Mr Chakraborrty strikes out again

And he was doing so well too. He\’s got superstar economics, he\’s understood why someone like Rooney, who might be only 1 or 2% better than other strikers available, gets the really big bucks.

Then he falls over himself.

Ranking, the spread of technology, and the development of a common culture: superstars benefit from all of these and yet have little to do with any of them. There is therefore no reason why film stars, footballers or financiers should hold on to so much of their earnings.

That \”development of a common culture\” is a synonym for \”globalisation\”.

And globalisation means mobility of labour (certainly at the top end it does).

Thus the reason we don\’t/can\’t impose a special top tax rate is that it won\’t earn any money for the Treasury, for those liable to it can bugger off.

Mr. Chakraborrty writes the economics leaders for The Guardian you know.

8 thoughts on “Mr Chakraborrty strikes out again”

  1. I think that “developing a common culture” might well be a fig-leaf for One World Government. One tax regime, one set of laws, one final supreme court, one body deciding who can stand for election and what the rules are.

    Authoritarian Pr0n.

  2. I thought that high earners would work less if tax rates increased. Okay, they’ll all bugger off and get jobs in places with more favourable tax rates, like the Cayman Isles perhaps, or Somalia. We’ll be left rudderless without our appropriately if not moderately paid bankers and CEOs, and the sky will falll on our heads.

    Presumably we had the same problem when we had top marginal rates around 90%, but combined with the relatively high price of plane tickets at the time, the rocket scientists and other high flyers were grounded…?

  3. Why do you think people like Michael Caine and Sean Connery flit the coop, vimothy? Have you never heard of tax exiles? As for the ‘working less’ part, when you have marginal rates in the 90’s you will indeed have people working less and, what is worse, spending time working out how to game the system instead of being productive (there are anecdotal stories of businessmen in the 70’s chatting among themselves as to the best way of squandering capital so as to attract a lower rate.)

  4. I note this time around Michael Caine did not leave to live in America because of the 50% tax rate despite saying he would.

  5. “who might be only 1 or 2% better than other strikers available” … he’s a lot more than 1% better – at his best he is an awsome raging bull of pure footballing talent and spirit. There’s only a handful in the world near as good as him at what he does. He really is quite a lot better than your average premiership striker.

  6. “spending time working out how to game the system instead of being productive”

    The horror, the horror. I’m glad we don’t have high top rates–frankly the situation you describe above sounds horrible, though its thankfully unimaginable under our current regime. Executives trying to game the system instead of being productive, eh? Whatever next! Naughty tax rates.

    Frankly when I look back on the period between 1950 and 1975, what stands out is the massive year on year growth in real per capita output. I mean, I might never see Sean Connery in the Arndale Centre again, but I’m a very altruistic person and I’m ready to make that sacrifice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *