By all accounts, according to popular opinion at the time, Robyn Hode and his Merry Men accomplices were viewed as a anti-social criminal gang who infested Sherwood and other law-abiding areas of England with continuous robberies. And historic records show that there was actual no evidence of him giving to the poor.

So, effectively a thug with a bunch of pissed up mates went around robbing people.

No wonder he is a hero in Nottingham.

Don’t worry – Ed’s here to help

Demonstrating VAT on shopping with a selection of Zero-rated food items, priceless 😆

And historic records show that there was actual no evidence of him giving to the poor.

Ok, let’s just back-track a bit. The fictional Robin Hood is considered to be a good guy, for redistributing wealth.

So again where’s your argument?

It depends

Are you referring to the Jean Luc Picard, Kevin Costner or Cary Elwes Robin Hood?

Forget it.

Just tell me why wealth redistribution through taxation is flawed?

Wow he does comedy too.

Just tell me why wealth redistribution through taxation is flawed?

It’s not flawed, you just need to know when to stop.

Some would say it’s flawed as it only works if done on a global basis, rich people often move about to escape higher tax regimes. Tax havens are a bad thing.

Right, so when is that?

By all accounts, according to popular opinion at the time, Robyn Hode and his Merry Men accomplices were viewed as a anti-social criminal gang who infested Sherwood and other law-abiding areas of England with continuous robberies.

Accounts which were written by people with money.

Right, so when is that?

Do you honestly think that we will solve that here on this thread?

Pick a country out of the following where you fancy living and you will then no what is right for you:

UAE
Singapore
Australia
US
Switzerland
UK
Denmark
Zimbabwe

Accounts which were written by people with money.

Are you insinuating that poor people can’t write?

Are you insinuating that poor people can’t write?

Back then they couldn’t, no, this is well known.

Do you honestly think that we will solve that here on this thread?

No, but you seem to think that the current level is too much. The only argument I can see for not taxing the rich is ‘but I WANT IT ALL FOR MEE!’

Are you insinuating that poor people can’t write?

In the middle ages? What do you think?

No, but you seem to think that the current level is too much. The only argument I can see for not taxing the rich is ‘but I WANT IT ALL FOR MEE!’

Which country out of the list do you want to live in. That is then the perfect country for you based on your tax burden*

*other countries are available

Is tax burden the only concern in your life, to base where you want to live?

Are you attempting to draw a parallel between tax burden and the standard of living in countries around the world?

I think they preferred the term “peasant” or “serf” rather than poor. You can have a rich and rewarding life without money.

Is tax burden the only concern in your life, to base where you want to live?

No, i am also concerned about owls, the number of starbucks and whether the Broncos will recover next season.

It’s almost as if you have absolutely no point to make, but still can’t stop yourself from continuing to comment.

I agree, this is going nowhere.

but still can’t stop yourself from continuing to comment

I disagree.

The 50% rate showed that, the tax take went down.

Only because it ran for such a short period so it was very easy to avoid by bring forward or delaying payments.

What I love about STW (not) is summed up well on this thread. The number of people who pop up with a Stat they have read somewhere, regardless of their almost certain lack of knowledge of the whole subject!

But thats what the internet was invented for, surely?*

* we all know it is actually for the distribution of grot, but we’ll ignore that for the time being

Only because it ran for such a short period so it was very easy to avoid by bring forward or delaying payments.

Partly because of that, but many people maxed out pensions or rearranged their business affairs. Also as I said they left and they haven’t come back. I went to Singapore for 2 years. A 40% rate people will pay in order to have use of the money, at 50% (or in fact 52% plus the 14% employers NI contribution) you get a different sort of behaviour and I don’t mean illegal tax evading.

It was well documented that when they abolished the 60% tax rate back in the 80’s the tax take went up

Some would say it’s flawed as it only works if done on a global basis, rich people often move about to escape higher tax regimes. Tax havens are a bad thing

You don’t move people, you move money. The number of rich people who move to tax havens is statistically insignificant (and with the possible exception of Switzerland, they’re shit).

Just tell me why wealth redistribution through taxation is flawed?

Because wherever it’s been tried it’s been shown not to work.

Excuse the rant but here goes …

You cannot just give people money and not expect them to just “kick back” and become dependent upon it, where is their incentive ? There really does become a culture of dependency and entitlement. Also the redistribution has a major flaw, the money comes from “the rich” and goes into Government, what do you think happens to it there, do you think every penny flows out for redistribution, how much gets diverted into other projects or initiatives.

How about this real world example in France. They propose a 75% tax rate on income over euro 1m. Lots of rich people leave the country, most going to Belgium (as it’s French speaking and just a quick train ride back to Paris). Massive loss of income to the government. 75% tax rate challenged in courts, government looses as tax is seen as theft basically (twice over as people have left and they cannot actually apply the tax to those who did stay). Government proposes new tax of 66% payable by the company not the individual, this is passed. But most laughably this tax does not apply to footballers – you couldn’t make it up !

All I can say is annecdotally I am aware of many people who left he UK when the rate went to 50%, so they paid pretty much zero into HMRC. It wasn’t a case of someone else in the UK doing their job, they took their job with them. In the case of the Hedge Fund Brevan Howard (25+ traders went to Switzerland, making on average I would guess £5m each) the support staff (quite well paid but not excessive) all remained in the UK – so much less tax revenue for HMRC but still the overhead of schooling, health etc for remaining staff.

