept that a lot of people have made money by working really hard and sacrificing a lot at the start of their climb. Also for some people the money they have is the money they need to survive, and they may not continue to earn this forever and would like something to live on and pass onto their families?

Not everyone with money is a megalomaniac hiding in a Volcano lair and wiping their arse on fresh kittens.

OTheHugeManatee Tue 31-Dec-13 19:04:27

YANBU, OP. To me it seems probable that the Laffer Curve is absolutely bang on, but I've never seen a proof of concept. I'm glad it's not my homeland doing the experiment though grin

mateysmum Tue 31-Dec-13 19:07:14

I personally know several French citizens who have sold up and left France because of the tax and political situation. They are affluent, but not millionaires or earning at a 75% tax level. They work in normal, higher management roles.
They have left because Hollande is signalling that he does not want people to create and keep personal wealth. It's not just the 75% tax, it's lots of other taxes and policies. So now they are essentially paying no French tax at all. So France loses both the intellectual and financial capital. They are paying UK tax instead! Lucky us!

niceguy2 Tue 31-Dec-13 19:08:02

The problem with such a punitive tax rate is that people have a huge incentive to engage in tax avoidance.

Be it like Gérard Depardieu who have chosen to leave the country altogether or Beckham who decided it simply wasn't worth the aggro so donated it all to charity. You then end up with as LFN say 75% of nothing.

And to those who say only a few people will leave. That's completely missing the point. There aren't actually that many rich people. Those that there are generally pay a shit load of income tax. No they really do! It only takes a few of them to leave or find some loopholes for it to blow a massive hole in your tax receipts.

Take for example the UK. The top 1% pay nearly 25% of all of our income tax with the only 9% of earners making up the other 25%. You only need a few people in the top 1% to leave or avoid tax to see how that buggers things up for you.

It's the stupid side of socialism which puts ideology above human nature. And time & time again history has shown that human nature always wins about ideology.

GobbySadcase Tue 31-Dec-13 19:10:00

What really bugs me about high earners is when they counter how hard they work fir it, the sacrifices they made. Does nobody see there are people in this country who work hard and make sacrifices for minimum wage on zero hours contracts?

JollySantersSelectionBox Tue 31-Dec-13 19:19:35

Yes there are plenty of people who work just as hard, and sacrifice and earn next to nothing. But if a few more wealthy tax payers were encouraged in, then everyone's standard of living would rise.

There are plenty of people who choose to deny, but wealth does create wealth.

Where I live, teachers are paid £60-70000 a year, and nurses the same. No one is self sacrificing and everyone is paying lower tax.

GobbySadcase Tue 31-Dec-13 19:24:35

Trickle down isn't working.

fifi669 Tue 31-Dec-13 19:36:29

I'll have earned a whacking 11k or so by the end of the he tax year. I live in a council house, by MN standards I'm pretty poor.

However, I don't agree with taxing the rich to within an inch of their lives. They've got that money because they're the best in their chosen field, worked hard to get there and are where I'd want my children to aspire to be.

It doesn't make economical sense to hit them hard when they have the resources to move or avoid the tax completely.

perlona Tue 31-Dec-13 19:53:26

Driving the rich out is a good thing, they raise the cost of living for everyone else.

ophelia275 Tue 31-Dec-13 20:02:10

It won't work. The rich will just leave France and come here and make it worse for all us Londoners who are not rich. High tax do not work unless they are globally enforced and even then, I am not sure if I agree that the money people earn should be appropriated by the government, especially as so much is wasted on dodgy causes.

MissRabbitsOtherJob Tue 31-Dec-13 20:10:06

How will it make it worse for us in London? Wealthy families spending money in shops (especially the independant shops that dominate south ken), paying tax and contributing to society.

I'll welcome them

marzipanned Tue 31-Dec-13 20:26:47

Very well perlona, and who will fund the NHS/pensions/defence/welfare/education in their absence?!

SomethingOnce Tue 31-Dec-13 22:35:13

I love that the main rationale for not having a supertax is that rich people are selfish, greedy, unpatriotic cunts who'll run away and take their money with them when they go if we try to tax them, so we should probably just leave them alone.

