Adele Tax Battle

[AgnesIO]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2011/may/25/adele-tax-grievances

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Users/Help/screenshots/2011/5/2/1304344913909/Adele-007.jpg


Tax needn't be taxing, the advert simpers, and while that might be true, coughing up your hard-earned will never be anything less than grievously unpleasant. Yet hearing Adele complain about being taxed on the great tidal wave of cash generated by her multi-million selling albums, it's hard to feel much sympathy.

Speaking to Q magazine, the Rolling in the Deep singer said, "I'm mortified to have to pay 50%! [While] I use the NHS, I can't use public transport any more. Trains are always late, most state schools are ****, and I've gotta give you, like, four million quid – are you having a laugh? When I got my tax bill in from [the album] 19, I was ready to go and buy a gun and randomly open fire."

Now, I love Adele. But that doesn't exactly endear you to her, does it? Let's look at it again.

"I'm mortified to have to pay 50%!" The Beatles had to pay 95% - as did all the highest earners under two successive governments (Wilson and Heath) in the mid-60s. George Harrison wrote a song about it, can't remember what it's called, sorry.

"I use the NHS." Keep paying your taxes then or it'll be gone.

"I can't use public transport any more." The rest of us plebs still have to. Adele, however, will never be short of the sponds for a private car to Shoreditch House from now until the end of time.

"Trains are always late." What does that matter when you don't use them? And they're not anyway.

"Most state schools are ****." Actually, according to the most recent Ofsted report for the UK, "Just over two thirds of schools at their most recent inspection were providing a good or better education for their pupils. Pupils' behaviour was good or outstanding in 86% of schools." Of course, if rich people stop paying their taxes then they will become ****.

"When I got my tax bill in, I was ready to go and buy a gun and randomly open fire." Now, you have to assume this was a joke rather than the first bitter taste of a full-blown psychotic episode, but it's still upsetting to hear this musician I admire seems as greedy as the most moat-friendly, port-stained Tory grandee.

That's ok Adele, I feel your pain. 50% tax. Still, I am sure you won't be too hurt with the £4m you kept.

[Triz]

This guys comment hit it bang on:


Tell you what, Adele, if you fancy swapping paying 50% on your eight million quid for paying a measly 20% on twenty thousand, just let me know and I'll happily switch places with you.

Few things bother me more than the excessively rich moaning about how much tax they pay.

[GommeInc]

It seems fair, she's not exactly in the poor house with £4m :/ It'll be unfair if she was only earning £50k and had to live with £25k, but with £4m you're pretty safe :P

Besides, the police, fire services and the NHS need to look after her more than others, being a star and all AND her concerts put people at risk with one another including herself.

[Jssy]

Bit greedy.

[ifuseekamy]

Oh dear, maybe she'll spend some of her millions left on a new PR team.

[Inseriousity.]

The author of that article just sounds bitter tbh. From what I've seen of her, Adele is very down-to-earth. Maybe her opinions aren't backed up by the evidence but most people in general tend to have opinions without any evidence as they go from what they've seen. "Kids these days" refering to the yobs on the street that they see everyday even though there are hundreds of thousands more not doing it, for example.

[dbgtz]

It is ridiculous yet necessary at the same time. I can understand her complaint, as she still earned it all, but it's not a complaint she should make public as it does make her look like a right ass considering a lot of people will be lucky to get that in their life time.

[Jordy]

Meh it's her duty to pay taxes, just because you don't use services doesn't mean you don't have to pay for them. As a British citizen she has to pay taxes and quite frankly I don't think she'd be a successful music artist if she hadn't grown up in Britain with such a booming music industry and so much opportunity. In the music industry if you're not British or American, you're most probably not going anywhere and she'd just be another useless fat ginger, perhaps she should be more grateful of that.

And if she really feels strongly about how her tax is wasted, maybe she should get involved in politics or **** off elsewhere.

[AgnesIO]

It is ridiculous yet necessary at the same time. I can understand her complaint, as she still earned it all, but it's not a complaint she should make public as it does make her look like a right ass considering a lot of people will be lucky to get that in their life time.

Also, she should remember hundreds of thousands of fans shell out hard earned cash to pay for her music - she should be grateful - especially when the British are not exactly in superb financial times atm

[-:Undertaker:-]

I agree with Adele, taxes are too high in this country and the services we get in return are often not wanted or badly run. In which case, I think its time to introduce a 'opt out' out of government services (meaning you are not able to have access to welfare, the NHS, state schools and so on) where you just pay a rate of 10% tax towards the government and nothing more. Ron Paul floated the idea in the United States and its a very good idea I think, although it won't sit well with socialists who will no doubt jump on me for daring to criticise their big, bloated and expensive state.

