Andrew Lloyd Webber and His Amazing Technicolor Tax Logic
by Larry O'Connor
I’ve already risked losing any credibility I might have in the theatre community by defending Andrew Lloyd Webber and his conservative politics, but I have to go back to that well once again because Webber has written an op-ed piece for London’s Daily Mail that received international attention and a surprising lack of criticism within the theatrical community. The hardest part of writing this post is condensing his article down to just a few pull quotes so I encourage you to follow the link and read the entire piece. He starts off by confronting the typical banal argument he is so used to getting when he raises concerns over the Labour Party’s confiscatory taxation:
And before you lynch me as a rich b*****d flying a kite for my own cause, let me beg you to believe that I am not. I believe that this new top rate of tax could be the final nail in the coffin of Britain plc. I am 61 years old. I have lived and worked in Britain all my life. Not even in the dark days of penal Labour taxation in the Seventies did I have any intention of leaving the country of my birth.
That last sentence addresses a rumor that I remember from the 1980’s that he was going to revoke his citizenship and move to tax-haven Monaco. It was never true. And isn’t it sad that a man who came from middle-class roots and has become wildly successful has to argue that he is not against these tax policies to protect his own fortune? So what if he is? Since when is it ignoble to speak out against the government taking over half of your earnings? Webber could have easily retired over twenty years ago and had a fine life living off of his royalties. Instead he continues to produce and write and keep thousands employed… why doesn’t he have the right to defend his fortune?
After his initial defense against the “greedy, selfish conservative” charge, Webber gets to the heart of the matter: His grave concern that the new tax policies advertised as 50% on top earners will have the effect of driving the most creative people in his industry out of his beloved Britain.
Here’s the truth. The proposed top rate of income tax is not 50 per cent. It is 50 per cent plus 1.5 per cent national insurance paid by employees plus 13.3 per cent paid by employers. That’s not 50 per cent. Two years from now, Britain will have the highest tax rate on earned income of any developed country.
Last Thursday I met with a thirtysomething guy. I absolutely depend on him in a highly technical area of theatrical production. For legal reasons he has to employ himself through his own company. Under the new tax regime, he will have to pay 13.3 per cent to employ himself before he pays himself anything. And then he will have to pay 51.5 per cent on what’s left.
This is a guy at the cutting edge of his profession who works all over the world. He is in demand in every major territory where entertainment is produced. He has a young wife and two children. Last Thursday he told me that he and his wife had decided that the UK was no longer where they wanted to live. His wife thinks the State education system is inadequate. And she fears that a bankrupt Britain will increasingly be a worse place in which to live as the horror of our present financial mess hits us all in the solar plexus.
Surprisingly, Webber seems to have struck a chord with his logical and reasoned argument. In fact, the only negative comments and responses I have found on the web have been the typical slams against ALW for being greedy. And the most notable voice on this issue from the ranks of Britain’s entertainment industry was that of actor Michael Caine who joined ALW in his cause. But, Caine has taken the argument one step further and has announced that he, in fact, will be leaving the UK to avoid the monstrous tax rate:
“Tax got to 82 per cent [in the 1970s] and I thought this was kind of unfair,” he said. “Also, I see… that the government has taken it up to 50 per cent and if it goes to 51 I will be back in America. I will not pay the Government more than I get. No way, ever. So they’ve reached their limit with me. That’s the lot. That’s what will happen to a lot of people,” he said. “You know how much they [the government] made out of that high taxation all those years ago? Nothing and they sent a mass of incredible brains to America. Yes they did. The most stupid act you’ve ever seen in your life. ”
“We’ve got three and a half million layabouts laying about on benefits and I’m 76 getting up at six o’clock in the morning to go to work to keep them. Let’s get everybody back to work so we can save a couple of billion and cut tax, not to keep sticking it on.”
Layabouts! I love that.
What I love about both of these men and their approach to this issue is the irrefutable logic of the arguments. Taxation policy always seems to get argued from the left on an emotional level. Using class warfare rhetoric and casting the top earners in our country as the greedy rich, we have now reached a point where 49% of our nation pays no taxes at all. This means that half of our country’s voters are deciding how much the other half has to pay. Yet whenever a tax reduction has been implemented it has always, ALWAYS created higher revenues for the federal government.
