Besides income tax how much have Ratcliffe contributed to the U.K.'s economy with Ineos, it's export position, employment opportunities, local suppliers and essential industry? Indirectly he contributed much more than just tax income. He created enduring value that the British economy continues to profit from.
And so what?
I am integral part of teaching medical professionals, who go on to practice medicine and save people's lives - including people like James Ratcliffe. In this, I am contributing to the economic health of the nation, indirectly facilitating the ability of the workforce to stay healthy. I am (theoretically) paid commensurately with my benefit to society. So is James Ratcliffe. I don't give a monkeys that society deems his contribution to society greater than mine, and he's paid extraordinarily handsomely for it. But why do we need to give him any more special favours? Isn't 20 billion enough?
I don't think that's really a point of contention. The question in this case is what income tax is reasonable. You have to admit almost half your personal income confiscated by the state is rather excessive.
It's never, ever, half the income. £12.5k is untaxable, then (including NI) up to ~£50k at 32%, then £50-150k at 42%, and >£150k at 47%. This means someone on 20k is taxed £1500 (<10%). Someone on £50k is taxed £12k (<25%), someone on £150k is taxed £54k (36%), and someone with £1M salary pays £454k (45%). And that's even without other aspects, such as the fact some of these salaries go to pension, which has tax relief. Those people who earn hundreds of thousands are basically guaranteed to have income streams (dividends, capital gains, forms of bonuses) with lower tax rates, so the headline income tax rate is hopelessly misleading.
That's why they construct graphs of the total tax liabilities of income groups, including all taxes (including sales / VAT). In fact, the total tax liability is about 30% average for all income groups except the super-rich, where it's
lower.
And no, I don't think ~30% tax remotely unreasonable. I wouldn't consider even consider ~50% unreasonable, as long as it pays for stuff. When you say it's "unreasonable" for the government to tax its people, what you mean is it should let old people starve and the poor go without healthcare, because that is the practical end result.
Sure. Loopholes, offshore accounts and fiscal christmas trees happen but the bulk of deductible income isn't from residents it's from foreign stake holders ie pension funds, equity firms, private investors. I do agree residents should pay the taxes they are due but it doesn't address the structural problem that personal income and location is heavily taxed but not so much corporate profits from investment capital and public and private shares. It really makes no sense at all that central banks sell the state deficit as securities to foreign investors and loan like a crazy person by suppressing the interest rates with implicit political improval and the only objection is a symbolic one when some rich bloke escapes to Monaco to pay less income tax.
Sure. I have no objections whatsoever to taxing James Ratcliffe thoroughly after he goes to Monaco, either.