The Guardian should start paying its taxes before it criticises anyone; http://order-order.com/tag/polly-toynbee/


Also, she should remember hundreds of thousands of fans shell out hard earned cash to pay for her music - she should be grateful - especially when the British are not exactly in superb financial times atm

Rephrase, 'She [Adele] earned her money therefore I demand she hands a large sum of it over to the state which hasn't earned a penny!'


"Most state schools are ****." Actually, according to the most recent Ofsted report for the UK, "Just over two thirds of schools at their most recent inspection were providing a good or better education for their pupils. Pupils' behaviour was good or outstanding in 86% of schools." Of course, if rich people stop paying their taxes then they will become ****.

Lol yeah, so thats why the politicians all send their children to private/grammar schools!!

[Jordy]

I agree with Adele, taxes are too high in this country and the services we get in return are often not wanted or badly run. In which case, I think its time to introduce a 'opt out' out of government services (meaning you are not able to have access to welfare, the NHS, state schools and so on) where you just pay a rate of 10% tax towards the government and nothing more. Ron Paul floated the idea in the United States and its a very good idea I think, although it won't sit well with socialists who will no doubt jump on me for daring to criticise their big, bloated and expensive state.Best of luck raising any significant tax revenue if you take all the rich out the tax system. Completely ridiculous idea, no wonder it's never been implemented anywhere but a crazy tax haven.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Best of luck raising any significant tax revenue if you take all the rich out the tax system. Completely ridiculous idea, no wonder it's never been implemented anywhere but a crazy tax haven.

The welfare state and so on depends upon the taxation of the poorest/those at the bottom along with business, otherwise we wouldn't be able to afford it simply by taxing the few rich people (see the 1970s). I know as a Conservative supporter you find the idea of low taxes beyond the pale, but I happen to think Adele and others should have the choice of how to spend their money as they wish - afterall they know better than me on how to spend their own money as opposed to George Osborne and local councils.

I would certainly like to opt out of council services (diversity lessons, equality busybodies, once a fortnight bin services, no street cleaning, parks sold off to pay for ridiculous building schemes elsewhere by the council) along with opting out of the state school system and so forth. Mr Cameron after all agrees with me on the schools, hence why he and his fellow politicians snub state schools for private/grammar-schools-in-all-but-name; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510193/David-Cameron-snubs-15-local-schools-send-daughter-exclusive-Church-England-primary.html

You [the state] leave me alone and I leave you alone.

[Jordy]

The welfare state and so on depends upon the taxation of the poorest/those at the bottom along with business, otherwise we wouldn't be able to afford it simply by taxing rich people (see the 1970s). I know as a Conservative supporter you find the idea of low taxes irrational and stupid, but I happen to think Adele and others should have the choice of how to spend their money as they wish - afterall they know better than me on how to spend their own money.

I would certainly like to opt out of council services (diversity lessons, equality busybodies, once a fortnight bin services, no street cleaning, parks sold off to pay for ridiculous building schemes elsewhere by the council) along with opting out of the state school system and so forth. Mr Cameron after all agrees with me on the schools, hence why he and his fellow politicians snub state schools for private/grammar-schools-in-all-but-name; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510193/David-Cameron-snubs-15-local-schools-send-daughter-exclusive-Church-England-primary.html

You [the state] leave me alone and I leave you alone.The only people who shouldn't be taxed are the very bottom most earners seeing as the money just goes round in cycles whilst some is lost as red tape. Imagine how horrendously complicated a system like yours would be? It would cost an absolute fortune to implement, bureaucratic nightmare seeing who's entitled to what. You elect a government who decides your taxes and how they're spent, that's how virtually every government has worked for centuries, only paying for the services you require would only work in some sort of utopia.

Whilst I know it comes across as hypocritical for politicians to do that, the fact is a lot of them are millionaires and can therefore afford the best possible education for their child. They can afford to throw tens of thousands of pounds per year at their children's education, obviously the government cannot compete with this so private schools will always be better seeing as they can afford far better resources and teachers. Even in an improved state education system, private education will almost always be better. That's not to say it shouldn't aspire to be as good as private education but maybe if people want the very best education for their children they should go out, earn the money and pay for the education.