In the 2008 campaign, President Obama famously defended a raise in capital gains despite evidence that it would REDUCE revenue for the federal treasury: (from a debate on ABC, moderator Charlie Gibson)
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent. But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
I missed the part of the 16th Amendment that explains how the federal income tax is to be imposed to promote fairness. But this is what we get from the left when they discuss taxes, it is all debated on an emotional level.
There is a reason why my accountant is not the guy I go to baseball games with. How can I put this…? He’s a bit of a doorknob, you know what I mean? And, frankly, that’s what you want in an accountant! I don’t want passion and emotion when discussing taxes… I want logic and facts. That’s why I love ALW’s argument, it is full of logic and devoid of emotion or cries of “fairness”.
If we could argue these issues on that level, our side would always win because logic and facts are on our side. Hey Andrew, I wish you WOULD consider leaving England. Move here, please… AND RUN FOR GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA!
Stage Right is on Facebook.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
50 Comments
Brilliant piece! It truly defines the issue in a tone that can be understood by all, layabouts, ha. Real greed is the government reaching to deeply into any free persons pocket to subsidize the worthless parasites of society for votes and power. All countries are great because of their people, not because their government. Good article.
This fairness/greed argument, while emotionally satisfying, is ultimately empty. What the lefties are really saying is that you're greedy if you don't want to give your money to the government to be used for the support of a layabout. When you are forced by anyone — government or individual — to work against your will for the support or benefit of another is known in other societies as slavery. Thus, you're "greedy" if you don't want to be a slave. But that's what we're coming down to: all workers are slaves of the government. You get to keep only what the government thinks is "fair." Nothing you owns belongs to you when the government can take it away so easily.
But they know all of these issues, but "fairness" wins out every time. Obama will raise taxes and everyone will be happy because we will get "free" healthcare and the government will employ everyone – yey. And then, when it's too late, the government wil begin to fold in on itself. All the taxed will be giving their own income to pay themselves until there is nothing left and all will be lost. But we will be happy because by then there will be a mandatory sedatives in the water and we will be required to drink 8 glasses of water each day "for our health".
When, the fruits of your own labor and intellectual ideas are stolen by the Government with the threat of force, to support others, who have the ability to vote for more taxes, so they do not have to work, then the USA and capitalism are finished. I believe we have reached that tipping point.
Cheers for the Mighty Sirs Andrew and Michael!
Stage, while I agree with the basic tenet of the arguement, here's my one issue with people who say they're "moving" out of country because of things like this.. As Mr. Caine noted: …and they sent a mass of incredible brains to America. Yes they did.
So who's going to be left to try to fight to make things correct? It will never, unfortunately, be corrected if all the people move out and stay out and just leave England to her own govt. devices
I'm hoping that if they do cross the pond, they at least continue to try to fight to correct this "fairness" inbalance from this side of the globe (or whatever side they do decide to end up on).
So these guys can leave Britain, where the hell can we go ?? We're going to be in the same boat here before this administration is done, and the dollar will be calculated in wet noodles. No strength and we're all eating ramen. I have no interest in being fair with anyone other than my family.
Socialism only works as long as the other guys money holds up.
Fortunately some, states are fighting back Texas, Montana and Tennessee for now. I believe more are going to start telling the Feds to stay out of state business.
I believe John Lennon was likewise motivated to live in NYC, although it isn't talked about due to his otherwise leftist views.
How long ago did The Beatles' "Taxman" come out? Something like 43 years now?
Nice article Stage. I am always stunned by the left. I have spoken with many leftists who understand that tax hikes reduce revenue, reduce economic activity and destroy jobs, and yet they don't care. They want tax hikes because they can't stand the idea that someone else is making "more than they should."
I have even brought up the idea that if they agreed to tax cuts, they would get more revenue to spend on their socialist paradise. They still demand tax hikes.
That's not rational, it's spite.
One of the most ironically conservative songs ever.
