Fascinating number

Labour says that of the 400 people earning £10m, only 16% pay any tax at all.

But where in buggery does it come from?

I can imagine that non-residents don\’t pay any UK income tax, I can imagine that some of them have exclusively capital gains and thus pay CGT not income tax, even that companies are in the middle and so corporation tax is paid not income tax, but the idea that someone can be resident in the UK, have £10 million of income arriving in their own bank account and then not pay any tax at all is a bit of a stretch.

So, anyone know where that number comes from?

5 comments on “Fascinating number

  1. It’s such a ridiculous claim that it wasn’t even worth asking Polly where the figure came from and she didn’t link to a source.

    I have seen similar claims whereby half of top ten billionaires don’t pay any tax and I’ve just assumed this means Laksmi Mittal and Roman Abramovitch don’t pay tax here.

    But that only 64 of 400 £10m earners pay tax is just obviously incorrect.

    But it does highlight the prejudice of Polly and the Guardian that the rich pay practically no tax at all.

    And how do they do this ? Purely by “paying for a good accountant”. It’s that easy.

  2. Polly has hacked my bank account!!! How else would she know, with such precision, my financial status: that of a pensioner licking 30 years of wounds inflicted by green eyed socialists on my savings?

  3. @PaulB

    Your link shows that 65 people declared income of £10m back in boom times of 2005/06 but that there there were many people who had such large assets they “should” have generated incomes of £10m from their assets.

    There’s this odd confusion that because one is wealthy one has a large income. Everyone from Joan Bakewell (£4m house but only BBC pension and minimal savings to live off) to Scottish landed toffs (40 bed Georgian house in trust and 20,000 barely productive acres) would say that assets don’t equate to income.

    Fair enough if you want to tax earned/unearned/purely inflation generated wealth but make that argument.

    But by assuming significant wealth necessarily equates to large income just shows an ignorance of how wealth is earned, maintained and passed on.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.