Of course as a conservative I'm not for ridiculous taxes on the rich as seen in the 70s. They should be taxed a similar proportion to everybody else (20-30%), under a much simpler tax system this would be easier to implement. There is no simple way to pick and choose taxes and services and quite frankly a lot of the rich people in this country have the opportunities in this country to thank for being so successful. It's a ridiculous idea to suggest people could go through the education system of this country, use the health-service, start a very successful business thanks to help from the government and suddenly stop paying taxes because they're rich!

Talk of this at the moment really isn't appropriate either, as you regularly you point out yourself we have an enormous deficit and debt. Even if we were to follow through with UKIP plans etc of leaving the EU, much more significant cuts to departments than the coalition is still doing and promotion of businesses, we still wouldn't get out this mess easily so taxing the rich at 10% is completely unthinkable and quite out of touch.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The only people who shouldn't be taxed are the very bottom most earners seeing as the money just goes round in cycles whilst some is lost as red tape. Imagine how horrendously complicated a system like yours would be? It would cost an absolute fortune to implement, bureaucratic nightmare seeing who's entitled to what. You elect a government who decides your taxes and how they're spent, that's how virtually every government has worked for centuries, only paying for the services you require would only work in some sort of utopia.

It wouldn't be confusing at all, as they would simply opt-out and pay a 10% tax rate. Now sure, there would be some degree of red tape but that would outweigh the fact that those who previously worked to administer these services in such large numbers would be struck from government departments.

The difference between government then and now (although to a degree then in some cases) is that government is rapidly out of control now, some people expect government to do things which many others simply do not agree with - therefore, why should those who do not want the service be forced to pay for the service? government should be accountable like private business, if I do not feel your services are upto a standard then let me simply take my money elsewhere.

Obviously there needs to be some basic revenue to pay for the basics of government, hence the optional 10%.


Whilst I know it comes across as hypocritical for politicians to do that, the fact is a lot of them are millionaires and can therefore afford the best possible education for their child. They can afford to throw tens of thousands of pounds per year at their children's education, obviously the government cannot compete with this so private schools will always be better seeing as they can afford far better resources and teachers. Even in an improved state education system, private education will almost always be better. That's not to say it shouldn't aspire to be as good as private education but maybe if people want the very best education for their children they should go out, earn the money and pay for the education.

Indeed, so why will Mr Cameron not bring back the grammar schools which propelled the poorest to the top despite being state funded and state controlled. If they are so opposed to grammars, then they should send their children to comprehensives which the rest of the population are forced to attend - despite comprehensives being badly run and beign vastly inferior to private schools which the grammar schools used to match in terms of quality.

This is another the area of conservatism the Conservatives have collapsed upon, but don't apply the principle to themselves when they send their children to grammar/private-schools-in-all-but-name such as Mr Cameron.


Of course as a conservative I'm not for ridiculous taxes on the rich as seen in the 70s. They should be taxed a similar proportion to everybody else (20-30%), under a much simpler tax system this would be easier to implement. There is no simple way to pick and choose taxes and services and quite frankly a lot of the rich people in this country have the opportunities in this country to thank for being so successful.

But the Conservative Party won't offer you this.


It's a ridiculous idea to suggest people could go through the education system of this country, use the health-service, start a very successful business thanks to help from the government and suddenly stop paying taxes because they're rich!

They would not go through the state system if their parents opted out therefore wouldn't be 'in debt' to the state. The 10% tax idea with opt out is simply a way to manage withdrawal from the state, it would result in a state which would shrink year on year as more people take back what is rightly theres and exercise their own personal liberty in terms of what services they use - something I find highly desirable compared to the growth of the state this government is committed to.


Talk of this at the moment really isn't appropriate either, as you regularly you point out yourself we have an enormous deficit and debt.

The way to get out of this is via cutting and shrinking the state along with growth, if growth is not there then it simply will not work. If you put money back into the pockets of the people, private enterprise flourishes and thus tax revenues actually increase after the intial shock of depleted government funds - a lesson we learnt in the 1980s.


Even if we were to follow through with UKIP plans etc of leaving the EU, much more significant cuts to departments than the coalition is still doing and promotion of businesses, we still wouldn't get out this mess easily so taxing the rich at 10% is completely unthinkable and quite out of touch.

The coalition isn't cutting government as government expenditure is increasing, please stop kidding yourself otherwise. But as for UKIP, even if UKIP or any party for that matter cut government spending dramatically and did not lower taxation - then they would simply fail. The two go hand in hand, one needs the other otherwise it simply will not work and you end up with millions upon millions unemployed and still on the teet of the state.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd9W1dqXAlI

As Paul states also, managed withdrawal - questions you raise all answered.