Beautifully put!

foreverondiet Tue 31-Dec-13 22:38:08

Actually I think that £830k is a lot of money to earn and so as the 75% band is set so high I think it's appropriate. Basically a sign that people just shouldn't be paid that much!

longfingernails Wed 01-Jan-14 15:04:50

foreverondiet The state confiscating 75% will indeed send a message. I'm not sure the state will be particularly glad once those it is intended for receive it.

Taxing rich people more decreases tax revenue, costs jobs, and has already been proven, in real life (see Dennis Healey) to fail. Yet socialists think it is a good idea. Why?

I've never understood why some people think it is appropriate for them to judge whether someone else in the private sector is "paid too much". In the public sector, sure - after all, we are paying the salaries through our taxes. But if someone has started a company, taken risks, been clever, and is now well rewarded for it - what difference does it make to you what they earn? Private sector executive pay policy is a matter for shareholders.

wordfactory Wed 01-Jan-14 15:16:19

It will be interesting to see if the total tax take goes up or down.

History tells us it will go down.

longfingernails Wed 01-Jan-14 15:47:41
Bonsoir Wed 01-Jan-14 16:23:37

Plenty of people have left already. French people working in international companies are falling over themselves to be expatriated.

Fleta Wed 01-Jan-14 16:34:43

I've never understood why some people think it is appropriate for them to judge whether someone else in the private sector is "paid too much". In the public sector, sure - after all, we are paying the salaries through our taxes. But if someone has started a company, taken risks, been clever, and is now well rewarded for it - what difference does it make to you what they earn? Private sector executive pay policy is a matter for shareholders.

This. Absolutely.

Bonsoir Wed 01-Jan-14 17:23:11

They judge because they have zero understanding of economics.

Liara Wed 01-Jan-14 19:56:57

The reality is that this tax is neither here nor there.

It is very easy to avoid, which is why they are claiming it is only for two years, as otherwise not a soul will pay it.

And not necessarily because they are greedy and selfish. I don't earn anywhere near the threshold for this tax, nor do I ever intend to.

However I still resent every single penny I have to pay to this government. It's not because I don't believe in redistribution, it's because I don't want my money to be wasted on red tape and salaries for unpleasant fonctionnaires who will retire on incredibly generous pensions and work fuck all hours essentially harassing members of the public.

I have a friend who is a single mum and who works her butt off (self employed) but got a tax investigation 'because it is not possible to live on so little money so she must be lying about her income'.

She's not, she lives hand to mouth and relies on handouts. And if her benefits didn't get cut every 25 seconds by civil servants with not enough actual useful stuff to do, maybe she could spend a bit less time fighting them and a bit more growing her business.

But no. She has about 3 government employees whose job it is to make her jump through hoops in order to receive the benefits she is entitled to.

If more of our money was going to people like her, and less to the fonctionnaires, maybe the tax rate would not be as much of an issue.

Mind you, it wouldn't be necessary then either.

marzipanned Wed 01-Jan-14 20:41:23

Seconding agreement with longfingernails point on private sector exec pay being a matter for shareholders.

But then again I really don't understand why there is such a stigma attached to being successful/wealthy in the UK. There is nothing to be ashamed of if you work hard and earn a lot of money (please note, I am not for a moment suggesting that people who don't earn a lot of money don't also work hard!) Then you have all these comments on threads like this such as - get rid of the rich, the rich don't contribute anything, etc etc. Would you rather live in an LEDC??!

ariadneoliver Thu 02-Jan-14 12:36:17

Now he's promising tax cuts and reduced labour costs, it's always possible he'll quietly drop this new rate.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 12:38:58

How many businesses (because that's what they want to be worried about) upped and left the UK when we had similar? Not many.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 12:40:51

<<But then again I really don't understand why there is such a stigma attached to being successful/wealthy in the UK.>>

Yes, you're completely correct - all of those wealthy people who will never become MPs/High Court Judges/top city lawyers etc. They might as well be walking around with a big red branding on their foreheads, so miserable are their lives. No power, no influence, no cushty little directorships - it's stigma stigma stigma all the way.


mypavlova Thu 02-Jan-14 12:49:05

75% tax means you are 75% enslaved.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 12:51:49

Do you actually know what slavery means?

mypavlova Thu 02-Jan-14 12:58:08

Yes it means you do the work and somebody else enjoys all the benefit of your labor, or in this case 75%.

mypavlova Thu 02-Jan-14 12:59:55

And Wallison when the UK had similar rates, how many businesses were closed, scaled back or never begun because there was no point in trying under those punitive and exploitative circumstances?

