Jim Davidson

[Nibble]

Jim Davidson is a prick.

 

[Codner pharmaceuticals]

I struggle to get my head around this 'does not generate any more income' arguement. I do not believe the reasons.

Let me answer in a maths way and not a political statement. (btw I think the old days of having a political badge and single party politics are over. Let's have a debate. We all want the poor and infirm to be looked after and we all want more money in our pockets).

But let's take this case. Say I know this chap who is a high rate tax payer. Like many people who happen to work in such a bracket he works for a global company. He manages people from Eastern Europe to California. He lives in England and pays tax here...

However, he could live in any country within reason.

Let's also say because he lives here he has built a team in the UK of core well-paid individuals.

However, these employees could be based in any country in the world, within reason.

One day someone who thinks it is a good idea to tax this person a lot more. This person says, there is no incentive for me to stay in this country and leaves.

You then lose:
- His tax
- His employers NI contribution
- The income tax of the people he has employed in the UK because he moves his team too
- The NI contributions of that team
- Corporation tax of contracts that now go through another country

So just raising the rate of income tax suddenly leaves the other NSC members to find another £300K for all this lost tax and NI income.

Maybe I am wrong and France will thrive with their plans. But look at Switzerland and all the companies and jobs that base themselves there. They have low flat rate taxes and don't seem to be doing to badly...

 

[Jim D]

If they're so much more patriotic than those in the UK, why have they settled abroad in the first place? Just wondering.

Firstly 'settled abroad' would imply they moved there permanently. That's not always the case - many are on a contract and are living alongside other Brits in compounds - or at least in close proximity to others. It's not just Davidson that would enjoy a tax-free or lower tax lifestyle if they could - and the cost of living is normally lower too.

There is a stronger sense of community - they really are 'all in this together'. They may have a go at politicians and political movements but I've never heard any of them having a bad word about The Queen. Most still have strong links to the UK - they call and write very often and invariably have the BBC World Service on TV or radio tuned in at home. If there is a substantial community there is usually an Anglican Church - and sometimes a British School. They arrange events based around UK events (National days, Queen's B'day, sports events) and everyone turns up - the church is also well used most weeks. With all this there is generally an enhanced sense of patriotism and national pride and it rubs off on even the most hard to convince new arrivals.

 

[Jim D]

..........a generalisation that all alcoholics must be wife beaters.

Is that because they all drink Stella?

 

[soistes]

Firstly 'settled abroad' would imply they moved there permanently. That's not always the case - many are on a contract and are living alongside other Brits in compounds - or at least in close proximity to others. It's not just Davidson that would enjoy a tax-free or lower tax lifestyle if they could - and the cost of living is normally lower too.

There is a stronger sense of community - they really are 'all in this together'. They may have a go at politicians and political movements but I've never heard any of them having a bad word about The Queen. Most still have strong links to the UK - they call and write very often and invariably have the BBC World Service on TV or radio tuned in at home. If there is a substantial community there is usually an Anglican Church - and sometimes a British School. They arrange events based around UK events (National days, Queen's B'day, sports events) and everyone turns up - the church is also well used most weeks. With all this there is generally an enhanced sense of patriotism and national pride and it rubs off on even the most hard to convince new arrivals.

That all makes sense, although it's almost as if they are constructing their own "little Britain" in a foreign country, rather than emigrating and integrating (much as in the days of Empire). Ironically, it's what lots of Britons here seem to complain about with regard to immigrants to the UK: i.e. that rather than integrating with the host community, they congregate together with their own communities, set up their own churches (or mosques) and schools etc.
It all sounds a bit depressing to me -- I'd hope that if I moved abroad, it'd be in order to enjoy and benefit from a different life and culture, rather than simply to replicate what I've got here (albeit with lower taxes and more sunshine or whatever)

 

[The Merry Prankster]

But then, I've never attempted to make a living from being an unfunny, alcoholic, wife-beating, bigoted tax-dodger. Jim Davidson has.

As a recovering alkie I object quite strongly to the pejorative use of the word alcoholic.

 

[yxee]

However, these employees could be based in any country in the world, within reason.

This is the assumption I don't buy. The model treats humans as robots whose sole intention is to maximise personal income. No families or relationships, no labour movement restrictions, no language barriers, just free to roam the planet in search of the minimum marginal rate of income tax. How many people in a company, at a decision making level, are in this situation? And how many of their team are?