[AgnesIO]

I agree with Adele, taxes are too high in this country and the services we get in return are often not wanted or badly run. In which case, I think its time to introduce a 'opt out' out of government services (meaning you are not able to have access to welfare, the NHS, state schools and so on) where you just pay a rate of 10% tax towards the government and nothing more. Ron Paul floated the idea in the United States and its a very good idea I think, although it won't sit well with socialists who will no doubt jump on me for daring to criticise their big, bloated and expensive state.

The Guardian should start paying its taxes before it criticises anyone; http://order-order.com/tag/polly-toynbee/



Rephrase, 'She [Adele] earned her money therefore I demand she hands a large sum of it over to the state which hasn't earned a penny!'



Lol yeah, so thats why the politicians all send their children to private/grammar schools!!

Do you realise money needs to be spent and earned somehow by the government? I don't think you should tax the rich too high - or obviously they just all go to a different country like last time. BUT if you don't tax the rich more than the poor, who ends up getting higher taxes? That's right the poor. And I am sure that is exactly what you are after?

[alexxxxx]

I agree with Adele, taxes are too high in this country and the services we get in return are often not wanted or badly run. In which case, I think its time to introduce a 'opt out' out of government services (meaning you are not able to have access to welfare, the NHS, state schools and so on) where you just pay a rate of 10% tax towards the government and nothing more. Ron Paul floated the idea in the United States and its a very good idea I think, although it won't sit well with socialists who will no doubt jump on me for daring to criticise their big, bloated and expensive state.

That is probably the most stupid fiscal policy i've ever heard of.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I would advise a watch of the video in which an audience asks these questions, but anyway onto the replies.


Do you realise money needs to be spent and earned somehow by the government? I don't think you should tax the rich too high - or obviously they just all go to a different country like last time. BUT if you don't tax the rich more than the poor, who ends up getting higher taxes? That's right the poor. And I am sure that is exactly what you are after?

Wrong actually, the rich are only a tiny portion of tax income - the size of our state means that everyone, the poorest need to be taxed in terms of high levels. Had you have read what I put earlier, you would not simply be repeating what has already been said.

So actually i'm not after the poor being taxed more whereas you are - because you continue to believe in a large bloated state. If the poor and the rich alike have the option of keeping all of their income (apart from the 10% to be spent on basic services) then both groups would be able to spend their money more efficently than government can do so - its all about choice and liberty, I want the poorest and the richest to keep as much of their earned income as possible - not have it taken away from them, especially as it is with the poorest, to fund a state which spends money on things that most people would not want their money spent on had they any control over it.

Therefore give them control of it.


That is probably the most stupid fiscal policy i've ever heard of.

Whats stupid about it? i'll tell you what is a stupid fiscal policy; increasing spending by 50% over the course of a decade whilst increasing regulations on private business (which picks up most of the tab) to the point that thet cannot cope with it coupled with high taxation - all to fund a state that is bloated, does more than it should and is inefficent. At the same time as of having a debt of in the trillions to support a large welfare state, we spend billions on foreign aid, the European Union (which creates those pointless regulations I mentioned earlier) and then the government does the worst thing possible - not only does it continue to increase spending, in order to do this it then increases taxation.

Now would you like to tell me what is so 'stupid' about managed withdrawal from a bloated state? its much better than simply cutting back instantly and leaving people on their own after the state they've grew so dependent on is cut away - simply manage withdrawal from dependence on it.

..or would you rather we continue down the path to going bankrupt as we are now? ah yes, you would.

[AgnesIO]

Wrong actually, the rich are only a tiny portion of tax income - the size of our state means that everyone, the poorest need to be taxed in terms of high levels. Had you have read what I put earlier, you would not simply be repeating what has already been said.

So actually i'm not after the poor being taxed more whereas you are - because you continue to believe in a large bloated state. If the poor and the rich alike have the option of keeping all of their income (apart from the 10% to be spent on basic services) then both groups would be able to spend their money more efficently than government can do so - its all about choice and liberty, I want the poorest and the richest to keep as much of their earned income as possible - not have it taken away from them, especially as it is with the poorest, to fund a state which spends money on things that most people would not want their money spent on had they any control over it.

Therefore give them control of it.



Whats stupid about it? i'll tell you what is a stupid fiscal policy; increasing spending by 50% over the course of a decade whilst increasing regulations on private business (which picks up most of the tab) to the point that thet cannot cope with it coupled with high taxation - all to fund a state that is bloated, does more than it should and is inefficent. At the same time as of having a debt of in the trillions to support a large welfare state, we spend billions on foreign aid, the European Union (which creates those pointless regulations I mentioned earlier) and then the government does the worst thing possible - not only does it continue to increase spending, in order to do this it then increases taxation.