"If we could argue these issues on that level, our side would always win because logic and facts are on our side. Hey Andrew, I wish you WOULD consider leaving England. Move here, please… AND RUN FOR GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA! " Move here? The exact SAME thing is happening in the US, and the same "logic" and "reasoned" arguments are made, but you see, nobody is listening. Nobody cares. The US is a Communist country with a state controlled Media, One party power, and an 18 plus year indoctrination system. Here we sit, in our wealth bought and paid for with the blood of our solidiers and courageously inspired and created by a group of God fearing Genius'. Here we sit ignorant. Chattering and nattering about Michelle Obama's arms, How well our teleprompter fed rhetoric our "dear leader" looks and sounds when he talks. And living our lives day to day as our children and their descendants lives are being drained of opportunity and freedom. Doing nothing. Allowing the madness to spread and cripple us with its insidious politics of personal destruction. We can talk, we can vent, hell some of us will actually display anti liberal establishment clothing and stickers (but the rest of us are far too "civil" for that!), and some of us will dare speak above a whisper, and use our names (Homeland security Gestapo notwithstanding). We stand hypnotized and ignorant, watching the right hand of the Liberal establishment, while the left quickly grabs all of our wealth, our freedom, our power, our opportunities, and our very souls.
Moving to America is just spreading the disease. Logic?!! REASON???! But we have PROVEN that we are NOT RACISTS (well, except that apparently is not the case with those right wingers and liberal apostates of course)! And the world, well it LOVES US!! Did you know that we have a Black president?
This dog won't hunt in America anymore. Lets cut to the chase: The underclass has been developed into a voting block that is being added to daily by illegal immigration and absolutely crappy public schools. To follow Gibson's logic above, one has to actually be able to think clearly for a few minutes. That leaves out the mass of voters in the US in my opinion.
Fairness is an interesting concept. In my world, fairness has something to do with pulling your own weight so you don't have to ask for a handout. Today's underclass assumes that this guy owes you a hand.
Sad to say but I think this game is over.
It's not spite, it's total stupidity. I've tried to understand the mind of the average libtard and all I get is anger and the unpleasant scent of patchouli. I've never seen a better definition of amok.
disagree, jack.. it's "spite" in this case…. they know they're going to lose money, but they want to raise the taxes anyway. "If I can't have it, nobody will" sort of thinking.
I hope so, we need to hold our state legislatures to account and make them listen. If enough states rebel, there is still hope. If enough states rebel, then perhaps enough of the Congressional Dems will too. There are at present a clique of 40 Blue Dogs fighting the party on Health Care. They are calling for national debate. Why the Republicans aren't supporting them more openly I don't know. Perhaps they are, and the media just isn't covering it which I can well believe. We know Cap and Trade is potentially DOA due to the Blue Dogs. More state rebellions will make more Blue Dogs more jumpy and might put more spine in Conservative Republicans like Bachmann and Co.
I agree with Mark. While I do agree that many libs are just stupid and don't understand the relationship between taxes and revenue, those that do still want tax hikes. They are more concerned with bringing down the "haves" than bringing up the "have nots". And that's spite.
I wish that liberals would finally understand, as my parents would point out to me growing up, that "life isn't fair." In fact, how many times is "fair" or "fairness" stated in the U.S Constitution? None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. That's right. Additionally, "equal" or "equality" is only mentioned in the Constitution when discussing representation issues between the states (Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, EQUAL to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress) and in the 14th amendment (nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the laws).
It's almost as if they resent success and prosperity. But there is a double standard at work too. If someone rich and successful speaks their "language", they are exempt from left-wing spite.
Take Sean Penn. This man can afford private jets, but as long as he flies them to Venezuela it's cool with the left. he can pull up to a social event in a limo 50 feet long, but as long as he uses his time on the podium to bash everything conservative, he gets not only a pass, he gets the adoration of the left.
So it's not just that the haves are their targets, it's the haves that don't think like they do.
The problem we have is that we have two schools of thought in this nation. Each side wants justice, but they have different definitions of justice. Conservatives want traditional justice where all men are held equal under the same set of laws and justice is blind. The left wants equal outcome under the law to achieve social justice. To put life under the different philosophies into perspective using a board game analogy: we play monopoly using the same rules for everyone who plays the game – that's traditional justice. For a social justice, you would need to make special rules to try to equalize the outcome so that the game ended in a perfect draw every time. The rules made would need to reflect each players' particular weaknesses and try to compensate for them by weakening another player's strengths so as to make those strengths not too overwhlming. Essentially, it's a fool's errand and would be impossible.
But, but, but, it's not 'slavery' it's fraternité!
When they say "egalité" these days it's that same "fairness" of knocking those at the top down a couple of notches through the enforcement of government power. This endeavor requires a stronger and larger government, of course, in order to both carry out the rounding up, and collection of the fruits of labour, as well as to "so" intelligently and benevolently distribute it among the brother-hood. ('hood for short.)