Also, what is he selling and who is he selling it to? The man and his team clearly have a list of suppliers and customers. Will the suppliers all ship to this new country, and will the customers be happy buying the product from abroad? Does the model consider import and export taxes, and that the team will have to employ a whole new set of treasurers/accountants/legal who know the local legal statutes, practices, and to totally re-formulate the exchange-rate risk that goes along with moving abroad?

I just can't convince myself that any single person would do this with their company just because their marginal rate of income tax has increased by 10%.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Let me answer in a maths way and not a political statement. (btw I think the old days of having a political badge and single party politics are over. Let's have a debate. We all want the poor and infirm to be looked after and we all want more money in our pockets).

But let's take this case. Say I know this chap who is a high rate tax payer. Like many people who happen to work in such a bracket he works for a global company. He manages people from Eastern Europe to California. He lives in England and pays tax here...

However, he could live in any country within reason.

Let's also say because he lives here he has built a team in the UK of core well-paid individuals.

However, these employees could be based in any country in the world, within reason.

One day someone who thinks it is a good idea to tax this person a lot more. This person says, there is no incentive for me to stay in this country and leaves.

You then lose:
- His tax
- His employers NI contribution
- The income tax of the people he has employed in the UK because he moves his team too
- The NI contributions of that team
- Corporation tax of contracts that now go through another country

So just raising the rate of income tax suddenly leaves the other NSC members to find another £300K for all this lost tax and NI income.

Maybe I am wrong and France will thrive with their plans. But look at Switzerland and all the companies and jobs that base themselves there. They have low flat rate taxes and don't seem to be doing to badly...

Thank you for your patronising response. The core reason you have given is that this hypothetical person will leave the UK. I do understand this. But, as I stated, I do not believe the reason. Taxes regimes always differ across countries and we never see significant movement of individuals across borders purely chasing lower tax nations. There was no significant flood of people leaving the UK when tax went up to 50%. Ditto when it was lowered again. I am not saying it does not happen but I have seen no evidence to suggest tax is a major consideration for people moving country. In fact, I have actually spoken to dozens of ex-pats over the years and explicitly asked their reasons for leaving the UK, tax has never ever been mentioned; a better life always is.

PS there are plenty of countries doing very well with much higher taxation than the UK.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Firstly 'settled abroad' would imply they moved there permanently. That's not always the case - many are on a contract and are living alongside other Brits in compounds - or at least in close proximity to others. It's not just Davidson that would enjoy a tax-free or lower tax lifestyle if they could - and the cost of living is normally lower too.

There is a stronger sense of community - they really are 'all in this together'. They may have a go at politicians and political movements but I've never heard any of them having a bad word about The Queen. Most still have strong links to the UK - they call and write very often and invariably have the BBC World Service on TV or radio tuned in at home. If there is a substantial community there is usually an Anglican Church - and sometimes a British School. They arrange events based around UK events (National days, Queen's B'day, sports events) and everyone turns up - the church is also well used most weeks. With all this there is generally an enhanced sense of patriotism and national pride and it rubs off on even the most hard to convince new arrivals.

Where is this particular ex-pat community you are describing?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Getting back on topic

BBC NEWS | UK | Wales | Jim Davidson in disability row


What a lovely man.

 

[beorhthelm]

How many people in a company, at a decision making level, are in this situation?

at decision making level? most of them. they are career people and will do what is necessary to further their career and earnings. families go with them, to top schools of course, visas are arranged by the employer and everyone in business speaks English. often occurs not directly for tax motives of course, the next promotion in the company means going to Singapore or US office for example. but these people at the top, on the largest salaries, are those most able and willing to move location. moving a whole team is less common, but it does occur, in financial world especially. marketing firm WPP done it recently, though how many actually moved office and stayed in the old one i dont know. pretty easy to arrange your life to live the required number of days out of the country if theres enough incentive and you spend alot of time at work/out of country away from family anyway.

long and short, 50% raised half what it was expected to. migration isnt the only factor, others would move earnings overseas or reduce earnings (keep it in the company) etc. its not necessarily about people moving, but their taxable earnings moving which is a lot easier.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

at decision making level? most of them. they are career people and will do what is necessary to further their career and earnings. families go with them, to top schools of course, visas are arranged by the employer and everyone in business speaks English. often occurs not directly for tax motives of course, the next promotion in the company means going to Singapore or US office for example. but these people at the top, on the largest salaries, are those most able and willing to move location. moving a whole team is less common, but it does occur, in financial world especially. marketing firm WPP done it recently, though how many actually moved office and stayed in the old one i dont know. pretty easy to arrange your life to live the required number of days out of the country if theres enough incentive and you spend alot of time at work/out of country away from family anyway.

long and short, 50% raised half what it was expected to. migration isnt the only factor, others would move earnings overseas or reduce earnings (keep it in the company) etc. its not necessarily about people moving, but their taxable earnings moving which is a lot easier.

