The evidence says otherwise. The most recent/similar event to cite is Hollande’s implementation of 75% tax in France:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....eaving-france-please-turn-out-the-lights/amp/
Not an apples to apples comparison, but to blanket state that people won’t “fuck off” if taxes are ramped up is simply not true.
What would be good would be a proper study into the optimal level of taxation (certainly payroll and corp tax). Optimal taxation would probably not be 50% or 75% - possibly even a lot lower. The point behind optimal taxation being to identify the rate at which the treasury receives the most tax take. Which would be great for our creaking public services, the NHS, etc. Not sure about anyone else, but I’d be very happy if I knew the tax rate I was subject to offered the best possible value for our great country.
Optimal taxation wouldn’t win many votes because a lot of the electorate just want “the rich” to be seen to be paying “their fair share” (read: anything over 50%/getting a good kicking for being horrible “rich” bastards).
The evidence can be interpreted in many ways.
France is not the UK and nobody is advocating a 75% tax rate. There will always be a few super rich who move, not necessarily though for tax reasons, more for lifestyle reasons as in the UK it never stops fucking raining and they can afford to move. If the tax rate was so inhibiting how does it explain the taking over of vast swathes of London real estate by Oligarchs?
Most of the world’s billionaires – about 84% – still live in their country of birth. And among those who do live abroad, most moved to their current country of residence long before they became wealthy – either as children with their parents, or as students going abroad to study (and then staying).
The world’s billionaires largely live where they were born or where they began their careers
Only about 5% of world billionaires moved abroad
after they became successful. These individuals readily fit the stereotype of a “transnational capitalist class” – unplugged from their nation state, travelling the world for some combination of tax avoidance and cosmopolitan lifestyle.
Many of them can be found in London claiming
“non-dom” status to avoid the tax laws of both their homeland and those that apply to British citizens. Others are located in tropical tax havens – such as Sir Richard Branson, who moved to the British Virgin Islands after becoming a billionaire
,
Optimal taxation sounds suspiciously like the Laffer curve, which has been discredited as economic nonsense and Laffer exposed as a fraud. I may be wrong of course and it may make sense, I would have to look into it though.
Taxation should be organised on a basic principle, the more you earn, the more you pay. I am not an advocate of Healyite squeeze them to the pips squeak taxation, but I do believe in the basic principle that those with more should pay more. I happen to believe that paying tax makes you a stakeholder in society and as I believe that society is the one of the most important and greatest achievements of mankind then of course I am going to believe that. I have actually considered writing a book on Societism, which could be a post capitalist state we live in.
What this government has done is really underhand, it has raised the thresholds to make it look as though those with least are the sole beneficiaries "the taking people out of tax mantra" but they don't tell you it applies to everyone including Billionaires.