Of course, only they are smart and educated enough to carry this out, and to enjoy the only liberté that such authority provides, because, for them, rights and freedoms only come from power and privilege, not some irrelevent Creator.
I agree completely. When you look around and see that the "poor" have cars, cable tv, and air conditioning, you have to think that its not just about making sure people's basic needs are met (especially when you consider that non-tax payers make up almost half of the country). It's all about making sure that no one has more than anyone else, regardless of hard work or life choices, because that wouldn't be fair.
Interesting article….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northam...
Excellent article; Michael Caine is now my hero!
Something to remember, though: NOBODY doesn't pay taxes. Everyone, regardless of income status, pays taxes: sales taxes, utility taxes, phone taxes — even if you rent, you're paying your landlord's property taxes; even if you don't drive, you pay gasoline taxes — passed on to you by the manufacturers and shippers of everything you buy in the stores. There's also Social Security taxes, the Sacred Ponzie Scheme of all time. Everyone who draws a paycheck pays that big fat one, and it's not guaranteed that everyone who pays into it will EVER get anything out of it. Isn't that a tax? It certainly quacks like one.
And then there's inflation — what some call the invisible tax, which is basically a government plan to reduce the value of your earnings. Nice. Inflation helps governments pay off their debts in cheaper currency, which is a great idea for debtors, but a bad idea for savers. Which means, say goodbye to your retirement, thanks to government's inflation and taxation policies.
Andrew Lloyd Webber's cause is everyone's cause. The lie that there is an untaxed class stealing from the taxed class is rubbish — we're all in the same boat. I think that's important to remember, that the idea that some classes are benefiting from another class being looted is false. We're ALL being looted, and turning on one another isn't the answer to that particular conundrum. To paraphrase Pogo, the enemy isn't them, it's us. We have a problem, and we need to solve it. I think the first step is to deny the argument that taxation is a system that does good, and that people of a certain class are exempt from that system. Nobody is exempt, and the benefits it alleges to purport are questionable at best. That's true for everyone, not just for movie stars and composers.
Webber missed one thing. Americans are highly competitive with the mother country. He said that England will soon have the highest tax on earned income in the developed world. We're not going to allow that. Obama always wants America to be number one, so he's working on a plan that will make the socialist taxation in Britain look like child's play. American ingenuity always puts us in front. How dare anyone have more money than I have? The redistributor-in-chief will fix that problem as he "remakes America."
No, some of the Beatles (and I think) some of the Rolling Stones famously moved to the U.S. because of taxes eons ago. I had very lefty/crunchy/artsy parents and I remember in the 70's this was talked about wistfully quite a bit. (wistfully because we only dreamed of having so much $) It only added to his legend and coolness, because of course, he was cool enough to pick our city to live in, which firmly proved it was the coolest place on earth.
I quibble to say it's not "…if you don't want to give your money to the government…". The liberals want you to give your money to THEM so they can use it, at all levels of government and charity, to fund their pipe dreams and wet dreams. Theirs is commercial politics at the most crass level.
It must be very painful for a person to consider leaving his beloved national home. That said, governments must earn respect, and if that doesn't happen naturally then to quote a British film, " People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." It has always seemed odd to me that the people who are most protected by governments like Britian's are the least able to support themselves and their government's largess. Yet the people who are the most putupon are the ones who stay and pay. Maybe Britian needs some tough love from the people who are most able to show it, those who can afford to vote with their feet.
But the problem is that they do want to have it while denying it to others so to speak. How else can you explain someone like Charlie Rangle and his tax dodges or rent controlled APARTMENTS?
Who is John Galt? Sounds like its time for a revolution of the minds.
And that is the crux of the problem. It has to be hammered home that every time a tax is hiked, the so called "non-payers" pay for it too. Whether by decreases in job opportunities and employment, retail choices, and personal freedom, when its taxed heavily, everyone loses.
What would be our economic opportunities if capital gains were 10%, everyone's personal at 15%, corporate at 20%, and sales tax limited to 6% or less?
We would own China.
Actually, Bush 43 also made a fairness argument for his tax cuts. I don't remember the exact words, but he basically said that one component of a fair tax system was that the government should not take more than 1/3 of someone's income as taxes. I guess he was just a shill for the greedy rich, though.
