Footballers don't necessarily work harder if they're paid more. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Transfer Deadline Day blows apart scare stories of Labour's plan to reinstate 50p tax rate

How footballers behave on Transfer Deadline Day suggests that raising the top tax rate isn't that dangerous.

Today sees a biannual event in which tens of thousands of people in our country glue themselves to their television and computer screens in a mass monitoring of a rare and globally mobile species. No I am not describing Autumnwatch with Bill Oddie. I am of course talking about Transfer Deadline Day, and the movements of many millionaire footballers across the globe.

The event twice a year when we can all watch members of the 1 per cent truly respond to national tax rates. For example, just monitor the movements today of Radamel Falcao; will he leave the tax haven of Monaco to come to England or Spain? The latter has a new 52 per cent tax rate.

Yet this more tracksuited version of what takes place daily in the financial sector also provides the first opportunity to test whether Labour’s plans to reinstate the 50p tax rate is having the apocalyptic effect that the Tories like to claim. How many of these starlets who are signing in and around the country will refuse to sign up for anything beyond six months for fear of the “war on the better off”, as the Telegraph’s Allister Heath describes a 5 per cent increase in taxation?

One of the big debates over the 50p rate is around the behavioural response it is claimed it creates. Of course there will be those who do choose a country by the lowest marginal tax rate, whether it is 45 per cent or 25 per cent. But the government argues that the behavioural response of such high-paid people coming to our country, and those already working here, would be huge. However, this argument relies on few facts and instead anecdotal evidence – a bit like rumours on Transfer Deadline Day.

Nevertheless, it does not stop there. As according to George Osborne’s logic since April 2012, players such as Wayne Rooney have been playing better, and working harder for their clubs. In fact, we should probably be thanking George Osborne (a Chelsea fan) for the excellent performance of the England team in the World Cup…

This is because the other plank of rightwingers' use of the behavioural argument by which Osborne axed the 50p rate is rarely disputed: that the rich work harder when taxed less. And to be fair, Rooney and other footballers earning over £1,000,000 a year (if we assume they declare this as income) may have indeed been training harder. But would it be because such a millionaire footballer has had an additional £700 a week more added to their current minimum of £20,000 a week?

Don’t get me wrong, £700 is a lot of money to me and most people. But to put it in perspective, that is the equivalent of the median earner who receives £517 a week (£26,800 a year) getting around an extra 18 quid a week more. Again not to be sniffed at, but not even enough for a Wayne Rooney hair appointment.

But would an £18 a week pay rise (or an increase in your wage by a 1/28) considerably raise the work rate of most people? I would hazard a guess that it probably would not in general. For example, would you work longer hours, such as an extra three hours a week, for a marginal pay rise of say £18, or would you be happy to get away at lunchtime on a Friday even if that meant you’d lose £18?

This is of course a relative question, given that those on middle and low incomes are more effected by other taxes such as VAT, than the average Premiership footballer. But surveys have shown that most people would rather work fewer hours even if this led to marginally lower pay. Shouldn’t we assume therefore that top millionaires are no different? Especially when you consider the proportions in pay they are dealing with.

So even if you are not interested in football nor footballers, you should still pay attention to this Transfer Deadline Day, and the whereabouts of Falcao, as it’ll be a prelude to one of the biggest arguments on taxation at the general election.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.