Keep renaming the groupuscule, Mateys
After all, it works for everyone else, doesn’t it? Keep pumping out the same - usually bad - idea but under a variety of names and people will think there’s a groundswell of support for the - usually bad - idea. The reason this has to be done for the bad ideas is because the good ones gain support simply from being expressed. “Oh, yes, why didn’t someone think of that before?”
This same old threat is always levelled over any check on the soaring wealth of the richest in Britain, but research shows that rich people rarely follow through. An LSE report published in January, Tax Flight? Britain’s Wealthiest and Their Attachment to Place, strongly suggests they are going nowhere.
That report is from Andy Summers.
A study of HMRC records by Arun Advani, David Burgherr and Andy Summers following the last cut to non-doms’ tax relief shows that, despite the threats, just 5% left – and the ones who did leave were those paying the least tax in the first place.
Oh, that’s Arun Advani and Andy Summers.
A report published this week by the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation showed how an “exit tax”, which is imposed by almost all G7 countries, could bring in £500m a year.
Centre for the Analysis of Taxation?
Dr Andy Summers, Associate Professor at LSE and Director of CenTax, said: “Charging CGT on people who leave the UK is not about punishing them for leaving. It’s simply saying: ‘you need to pay your bill on the way out’. Most of the UK’s international peers already do this, and there is no reason why the UK couldn’t as well.”
Dr Arun Advani, Associate Professor at University of Warwick and Director of CenTax, said: “Tax flight happens less than most people think, but does happen. If politicians are worried about emigration, they could follow Australia, Canada and many other countries by taxing the gains of people who leave. It’s a policy choice to let them emigrate tax free.”
Gosh. We are finding a wide range of intellectual opinion here, aren’t we?
Back a bit, that idea of a 5% wealth tax backed by an exit tax. The one we said was tantamount to theft:
Arun Advani among others. That was the tax everyone 5% of their wealth idea and if they try to leave then take it anyway. Something that one of us derided as simple theft when discussing it with the Treasury Committee.
And the IFS report which suggests an exit tax:
Stuart Adam, Arun Advani, Helen Miller, Andy Summers
We’re really having a good old survey of different opinions here, no?
OK, so Arun Advani and Andy Summers find themselves forced to publish their idea for an exit tax under a wild variety of different groupuscule names. That they have to do that is one of those inclinations - not proofs, just an inclination - that they themselves think it a bad idea. For why would they do that if it was so obviously a good one that the first clear statement of it will bring general agreement?
By their tactics ye shall know them, eh?
As far as we can tell there are exactly two people in the country - Andy Summers and Arun Advani - who think an exit tax is a good idea. Or, perhaps, those two and a rotating cast of their mates. We can’t help but think that a slightly wider evidence base could be a good idea.
Tim Worstall