The old adage used to be "liberals judge conservatives based on their record, but insist on being judged themselves on their intentions." Would that we were still so lucky.
Now being liberal means always being judged on your stated intentions, while judging your opponents on the basis of your wildest raving delusions.
British film? I thought Thomas Jefferson said that.
"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world." –U.S. Senator Daniel Webster (1782-1852)
http://patriotpost.us/pdf/09-19b.pdf
Given that Sondheim is a better artist than ALW, liberal elites would deny it were Sondheim's and ALW's political views reversed. In fact, I would go so far as to state that liberal elites believe that being a conservative proves that you are not smart enough (talented enough, educated enough, etc.) to be a great artist. One of the things I really appreciate about Big Hollywood is that it gives people of an artistic bent at least one place to go on the web outside of the big echo chamber that is modern liberalism.
Through all of this, let us not forget that 58,421,377 Americans did NOT vote for Obama. All is not lost. The Democratic Party (and it's loyal followers, the Media) keep declaring that the Republican Party is finished, in shambles and has it's head hung down in shame. All because we lost the election (not to mention the House and Senate).
58,421,377 voters still live here. 58,421,377 did not get caught up in the emotion of this past election. 58,421,377 Americans voted for McCain despite the fact that he might not have been the strongest selection for the nomination.
All this discussion is necessary, but what is needed is a fierce concentration on the 2010 elections. This powerful one-party grasp that President Obama has is going to do some damage, and we must slow the bleeding in 2010.
Talk is good. Action is needed. I am on board.
To answer "who's left to fight". No one, and the sooner the better. When growth stagnates, gov't receipts will dwindle. When the programs dependent upon these receipts begin to falter, only then will pro-growth politicians be in favor again. It's a political cycle come full circle again. Capitalism creates, socialism destroys.
49% pay no taxes at all? What country do you live in? We all have to pay taxes passed down to the consumer by manufacturers ect. My tobacco just went from $13.00 a can to $32.00 in one month so don't tell me.Get a cell phone,tax,cable tv, tax and on and on and on.As for federal income tax I will agree it's unfair and believe a flat tax where we each pay our FAIR share would be much better.
Webber is right on. It is nice when people put jobs before left-wing politics isn’t it?
Jefferson may have said something similiar, it seems like something he would say. I took it from "V for Vendetta".
As Margaret Thatcher famously said, "The facts of life are conservative."
Yeah yeah… you know I meant Federal Income Tax within the context of my post that should have been clear but I am sorry if it was not. Clearly, I meant that 49% pay no Federal Income Tax.
And the fact that 49% don't is EXACTLY WHY a flat tax will NEVER be passed. Think about it… if 49% pay no income tax at all.. then why would they EVER put a congress in Washington that would change the law so they would have to pay? They won't. Flat tax and Fair Tax will never happen… it's a pipe dream.
Great piece SR. I always enjoy your poignant and thoughtful articles. The left always uses emotions in their arguements, becuase they falter with the logic part (just try telling them that polar bears know how to swim!). This is the only the left knows, raise taxes, and call the people that don't support them big, rich bigots. Look at Garafalo and what she called the teaparty attenders.
My enjoyment of Webber and Caine has moved up a notch. Very good logic! Common Sense isn't completely dead in Britain.
Michael Caine hasn't left and isn't leaving yet; his comment is contingent on another increase in income tax. ALW isn't paying employer's tax out of his own pocket; it is disingenuous of him to suggest otherwise. Who he thinks pays for the public transport his employees use to get to work, I don't know; who pays for their health care? I'm not keen on high taxes, but tax cuts for rich people is poor economics because – unlike the middle and lower-paid – they don't spend their entire disposable income keeping the economy moving. They bank it offshore, buy art nobody looks at, and generally sit on it.
No sympathy, Sir Andrew, sorry.
And let's not forget that ALW and his ilk PAY THE SALARIES of those you say keep the economy moving.
FACT: Lower taxes and the government takes in more money. Try and disprove it… go ahead.
In the UK, smaller employers pay a greater proportion of wages than do larger employers. I can't speak to the US structure of employment.
Your "fact" is too badly-structured to formulate as an hypothesis which could be tested. Can you suggest the datasets, for countries and years, on which you have based your assertion?
You must be logged in to post a comment.