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 13:00:22

How many slaves do you know that earn over £830k?

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 13:01:25

<<And Wallison when the UK had similar rates, how many businesses were closed, scaled back or never begun>>

I don't know. Do you? Because you're the one that's arguing that that is what is going to happen, so I'm assuming you have some proof. Where is it?

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 13:05:49

And that is not what slavery means. Slavery means that you are not free. Your life is controlled by your owner, when you are a slave. You work, but you do not get paid. You have no say in the performance of your work, what duties you do, and the conditions under which you do them. To compare people earning £830k to slaves shows a gross lack of familiarity with any kind of sense.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 13:11:28

<<But if a few more wealthy tax payers were encouraged in, then everyone's standard of living would rise. >>

How does that work then? I'm talking specifics here.

caroldecker Thu 02-Jan-14 13:24:07

Good point on slavery
On the benefits to the UK:
If we get 1,000 French bankers move to the London branch of thier bank, each earning £2m a year. They will pay UK tax at c.40% which is £800m a year in tax - good for the UK
They then spend, say £500k a year in the UK, so VAT at 20% is £100m
Not far off £1bn in tax for just 1,000 people
To say nothing of the extra made by the companies selling them the goods or the extra profits made by the UK branches of the banks and the tax on those profits.

Bonsoir Thu 02-Jan-14 13:25:32

"Yes it means you do the work and somebody else enjoys all the benefit of your labor, or in this case 75%."

Slavery is fairly widespread in France!

HesterShaw Thu 02-Jan-14 13:26:01

Funny how left wing MN generally appears until posters actually think about the reality of wealth redistribution.

Just an observation.

sashh Thu 02-Jan-14 14:05:54

But if someone has started a company, taken risks, been clever, and is now well rewarded for it - what difference does it make to you what they earn?

This is why I think there should be some sort of link between the tax paid by the employees of a company and it's founder/ CEO / top honcho.

IMHO someone who employs 100 people should pay less tax than someone who employs no one and has just inherited a fortune.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 14:05:55

Do tax revenues = more wealth for other people though? Only a lot of tax money seems to go to private contractor mates of the govt on half-arsed projects that cost £millions, and the money is never seen again.

JollySantersSelectionBox Thu 02-Jan-14 14:12:23

"How does that work then? I'm talking specifics here"


Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 15:37:28

So how does trickle-down work in those three countries then? Given that even Thatcher admitted that it didn't in the UK.

JollySantersSelectionBox Thu 02-Jan-14 16:24:38

It works here because there is true democracy, and a high level of personal responsibility that comes with freedom of choice.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 16:32:28

I'm still not getting any specifics on the mechanics of it all.

JollySantersSelectionBox Thu 02-Jan-14 16:52:15

When I last wrote about the Swiss economic miracle it was a 50 page discussion paper for an economics dissertation. I'm not really going into the detail again.

Try googling Swiss trickle down, Swiss miracle economics.

Suffice to say I earn 3 times more than I did in the UK, (even though I fit into the average earners median) and pay 12% income tax, my son attends a school with 18 children maximum to a class, his teacher is paid the equivalent of £80,000 a year and the facilities are excellent. Oh and you are never more that 1,5km to a primary school. Nurses are rewarded equally generously. Standard of living is one of the highest in the world.

Mainly by inviting in global head offices, banking corporations and offering them negotiable tax rates - in return they see investment and employment. So much employment that 30% of their country is "Auslanders'."

Luxembourg are heading the same way, and the Netherlands also gave salary capping - but I find that a little unfair tbh.

As I said though a true democracy with responsible citizens. I didn't say it worked in the UK. The Swiss have true democracy but it comes at a price - they are voting on issues on a weekly basis and live with their own decisions directly. they take responsibility for their country and actions.

I'd never realised until moving out how much of a Nanny state the UK was. Far easier to sit back and moan that you didn't vote for a party and therefore you absolve all responsibility. Far easier to forget that the party you did vote for spent more than it could afford and caused an economic nightmare that needs to be cleaned up.

