Rich people are not over-taxed - they just have all the money

The tax burden on high-earning individuals has gone up not because politicians have been taking them for all that they’ve got, but because they’re the ones earning all the money in the first place.

I think I've identified a new logical fallacy. It's quite a specific fallacy, admittedly, so best I can tell no one’s bothered to give it a name – but it's popping up with infuriating frequency nonetheless.

You can spot this fallacy in action whenever the thorny topic of rich people and their taxes rears its head. This piece of obvious trolling, for example, comes from the beloved mayor of London who is, as ever, concerned for the welfare of the forgotten and disenfranchised:

The top 1% of earners now pay 29.8% of all the income tax and National Insurance received by the Treasury. In 1979 – when Labour had a top marginal rate of 83% tax after Denis Healey had earlier vowed to squeeze the rich until the pips squeaked – the top 1% paid only 11% of income tax. Now, the top 0.1% – about 29,000 people – pay an amazing 14.1% of all taxes.

In other words, even though tax rates have fallen, the tax burden borne by the rich has grown. Ergo, we should stop being so beastly to the poor lambs.

Can you spot the hole in the logic there? I don't think it's particularly subtle, but it seems to have evaded Boris "he was an Eton scholar, you know" Johnson.

Tell you what, here's another example of Elledge's Fallacy at work. (Hmmm. The name needs some work.) This time it's from the Mail's This Is Money website, and dates from February 2012, but the quote concerns a similar set of numbers to those outlined by Boris:

Michael Spencer, chief executive of the City broker Icap and former treasurer of the Conservative party, said: “The debate about tax in this country has sadly become more and more about politics and less and less about what is good for the economy and for growth. All we hear about is ‘the rich must pay more; soak the rich’. Well the facts are clear; the rich are paying much more."

Actually, the facts are not clear. The facts are very, very unclear.

That’s because there are two numbers that could explain the rise in the share of income tax paid by the ultra-rich. One is the tax rate they pay; the other is their taxable income. Their share of the tax burden has gone up not because those latter day sans-culottes Gordon Brown or George Osborne have been taking them for all that they’ve got, but because they’re the ones earning all the money in the first place.

All those figures quoted by Johnson and Spencer show is that inequality has gone through the roof. According to the Resolution Foundation, the share of national income going to the top 1 per cent of earners has, over the last 30 years, risen by a half (from 2 per cent in the late 1970s to around 3.1 per cent in 2010). Over the same time period, the share going to the bottom 50 per cent shrank by a quarter, from 16 per cent down to 12 per cent. Include bonus payments, which are mostly earned by those at the top, and the share of income going to the bottom half of the UK workforce stood at just 10 per cent.

Let me say that again: half of British workers, put together, take home just one pound in every ten earned in Britain.

Now there are all sorts of reasons for this (lower top tax rates, the rise of the City, globalisation, spiraling executive pay). Some of these are down to government action; some of them aren’t.

But the ultimate result is the same. Britain could have been paying flat taxes for the last 30 years, and the share of tax paid by the rich would still appear to have soared. That's because – I can't believe it's even necessary to spell this out, but there it is – they're the ones with all the money.

The upshot of all this is that figures showing the total share of income tax paid by the rich tell us nothing about whether they’re over-taxed or not. There may be good reasons to lower taxes on the rich – to stop the City decamping en masse to Zurich, say, or to prop up Britain's all-important luxury yacht business. (I doubt it, but what do I know.) But there is nothing in the figures quoted by Boris and his ilk to back up this point.

All those figures tell us is that the biggest earners are taking home the biggest chunk of the money. That, oddly enough, we already knew.

 

The City of London. Photo: Getty

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. He is on Twitter, almost continously, as @JonnElledge.

Getty
Show Hide image

The most terrifying thing about Donald Trump's speech? What he didn't say

No politician uses official speeches to put across their most controversial ideas. But Donald Trump's are not hard to find. 

As Donald Trump took the podium on a cold Washington day to deliver his inauguration speech, the world held its breath. Viewers hunched over televisions or internet streaming services watched Trump mouth “thank you” to the camera, no doubt wondering how he could possibly live up to his deranged late-night Twitter persona. In newsrooms across America, reporters unsure when they might next get access to a president who seems to delight in denying them the right to ask questions got ready to parse his words for any clue as to what was to come. Some, deciding they couldn’t bear to watch, studiously busied themselves with other things.

But when the moment came, Trump’s speech was uncharacteristically professional – at least compared to his previous performances. The fractured, repetitive grammar that marks many of his off-the-cuff statements was missing, and so, too, were most of his most controversial policy ideas.

Trump told the crowd that his presidency would “determine the course of America, and the world, for many, many years to come” before expressing his gratefulness to President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama for their “gracious aid” during the transition. “They have been magnificent," Trump said, before leading applause of thanks from the crowd.

If this opening was innocent enough, however, it all changed in the next breath. The new president moved quickly to the “historic movement”, “the likes of which the world has never seen before”, that elected him President. Following the small-state rhetoric of his campaign, Trump promised to take power from the “establishment” and restore it to the American people. “This moment," he told them, “Is your moment. It belongs to you.”

A good deal of the speech was given over to re-iterating his nationalist positions while also making repeated references to the key issues – “Islamic terrorism” and families – that remain points of commonality within the fractured Republican GOP.

The loss of business to overseas producers was blamed for “destroying our jobs”. “Protection," Trump said, “Will lead to great strength." He promised to end what he called the “American carnage” caused by drugs and crime.

“From this day forward," Trump said, “It’s going to be only America first."

There was plenty in the speech, then, that should worry viewers, particularly if you read Trump’s promises to make America “unstoppable” so it can “win” again in light of his recent tweets about China

But it was the things Trump didn't mention that should worry us most. Trump, we know, doesn’t use official channels to communicate his most troubling ideas. From bizarre television interviews to his upsetting and offensive rallies and, of course, the infamous tweets, the new President is inclined to fling his thoughts into the world as and when he sees fit, not on the occasions when he’s required to address the nation (see, also, his anodyne acceptance speech).

It’s important to remember that Trump’s administration wins when it makes itself seem as innocent as possible. During the speech, I was reminded of my colleague Helen Lewis’ recent thoughts on the “gaslighter-in-chief”, reflecting on Trump’s lying claim that he never mocked a disabled reporter. “Now we can see," she wrote, “A false narrative being built in real time, tweet by tweet."

Saying things that are untrue isn’t the only way of lying – it is also possible to lie by omission.

There has been much discussion as to whether Trump will soften after he becomes president. All the things this speech did not mention were designed to keep us guessing about many of the President’s most controversial promises.

Trump did not mention his proposed ban on Muslims entering the US, nor the wall he insists he will erect between America and Mexico (which he maintains the latter will pay for). He maintained a polite coolness towards the former President and avoiding any discussion of alleged cuts to anti-domestic violence programs and abortion regulations. Why? Trump wanted to leave viewers unsure as to whether he actually intends to carry through on his election rhetoric.

To understand what Trump is capable of, therefore, it is best not to look to his speeches on a global stage, but to the promises he makes to his allies. So when the President’s personal website still insists he will build a wall, end catch-and-release, suspend immigration from “terror-prone regions” “where adequate screening cannot occur”; when, despite saying he understands only 3 per cent of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortion and that “millions” of women are helped by their cancer screening, he plans to defund Planned Parenthood; when the president says he will remove gun-free zones around schools “on his first day” - believe him.  

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland