Quote Originally Posted by Lasterman View Post
The impact on people here now is only part of the story. The thousands of millionaires clinging to a rock in the Irish Sea aren't there for the weather, they're there because they pay 20% income tax (I may not be up to date with the current rate) Now imagine somewhere where people would actually like to live with a 20% tax rate. How many wealthy people would be attracted to come and pay their taxes here then? It's worth remembering that something like a third of the income tax is paid by less than 1% of taxpayers. You don't need to attract that many people at this level before it starts to make a difference.

To answer your question directly, I used to pay the higher rate of tax (not exactly happily, but without trying to avoid it). But when the rate went up under Gordon Brown it prompted me to look at whether there was an alternative. There was, and as a result I've paid an awful lot less ever since - nothing dodgy, underhand or illegal I hasten to add! I know several other people who did the same thing, which is why I feel so strongly about people who say we should hit the 'rich'. It doesn't work.
So you consider that the democratically decided 40% is "hitting the rich"?

And even though the report you are quoting from believe that around 40% is the optimum amount for raising public revenues, you would still cut it to half of that for the wealthy?

I understand the logic of what you are saying but this 'experiment' would be a huge risk to take with public revenues when even the financial experts from whom you are quoting for other purposes would disagree with you? Might there be a little bit of self interest here swaying your judgement?! Would you like to see this risk taken if you were on 25K a week?