I'm not a Cameron supporter and I grew up with Thatcher the milk snatcher whilst living in a Welsh mining town, but surely everyone can see the pattern - socialists spend, conservatives cut and so the merry go round begins.

The effect of trickle down may be seen to work for London very well though as a microcosm.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 17:00:26

So all we need for trickle-down to work is to become a haven for tax-dodgers from other countries? Well, that's that one solved then.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 17:02:41

Oh yes and rolling over and playing nice to Hitler. A country with as proud a history as it has a present.

Timetoask Thu 02-Jan-14 17:09:21

I used to live in Luxembourg. DH and I both paid 40% tax, the healthcare was brilliant but not 100% free like in the UK, you pay 30% of the cost (unless you are seriously poor).
The facilities are amazing. The primary schools are brilliant (I think they are trying to improve on secondaries), we had 2 QUALIFIED teachers (note, not teaching assistants) for 18 infants, these teachers worked in the class room at the same time (not job share). My son learned luxembourgish in no more than 3 months. The child benefits are also good.
My son with special needs was able to access help straight away (rather than wait months and months like here)
I really miss it! Very happily paid my 40% because the returns where great. Cannot go back, because I need to be here now for my son's education (the one with special needs)

JollySantersSelectionBox Thu 02-Jan-14 17:24:30

Oh yes wondered when I'd have to start playing Nazi bingo.


The Swiss have no organised army, part of their Confederational constitution is neutrality. this is due to the history of their tribal formation.

Read a little on their full history before making puerile comments.

Even a simple search will provide a balanced view of the good,bad & ugly sides of the country in a World war scenario.

Hardly rolled over to the Nazis when they were prepared to flatten their entire infrastructure to avoid invasion.

And perhaps an understanding of what it's like to live in a bordered country - something I failed to grasp as a UK citizen. And believe me, there were far more people in the UK ready to accept the Nazis into the UK than there were in Switzerland, and quite a few more Black shirts too.

Until then it was an interesting debate with the other mumsnetters, and i enjoyed reading both sides of the debate, but I'm afraid I have fascist treasure in the cellar that i need to polish.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 17:51:43

I hardly think that bandying terms like 'nanny state' around and saying that London - which is right now facing something like the biggest housing crisis in its history - is an example of trickle down working are hallmarks of 'interesting debate'.

caroldecker Thu 02-Jan-14 19:42:52

How is london facing its biggest housing crisis in history??? And a state which spends roughly half our money how it thinks is on our best interest is a good example of a nanny state - how would you define it.
Some evidence of Thatcher admitting it didn't work would be useful - an actual quote or piece of writing rather than a comment overheard in a pub would be useful.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 20:03:54

I don't go to the pub with Tebbit or Major or whoever it was. I have nice friends that I drink with. And where is your evidence that trickle down does work? Because the gap between rich and poor started getting wider under Thatcher and has continued to get wider since. How is that trickle down working, exactly?

London and the rest of the country is in crisis because there is a huge dearth of affordable housing. We are currently paying out over £20bn a year in housing benefit, most of which goes to people who are in work but cannot afford to put a roof over their heads without state support. If that isn't a crisis, I don't know what is.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 20:16:27

And I wouldn't describe any state as a 'nanny state' because it's a term adopted by the terminally hard of thinking and as such meaningless.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 20:19:06

*sorry, not 'adopted' but 'used'. It's just stupid talk.

caroldecker Thu 02-Jan-14 21:41:25

Trickle down can work even if the gap is getting wider - people in this country are unarguably better off now than in the late 70's - see here

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 22:07:19

People in the late 70s could afford to buy and heat a home on one wage. Not so easy now.

marzipanned Thu 02-Jan-14 22:09:58


a) I didn't say that rich people were stigmatised. I said that there is a stigma attached to being rich. Not quite the same thing, and the latter point has been proved by many of the posts on this thread. Wealth generation is a good thing for a country. But maybe you wish we were all subsistence farmers.

b) Tax revenues = services and, yes, money for other people. Only a lot of tax money seems to go to private contractor mates of the govt on half-arsed projects that cost £millions, and the money is never seen again. Oh really? On what are you basing that assumption? The largest chunk (20%) of public spending is on public pensions.

c) Though I can't see any possible reason for bringing the Nazis into this discussion, Britain hardly has an unblemished history itself.