This nothing more than an unproven theory though. Wealthy people seem to live where they want to live, after all it's one of the perks of being wealthy. I simply do not believe a marginal tax differential, which is what we are talking about here, is a major concern to many wealthy people. In fact this is a quote from Denise Coates, head of Bet365, and a prime candidate for moving herself and her business to a lower tax country when asked about saving £130m in tax by moving: "The area means a lot to us," insists Coates. "We've always worked in Stoke, we've always had businesses in Stoke. I would never what to spend large parts of my time abroad if I can avoid it." Theo Pathetis has said similar I believe and the head of JP Morgan said similar when he recently signed a long term lease on a building in London; he actually said talented staff choose London as lifestyle choice and not for tax reasons.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

its not necessarily about people moving, but their taxable earnings moving which is a lot easier.

Do you mean still being a resident in the UK but moving their earnings elsewhere? Because if so the UK has a world-wide income policy so, in most cases, you cannot do this ie no matter where the income is from you should pay UK tax on it if you are a UK resident.

 

[Codner pharmaceuticals]

I just can't convince myself that any single person would do this with their company just because their marginal rate of income tax has increased by 10%.

Good points. Not the sole reason and difficult to see it on an individual level. However this is the service industry in science and are thus in danger of losing the high end jobs and also face cheap competition from other countries....

 

[beorhthelm]

This nothing more than an unproven theory though.

it not unproven though is it, the treasury expected a certain amount and they didnt get it by a couple of billion. its overplayed prehaps, but its known people and companies move domicile for tax reasons, sometimes they come here, sometimes they leave. there certainly are alot of other reasons to be taken into account, but we cant pretend tax reasons is a myth.

 

[hart's shirt]

Firstly 'settled abroad' would imply they moved there permanently. That's not always the case - many are on a contract and are living alongside other Brits in compounds - or at least in close proximity to others. It's not just Davidson that would enjoy a tax-free or lower tax lifestyle if they could - and the cost of living is normally lower too.

There is a stronger sense of community - they really are 'all in this together'. They may have a go at politicians and political movements but I've never heard any of them having a bad word about The Queen. Most still have strong links to the UK - they call and write very often and invariably have the BBC World Service on TV or radio tuned in at home. If there is a substantial community there is usually an Anglican Church - and sometimes a British School. They arrange events based around UK events (National days, Queen's B'day, sports events) and everyone turns up - the church is also well used most weeks. With all this there is generally an enhanced sense of patriotism and national pride and it rubs off on even the most hard to convince new arrivals.

I've found this is certainly true to some extent in Dubai. There's a number of decent British Curriculum schools, several compounds or areas where more expats reside, around 4-5 churches of different denominations, the British Business Group is very active and organises events with the British Embassy around St George's Day and other Patron Saints, Christmas, Easter, Bonfire Night, etc.

It's not quite the same as being back in Britain, but it's the next best thing.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

it not unproven though is it, the treasury expected a certain amount and they didnt get it by a couple of billion. its overplayed prehaps, but its known people and companies move domicile for tax reasons, sometimes they come here, sometimes they leave. there certainly are alot of other reasons to be taken into account, but we cant pretend tax reasons is a myth.

I appreciate its not a total myth, but it is vastly over-played. There is no hard evidence to suggest the lower than expected tax receipts were due to people simply upper sticks and moving abroad. Can you give me any figures for the reasons why tax receipts were lower? If not it is just theory. Given the 50p rate came in 2010 and the economy has been steadily declining since then I imagine this is a major factor.

 

[BUTTERBALL]

I saw Davidson at the Dome in the early 90's. He was hilarious.

Times have changed and he has lost touch with the modern world. Fair enough though if he wants to support his football team.

 

[Jim D]

Where is this particular ex-pat community you are describing?

I was in Zambia, Brazil and Abu Dhabi and in all these locations the pattern was quite similar.

 

[beorhthelm]

...Can you give me any figures for the reasons why tax receipts were lower?

the ONS do have the numbers for such things if you wish to trawl through it (which i assume like me you dont), and economist report and analyse widely.