Another example, one of my other hobbies is sailing. Look at participation in yacht racing it’s down 60%-70% since the taxes went up. Owners cut back their spending so stopped racing or sold their boats. For every owner you have 6-10 crew sailing for free. All those people spent money in bars/restaurants/on a B&B/on clothing. The owner spent money on maintainence so providing employment for mechanics and craftsmen. Many businesses have gone, working people unemployed now, skills being lost. Did the government collect extra tax from the owner or has he put more into his pension or re-arranged his business affairs. There is certainly less money being spent and VAT collected.

So perhaps there is a perceived justice in “rich guys not playing on their yachts” but for every owner their are many crew enjoying the sport plus those craftsmen maintaining and preparing the boats.

As I posted before and in reference to France I have friends who work with horses or around the training yards in Chantilly and the French horse racing industry has been crushed by the introduction of high taxes in France as the owners have moved abroad and with taken their horses with them or just stopped racing. Does that really help anyone ?

I am very much in favour of strong social services, be that roads, social housing, a financial safety net for the most vulnerable, top quality free healthcare and schooling. But redistribution ? Robin Hood is an interesting example, aisde from actually being a thief – as the song goes he stole, he is a mythical character. He never really existed in the form portrayed.

Anyway happy Friday everyone 8)

You don’t move people, you move money. The number of rich people who move to tax havens is statistically insignificant (and with the possible exception of Switzerland, they’re shit).

Switzerland is a wonderful place, I’d love to live there, hopefully will one day. By the way they have a wealth tax 0.25% pa I recall and in some regions (cantons) like around Geneva taxes are in the mid 40%’s but there are lots of offsets etc like mortgage interest and of course the infrastructure is world class.

You are correct, it’s very easy to move money and assets. This will never change nor should it as capital controls have proven to be very counterproductive. Countries compete against each other on taxes, never mind Switzerland look at Ireland.

As for statistically insignificant, perhaps in terms of head count, we are talking about small portions of the 1%, but not in terms of potentital tax revenue. I don’t agree with the UK’s non-dom rules but that’s why we have them, encourage rich people to come here and spend money. The Labour party didn’t abolish the status in the 10 years it was in power. Aside from the cynics who will say it was Blairs attempt to protect his mates, the reality is they almost certainly looked a the policy and decide it was beneficial to the UK

Very interesting jamba but my point at the start was its stupid to think one of the richest countries in the world could not educate its kids. Even without raising taxes. Its choices.

Because wherever it’s been tried it’s been shown not to work.

Ah well it depends what you mean by wealth redistribution. Handing out money to poor people wasn’t what I had in mind – more things like social security, tax credits, social services etc.

Please explain to me how social security and tax credits are not handing money to people.

Excuse the rant but here goes …

anecdote ? evidence

Also, we may lose a bit of tax revenue but we also lose some greedy people from society, so swings and roundabouts…. 🙂

Well they are – that’s why I called it wealth redistribution. But jambalaya seems to think the term means cash handouts, cos he said it doens’t work. Where as social security clearly does work – just not perfectly.

anecdote ? evidence

Apparently the rich don’t understand this…

we also lose some greedy people from society

Explain why people who earn more money are greedy?

Back to funding education:

If there’s 700000 kids in private schools and they all moved back to state schools, it’d cost about £4,550.54 per child – that’s just over £3bn.

That figure also shows what poor value for money private schools are.

This is already happening, by the way. (Financially) failing private schools are converting to free schools, having their debts cleared by the state and then having their pupils funded by the tax payer.

And, obviously, free school costs are soaring.

Explain why people who earn more money are greedy?

I think perhaps people who resent an easily affordable amount being taken away to help those in need are greedy. Is that not a pretty solid definition?

But at the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.

IFS

So needs a little more thought.

I am very much in favour of strong social services, be that roads, social housing, a financial safety net for the most vulnerable, top quality free healthcare and schooling. But redistribution ?

Good Ole Southern Paella your argument does work to an extent BUT there are a number of flaws
1) there is a current disconnect between Cost of Living increases and the lack of COLA in tax bands, so now more people pay the higher tax rate than they should. It was aimed at the very rich it’s now hitting the above average.
2) the massive increase in the gap between the super-wealthy and the rest of the population. If this trend continues it (according to history) eventually destabilises society because of the ineqaulity between the have’s and have not, the peasants are revolting etc… In the Victorian era the super-wealthy were encouraged into philanthropism the modern super-wealthy (with some exceptions) lack that moral fibre
3) Is it proven that the increase in tax in the 80’s and abolishment of the 60% tax rate were actually related? During a boom time of growth Tax will go up. Whilst successive gov’ts since the 70’s have tried to indicate that it was their policies that affects boom / bust these cycles seem to be macro cycles and effectively gov’ts just pass the parcel and hope to not be sat in the chair when the bust arrives. Labour would’ve done better to lose the 2005 election.
4) The raising of taxes and subsequent migration of banking / bankers is an oft used argument from the city. Except London is uniquely placed between Eastern / Western markets, is sophisticated and cosmopolitan and English speaking with excellent schools. So yes a proportion maybe able to work out of Switzerland but what about their families? The other options don’t really work (e.g. Jo’burg or Cape Town). Mind you it’s getting to the point in the South East that the negative effect of the massive house prices caused by the Bankers bonus’ seems a good reason to get rid of ’em.

Finally Robin Hood

He never really existed in the form portrayed.

😈 fighting the super-wealthy in support of the underclass; given that the Super-Wealthy were then an elite bunch of French Nobles who only knew Latin and French whilst the rest of the country were the English so spoke a different language and were also a subjugated people the analogy seems appropriate.

Not really, maybe i am missing something but you are lumping that anyone who earns more money than average as being greedy?

Does that mean a surgeon is more greedy than a nurse? A headteacher more greedy than a classroom assistant….