FFS indeed.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 22:11:53

Yes, Cameron is living proof of the stigma attached to being rich. I really feel for him and all of the other toffs forced to send their children to Eton where they have no hope of being the ones with influence and power in the future.

marzipanned Thu 02-Jan-14 22:14:44

Please. Read. What. I. Wrote.

Or don't. We are never going to agree.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 22:22:21

Go on then, give me an example of the terrible stigma attached to being rich and how the rich suffer because of it. Nb saying 'Wallison on mumsnet thinks they are cunts' doesn't count.

marzipanned Thu 02-Jan-14 22:50:57

For the third time, I'm not saying that the rich suffer. I'm saying that the country suffers as a whole if it is not viewed as 'a good thing' to earn a lot of money.

The percentage of tax payers who are net contributors is very small - I'm sorry I can't recall the figure, but niceguy2 quoted a different one near the beginning of the thread re the contribution of income tax paid by the top 1% of earners - why is it necessary to be constantly berating those who are providing much of the funding for our public services?!

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 23:00:43

If they don't suffer, then how are they stigmatised?

marzipanned Thu 02-Jan-14 23:21:01

I said there is a stigma attached to being rich, that is, the concept of, which IS in fact proved by statements such as 'Wallison on mumsnet thinks they are cunts' (and the hundreds of other similar ones you come across on here day after day).

If someone said 'the poor are cunts' there would be an uproar. But from a purely economic perspective, and we are talking economics here, the rich contribute more to society. So, again, why are they so maligned?

NB PLEASE don't read that as me thinking that the rich contribute more full stop.

ShirtySocks Thu 02-Jan-14 23:31:03

Actually LOL at Not everyone with money is a megalomaniac hiding in a Volcano lair and wiping their arse on fresh kittens


Sorry nothing sensible to contribute apart from that seems to be an insane amount of tax and as a business I would look elsewhere to, for example, open a major new production facility if my top people wouldn't want to work there.

Wallison Thu 02-Jan-14 23:45:15

Ah, so there is a stigma attached to being rich because of what I write on Mumsnet. Woohoo - didn't realise I was so powerful. Honestly, will you just listen to yourself while looking at all of the advantages that being rich gives to people? Not even seeing a teensy little bit of that? Last I heard, the PM wasn't a binman, or a cleaner, or even the son of a binman or cleaner. Nor are any of his mates in the cabinet. Or his mates in the judiciary. Or his mates with their fingers in the public sector purse aka outsourcing. Or his mates in banking. Obv all of that is negated by what some screaming leftie on a talkboard says, because after all I run the world.



marzipanned Fri 03-Jan-14 00:25:28

It's weird how I, and others on this thread, can write about what is positive for a country economically and what you read is something so completely different. As I thought there was no point trying to explain..

AchyFox Fri 03-Jan-14 01:41:00

Imagine for simplicity someone was previously earning 5 million euros a year.

Yes but who is paying that 5M ?

The populus.

If you want to pay loads to footballers and very clever gamblers derivative traders, do go ahead.

Just not my cup of tea.

babybarrister Fri 03-Jan-14 11:51:18

What a load of tosh re background of the judiciary. Do you actually know any judges Wallison?! Do you reAlly think they are Dave's mates?! I doubt that many of them would support Cameron either - but hey,let's not let the truth interfere with gross generalisations based on the profile of the judiciary 30 years ago. .. ..

FreudiansSlipper Fri 03-Jan-14 12:11:53

do we need more overly paid people coming here, pushing up mortgage and rent prices hmm

we need fair pay for all the gap is getting wider and it is not just those at the very bottom that are struggling now

SamG76 Fri 03-Jan-14 12:29:12

My DC's primary school is full of little French children, whose parents moved over here some years ago. It's great having them. Also reflects worsening climate for French Jews, of course, and I doubt if the quennelle controversy will do much to improve the situation.

caroldecker Fri 03-Jan-14 12:29:23

freudian how do you fund fair pay for all - i have looked at rentokill's annual accounts here, chosen as it has a lot of low paid people ie cleaners etc. The average salary cost of all, including the directors is £17,512. The 11 directors get around £3m pounds.
If we pay them nothing and share the rest across the rest of employees, we get £17,515 per employee.
The company made a loss in 2011, so no return to shareholders - in 2010, the profit before interest (after tax) was £26.7m, shared between all workers is an extra £200 pounds each.
So even if the fat cat directors, the lenders and the owners get nothing, the additional pay is around £203 per head
The question therefore is, where does the money come from?

