If you could start from scratch, what philosophical principles would you want to underpin our taxation system?

Soontobe I certainly wasn't intending to suggest entrepreneurs and bankers didn't have brains! But I think his definition of the people who might leave is rather narrow - high earners. We need research scientists, engineers, musicians, medical researchers, designers, academics in every area and they often seem to leave for better facilities and better opportunities rather than for a better salary. And I don't think it was patriotism that for example, made Titus Salt build Saltaire or the many benefactors who built hospitals, libraries, endowed schools and colleges put their money into schemes that benefited local people, their workforce. Many of them gave to or created charities abroad as well. But many of our civic universities were started by local businessmen and those businessmen are no longer local in their interests.

Research scientists move for better salaries. So do academics. I wouldnt know about musicians for example.

I do agree that things have become a whole lot more global in nature.
But I do think that pride in England would help in lots of ways. Ironically, it seem to me that it is now immigrants who have the most pride in England. And good for them.

A flat rate of income tax would seem to be fair but the last time that was tried with council tax it led to riots. I'm afraid my 'philosophy' of taxation would be 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. It may have been used as a socialist slogan but that doesn't make it wrong!

roseq
Not all wealthy people are tax avoiders.
Here's a link to a modern-day philanthropist, in the interests of fairness.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Caudwell
Look at 'current projects' and scroll down to 'charity and philanthropy'

"In 1999, Caudwell was appointed as the President of the North Staffordshire branch of the NSPCC, and became the regional representative for the Full Stop campaign. Of the appointment, he says: "I was initially approached by the NSPCC to sponsor a cricket match. As is my way I got stuck in, took the whole thing over and was determined to raise as much money as I could." He was inspired to help children because of this experience: "I went to one of the NSPCC's centres and met some of the children who had been victims of cruelty and sexual abuse and it really opened my heart to helping children."[8]

Building on his previous philanthropic work for children, Caudwell founded the charity Caudwell Children in 2000 to help improve the lives of children in Staffordshire and South Cheshire who are living with disabilities. It became a national charity in 2006, and Caudwell is currently the chairman of the board of Trustees.[9] Of the charity, he said: "I wanted to make sure that every penny that was raised would be put to the best use and spent on the children that needed it. My family puts about £2 million a year towards Caudwell Children. In addition I put in a lot of my time and I do a lot of networking. [But] the truth is my fortune isn't enough to help all the children that need help."[10]

I saw him on a TV programme a few months ago and he came across an an ordinary, decent, honest bloke.

From each according to his ability to each according to his need.

I had not heard of that before.
Has it been tried anywhere? Did it work? What would then happen about those who dont enjoy working? Are they counted as having ability?

I am very pleased to see that, janea.
Of course, the good often get much less publicity thsn the greedy and doenright bad.
More's the pity!

I agree roseq, perhaps too many people suffer from the British disease if Not Blowing Your Own Trumpet. Modesty rules.
This isn't just true in business - it applies to professions too.
We hear too much about bad doctors, bad teachers etc and hardly ever about the ones who go the extra mile every day for no extra reward, or who are brilliant in their research field.
Perhaps if we did, more business people would follow John Caudwell's example - the phenomenon of social reinforcement.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs Is generally recognised as the philosophy which underpins the writing/philosophy of Karl Marx and the foundation of Marxism but apparently the phrase actually predates him. It is a wonderful ideal, but I think the way the ideals of Marxism and Communism degenerated into the "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others of "Animal Farm" suggests it doesn't always work when you factor in the weaknesses of human nature.
No harm in working towards an ideal though.

Lillygran, by "his" if you mean me, I was not suggesting that professional people were not ripe for leaving Britain for higher salaries/conditions elsewhere. I was pointing out that these are not the extremely high earners.

The problem is, in deciding who needs help and who makes the decision. Yes, pompa I understood the point you were making. I was trying to say that we can't afford to lose any of these highly skilled people and the ones who go aren't always or solely driven by income.

I did say salaries/conditions.

Pompa. Yes, you did. A new thought; what justification is there for giving people who attract high salaries or have the skill of making money any special consideration? We might consider giving special tax breaks to individuals doing essential jobs - often at the bottom of the heap in wages.

However much money or brains they have, they still only have one vote each.

And bad spellers as in my previous post janea
There for all the www to see!
I was rushing out and trying to type it on the tab (no excuse)

Talking about people who are brilliant in their research field, I did enjoy the two parter 'Code of a Killer' about the pioneering research on DNA profiling by Sir Alec Jeffreys.
An outstandingly brilliant and modest man.

Sorry, a bit of a red herring but in response to janea's post above 12.43.03

The threat that business leaders, especially those in the financial sector, will leave the country if a) they are taxed at a higher rate or b) tax loopholes are closed has been made many times over the years. However, there are few places to go where they will be able to claim proportionately higher salaries and certainly not many in the EU. American entrepreneurs and business leaders do earn vast amounts of money but the US is quite protective of its own and is certainly not going to welcome the "huddled masses" from the London stock exchange.

Agreed, absent. Their bluff should be called. This government hasn't managed to keep Branson in this country. He is now a non-dom.

Far east would welcome them with open arms I suspect.
Very high earning english speaking people seem to be urged to go to other countries.

I have had to google non - doms as dont know a thing about them.
I cant quite see what is wrong about them at first glance.

Non-domiciled for tax purposes means that someone can live all year round in the UK using all the services paid for by taxpayers – e.g. the NHS – but remain exempt from paying taxes. Seems pretty obviously wrong to me.

It means that?
Oh. I shall have to go back and have a reread of what I read. I didnt read it like that at all.

I read this
www.bbc.co.uk/news/32213003

which appears to say something completely different.
I will read it with fresh eyes tomorrow.

GillT57. Having reread my link from the Telegraph, the tax figures are actually from HMRC, so I think my link from 23.08pm on monday is near enough.

I still havent got my head around non doms.
They pay tax on british earnings the bbc link says, which is what everyone else does?

Non Doms pay tax on British earnings, but not on any income derived from overseas while British taxpayers pay tax in the UK on all their earnings no matter where in the world they are generated.

The advantage to a Non Dom of being a Non Dom is that their foreign earnings are probably generated and taxed in countries with a tax regime that means they pay less tax on these earnings than they would in the UK. That is why so many of them are prepared to pay the Non Dom levy of £70,000, or whatever it is, because this is so much less than the tax they save by having all their overseas income filtered through the Cayman islands or Luxembourg or whatever.

Personally I would limit Non Dom status to 5 years and after that they should be taxed as if they are normally resident in the UK. To keep their Non Dom status after 5 years they should have to prove that they live in the UK for less than 6 months of each year.