Eric Pickles is our Secretary of State for Community and Local Government and was recently a guest on BBC Radio 4's Any Questions (Friday, 31 January 2014). When the topic of whether the top rate of tax should be raised again to 50p for those earning over £150,000, he cited the example of French immigration to London in order, in his view, to avoid a 75% top rate of tax being introduced by French president Francois Hollande.
As nothing is so destructive of an informed electorate's participation in democratic processes than the manipulation of data here are a few things Mr Pickles might like to think about in case he should ever read this blog:
1. The number of French nationals living in London is estimated to be between 100,000 to 400,000. It is conceivable that some of these people actually immigrated into the UK when Nicolas Sarkozy was the president of France (2007-12) and there was no talk of higher tax. Conceivably some were even escaping Sarkozy's conservative austerity and attacks on social policies. So no correlation there then Eric, between French people now living in the UK and the fleeing of Hollande's 'millionaires' tax (which hasn't come into force yet). Anything you might like to know about French skilled migration to London you can find in Louise Ryan and Jon Mulholland's excellent research.
2. That the argument for not introducing the 50p rate is that high net worth individuals will just restructure their finances to avoid/evade paying tax does have some support if we look at the figures from the time the Labour party introduced the policy. But rather than curtailing tax evasion/avoidance, we just give up and say 'let's just not do it and cut social spending instead'. Seriously? Is there any particular reason why we can't impress upon high net worth individuals that, in the words of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, 'you pay taxes because you get services'?
3. Invoking Gerard Depardieu as an example of how high net worth individuals will flee the UK if a 50p top rate of tax is brought in is just insulting. That any country should set its economic policies according to the whims of a spoiled, if talented, actor, is ludicrous. If any of our high net worth individuals want to become Russian citizens go ahead, knock yourselves out. Go become a citizen of a country where the prime minister-president-prime minister-president is still in power after 15 years with at least another four to go, where gay people are beaten up and democracy protesters (or anyone with views Putin or the Orthodox Church seems to dislike) thrown in gaol. Don't slam the door behind you on your way out.
It seems the height of irony that a government that started off with a high profile policy of creating a 'Big Society', in some 1950s nostalgia for when we all knew our neighbours, repeatedly says it's okay to prioritise in our Big Society those who are demonstrative of the highest levels of selfishness. And it seems the height of hypocrisy that a prime minister, who once exhorted us all to demonstrate Christian values, values the presence of individuals who refuse to share and who have less chance of getting into heaven than me and the camel passing through the eye of a needle at the same time.
And even, Mr Pickles, if you do think it's okay that we have to live with such rude neighbours in our society because eventually their wealth will trickle down to the rest of us, at least, for the sake of democratic principles, don't manipulate evidence to suit your arguments. If you want a more accurate correlation, find out the relationship between the creation of dodgy dossiers of all kinds and the general distrust of our political elite. Every time you twist, distort, bend, or bury evidence you twist, distort, bend and bury democracy that little bit more.