Wallison Fri 03-Jan-14 12:43:11

75% of High Court judges attended an independent school. For the Supreme Court and Heads of Division, that figure rises to 90%.

babybarrister Fri 03-Jan-14 12:51:50

And how many judges are in the Supreme Court and high court? Very few .....!

Wallison Fri 03-Jan-14 12:59:53

They have quite a lot of clout though, no? If you're looking for influential people, you look at the top, not the bottom. And if you look at the top and find, in a country where 6% of pupils go to independent schools, that 75% and 90% respectively are from that background, that to me is evidence of pretty much a closed shop.

MILLYMOLLYMANDYMAX Fri 03-Jan-14 13:13:42

I am old enough to remember the 97.5% tax that Labour introduced. I am also old enough to know several family businesses that closed up and the family moved abroad.

Labour spent the money then thought the rich would pick up the tab. The rich bought an airline ticket and left the average to lower paid to pick up the tab hence the 35% basic income tax.

Wallison Fri 03-Jan-14 13:23:51

If you're old enough to remember it, then you're old enough to know that it was 83%, not 97.5%, surely?

peggyundercrackers Fri 03-Jan-14 13:49:23

income tax was 83% but if you include NI then the effective rate was 97.5%

babybarrister Fri 03-Jan-14 15:16:16

There are over 5600 members of the judiciary and those at the coalface are doing most of the work....the high court and court of appeal together accounts for about 150 max - the last research into the education of High Court Judges NOTE NOT the whole judiciary was in 2007

Have a look at the Judicial Appointments Commission

No, it is far from perfect but you really need to research the issue and stop making assumptions about judges' political views

FraidyCat Fri 03-Jan-14 16:40:11

Because the gap between rich and poor started getting wider under Thatcher and has continued to get wider since.

I believe that, everything else being equal, the size of the gap between rich and poor is correlated with the size of the economy, it is an inevitable statistical artefact. That means the more the economy grows, the bigger the gap will be. It always pisses me off when I hear someone on the news talking about increasing inequality, as if it’s a problem, as I regard that statement as simply a different way of saying the economy is bigger than it used to be, which is a good thing.

Sure, one politician can be more (or less) redistributive than another, and therefore make a temporary difference to the figures, but there’s an overall limit to how much redistribution you can have. The only way you can truly stop inequality growing in the long term is to feck up the economy. To be fair, one can usually rely on the Labour party to do just that, though unfortunately the effect is only temporary, as they then get booted out.

MILLYMOLLYMANDYMAX Sat 04-Jan-14 16:17:54

Sorry Wallinson I did not make it clear just how old I am.

Uk did have 97.5% income tax

Mimishimi Sun 05-Jan-14 01:54:15

It's very sad. When we were in Hong Kong, there was a large contingent of people from France who had come over in recent years anticipating this. Hong Kong has a flat 15% tax rate and has some of the best living conditions I've seen despite their low taxes. Many were quite busy registering new businesses in China so they could liquidate their companies in France. I don't think there's ever any justification for taxing above 25% personally.... ever...

NoComet Sun 05-Jan-14 02:09:15

It doesn't matter if it cuts in at 100,000 or a 1000,000 there is something fundamentally wrong about taking more than half people's money off them.

To my mind it over steps a mark in the sand. It says we the government own your talent (be it sport, acting or business).

Someone may be a millionaire, but they still have the right to work for themselves and their family first and the tax man second.

DH pays higher rate tax and with NI etc he only gets just over 1/2 his salary. Any more and you'd look at your pay slip and think greedy bastards every month.

longfingernails Thu 09-Jan-14 14:28:00

A couple of days ago, the French CGT union decided to hold managers of Goodyear hostage. I'm sure other foreign companies are going to queue up to invest in France after that sort of behaviour...

No doubt Hollande is the union bullies' puppet just as much as Miliband is McCluskey's.

I don't know why the union thugs haven't been arrested yet! Surely kidnapping is illegal in France?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now