Now would you like to tell me what is so 'stupid' about managed withdrawal from a bloated state? its much better than simply cutting back instantly and leaving people on their own after the state they've grew so dependent on is cut away - simply manage withdrawal from dependence on it.

..or would you rather we continue down the path to going bankrupt as we are now? ah yes, you would.

Obviously the smaller proportion of tax is made up by the rich, but I reckon the smaller proportion of people in this country are rich too, don't you?

Also the biggest people probably don't pay that much tax - since they don't spend that much time in the country.

[alexxxxx]

Whats stupid about it? i'll tell you what is a stupid fiscal policy; increasing spending by 50% over the course of a decade whilst increasing regulations on private business (which picks up most of the tab) to the point that thet cannot cope with it coupled with high taxation - all to fund a state that is bloated, does more than it should and is inefficent. At the same time as of having a debt of in the trillions to support a large welfare state, we spend billions on foreign aid, the European Union (which creates those pointless regulations I mentioned earlier) and then the government does the worst thing possible - not only does it continue to increase spending, in order to do this it then increases taxation.

Now would you like to tell me what is so 'stupid' about managed withdrawal from a bloated state? its much better than simply cutting back instantly and leaving people on their own after the state they've grew so dependent on is cut away - simply manage withdrawal from dependence on it.

..or would you rather we continue down the path to going bankrupt as we are now? ah yes, you would.

My family would be in a position to pay 10% tax and pay for everything even though we aren't amazing well-off and i think it's a bad idea. It's no secret that rich people pay far more into the system than they get out. This would just cause a massive imbalance in the public sector where government run services will no longer be able to afford to run. If everyone just paid 10% of their income to fund certain programs such as defense I don't understand how people on even modest incomes would be able to afford to live. The government spend £5k per pupil in schools and around 8k per pupil in 6th forms! How on earth could someone afford that, nor would people be able to shell out £5k+ (complete guess here) on health insurance. The libertarians are mad and don't live in the real world. They think they live in a ruined utopia where if they just removed a few things everything would sort out. This would be true if economics was a science which they seem to treat it as, but it isn't - it's behavior analysis.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My family would be in a position to pay 10% tax and pay for everything even though we aren't amazing well-off and i think it's a bad idea. It's no secret that rich people pay far more into the system than they get out. This would just cause a massive imbalance in the public sector where government run services will no longer be able to afford to run.

Good, this would mean the end of quangos and waste - the money the government still recieved would then have to be spent solely on the basics and those who still chose to pay into the system such as yourself since you think you get a good deal. Those of us on the other hand who think we get a very bad deal from an inefficent state for our money wouldn't then have to pay as much in as we'd be withdrawn from it, thus leaving government free to withdraw our services (of which we do not want).


If everyone just paid 10% of their income to fund certain programs such as defense I don't understand how people on even modest incomes would be able to afford to live. The government spend £5k per pupil in schools and around 8k per pupil in 6th forms! How on earth could someone afford that, nor would people be able to shell out £5k+ (complete guess here) on health insurance.

Because most schools would end up converting to private and so forth as people opt out and choose private, so the number of schools we now have would dwindle down to match the costs - as those not paying towards the state wouldn't recieve from the state. It is similar to cutting out a random cross section of 20 million people, there would be less money yes - but no service needed for those 20 million people, hence why it would work.

You yourself may want to send your children to state schools, but Adele, myself and even the comprehensive-state school supporting politicians do not want our children to go to state schools because we know they are poor and the turnback for the money put into the system is simply dreadful.


The libertarians are mad and don't live in the real world. They think they live in a ruined utopia where if they just removed a few things everything would sort out. This would be true if economics was a science which they seem to treat it as, but it isn't - it's behavior analysis.

Indeed its true we do live in a ruined utopia, regarding economic sciences its back to broad Hayek [the free market] vs Keynes [socialism/corporatism] - I know which one I would choose and which one you would choose. The utopia socialists have tried to build has failed, education is poor, public services are poor for the money we put in, government continues to waste on quangos, councils perform functions way out of their remit while they abandon the basics (keeping parks maintained, bin collections) and the list goes on and on. The way you [the left] think is that 'public services need improving despite the high taxes we already have, so lets throw more money at them' - it simply does not work and is not working.

I want to opt out of your utopia, you think i'm missing out whereas I do not, but let me have the choice of what to do with my own money.