What was the band's/Freddie's least favourite country to visit?

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]luthorn wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]luthorn wrote:[/b]
Since the UK taxed artists at an exuberant rate at the time.[/QUOTE]

That's an incredibly biased remark. I suppose you prefer the American system, where basically the more money you make, the smaller the percentage you pay in taxes?[/QUOTE]

You mean paying a tax rate at over 90% is considered normal? from wikipedia, not a great source but a good start ".In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£176,477 as of 2014)"

That's what the rate was for the richest until Thatcher showed up. In addition, Switzerland had a very low tax rate for the rich, quite negotiable in fact, so paying let's say 2% vs. 90% makes a difference. Off course, there are other reasons why one would live with the Swiss, like the privacy laws and lack of annoying press, but low taxes are low taxes. sorry to break your socialist bubble.

a small and very incomplete list of tax exiles, among others the famous Brits such as Bowie and the Rolling Stones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_exile [/QUOTE]

No, it doesn't work like that at all. You are thinking solely of income tax, not tax on capital and capital gains.

Even if this weren't so, that's not how taxes work. They don't pay 90% tax over their income, they pay 90% over every pound above the top limit of the lower tax scales. So if the rate is, say, 25% up to 50 000, 50% from 50 001 to 100 000 and 75% from 100 001 up, someone who made 200 000 would pay 112 500, or 56.25%.

But hey, feel free to buy into the rightist BS. It fits in with the rest of your behavior on this site.[/QUOTE]


as I said "This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£176,477 as of 2014)" thanks for explaining the marginal tax rate, despite the fact that I already indicated it in the post. So glad that Freddie would fall into the pauper income tax bracket between earnings of 0-1000, but then fork out 90% of money above 20,000. So if he made 500,000, in any given year, he would pay 90% on 480,000 leaving him with 48,000 from the mentioned sum yay yay yay!!!

food for socialist's thought (not that they think of anything but how to line their pockets with other peoples money) http://ultimateclassicrock.com/rock-bands-taxes/

There is a filmed statement from Roger about the british taxes in the late 70`s. I forgot about the whole content but he mentioned somewhat above 90 Percent in some cases.Back then it leads to the newspaper slogan " Labour doesn`t work"...

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

Not that simple, because that only refers to wage income. When you file your return as capital gains, which you can if you have a business of any kind, whether scam or real, the rate drops dramatically. Even Forbes doesn't pretend it's not like that: http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/03/06/as-stock-market-recovered-rich-took-bigger-share-of-nations-income-and-paid-lower-tax-rate/[/QUOTE]


Okay, I actually did not realize that.......

Freddie's least favorite country is Zanzibar.

Rich people employ an army of accountants to hide their money in various companies whose accounts can be manipulated to make it seem they aren't making much profit, They can also transfer money into off-shore accounts in places like the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands to avoid paying British tax. So regardless of actual tax rates (which often favour the rich and powerful anyway), the rich pay less because they have the resources (and friends in Govt) to avoid paying their fair share. I would imagine Queen did this too. Roger's comments refer to a percentage of their income which would have been taxed at a high rate, not ALL their income. Fuck you Roger, pay your fucking taxes! lol