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.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.