Longtime Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Were Led Zep and the other tax exiles from the 70's being greedy by avoiding tax by staying out of the country? Afterall it's not like they would have starved to death and the money was being used to keep the unprofiable nationalised industries in buisness. Didn't they care that the govt. might have had to shut down the mines and steel works and put all those decent working people on the dole as happened in the 80's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Were Led Zep and the other tax exiles from the 70's being greedy by avoiding tax by staying out of the country? Afterall it's not like they would have starved to death and the money was being used to keep the unprofiable nationalised industries in buisness. Didn't they care that the govt. might have had to shut down the mines and steel works and put all those decent working people on the dole as happened in the 80's? Led Zeppelin legally and rightfully avoided excessive taxation by a government all too keen to take and spend money that was not their own. They'd formed to record and perform rock music not reverse the economic decline of the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 From the tax year 74 to 75, anyone earning above £20,000 paid income tax at the rate of 83%. Eighty three ****ing percent! I don't care how much money you have, having 83% of it taken away by the government is going to sting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeppelin Led Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Every last band as big as THAT has to have greed in them and Zeppelin is no different. But not in this case,They weren't the only to do this and it saved them ALOT of money going to an unworthy cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I'm sure that Zeppelin & The Stones really enjoyed being away from the comforts of their homeland. Watch "The Stones In Exile" & you'll see how much they hated that time period for being away from their families to simple things like the milk they liked to have with the tea they liked. Sure, blame succesful rock stars for going into exile to keep the dollars they earned rather than the incompetency of the goverment bureaucracy that was really at play then & now. Good luck trying to take 83% of my paycheck rich or not, it's not going to happen, I'd sooner live a life of crime that's not goverment approved then pay that amount under the guise of it helping my fellow countrymen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Melanie Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 From the tax year 74 to 75, anyone earning above £20,000 paid income tax at the rate of 83%. Eighty three ****ing percent! I don't care how much money you have, having 83% of it taken away by the government is going to sting... There is not f#cking way I would put up with that. Good for them to leave even though it was stressful for Robert and his family after the car accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 The modern American political debate over tax rates is laughable when you consider what the rates used to be, not only here in the States but in the UK and the rest of Europe. I remember both the Stones and Zeppelin leaving for tax reasons, I didn't blame them for doing so back then and I don't now. You have to realize the fruits of your labor or your artistic talents else there won't be any of either. Politicans never learn from history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperDave Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Let's just hope things don't come to that in the USA with how Congress acts and the way things could be headed in the future. Wishing for better things and results! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledzepfilm Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Let's hope the Stamp Act doesn't happen again. lol. I have to say that the band made an awesome decision to move somewhere else and not have 83% of their money taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hecube Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 From the tax year 74 to 75, anyone earning above £20,000 paid income tax at the rate of 83%. Eighty three ****ing percent! I don't care how much money you have, having 83% of it taken away by the government is going to sting... Sting must have loved that while it lasted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Sting must have loved that while it lasted... ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I think they and the Stones etc were being greedy. £20,000 was a lot of money to be earning back then. And the 83% would only have applied to the excess - eg someone earning £1m would have netted £170k of that, plus whatever the net was of the first £20k. In the mid-70s, no human being could possibly have needed more than £185k a year to live on. I'm with the commies on this - 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. This is not the only way in which Zep showed their scorn for their homeland. From February 1973 to the end, they played a grand total of 7 UK shows - less than one per year. On a different but related topic, I always found the whole 73 MSG hotel theft saga very suspicious. In retrospect, it seems like a classic case of 'we won't let the taxman get any of this one'. I always wondered why Peter Grant would have allowed it to be all over the news at the time. It could only have been to reinforce their story, IMO. After all, what manager would want to be revealed to the world as being incompetent & incapable of safeguarding his clients' assets? I bet they were laughing all the way to the Swiss bank. I do have some smypathy with rockstars of that era simpley because I don't think there wealth was aquired by as exploitative means as most of the flithy rich, nore did they benefit much from public spending. That said I do tend to agree that taxs of that era were far fairer and more sustainable than those we see in the US and UK today. I really don't get the "whats mine is mine" mindset that working/middle class americans are so willing to use to defend the flithy rich, it just comes across as a nation tricked into believing there temporarly embarrised millionaires to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longtime Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 Intersting replies. I think people who do what Lep and Floyd et al did and people are doing it now like Clarkson should be put on the spot to justify why they can't be happy with being 100's of times richer than everyone else and just accept that the country needs some wealth redistribution to help poverty and stuff like that. well not 'should' but if they are put on the spot and have to justify it then I wouldn't feel sorry for them. I can understand buisnesses needing to make massive profits to fight for survival and invest in the future esp. when up against other countries but people don't need that much money. In fact if it's true Robert is worth £95 million then he's probably going to die with all the money he would have paid in tax still in his bank...so he spent alll that time living unhappily to save paying taxes that lost him money he hasn't even spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Thats a very sobering and saddening thought. Ideally, come the revolution, all inherited wealth will be confiscated by the State, and spent on the greater good of the poor and society in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenog Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 From the tax year 74 to 75, anyone earning above £20,000 paid income tax at the rate of 83%. Eighty three ****ing percent! I don't care how much money you have, having 83% of it taken away by the government is going to sting... Huw, If my memory serves me correctly, there was also a 15% surcharge on top of the 83% income tax in the UK during that era (can't remember its exact name offhand - 'investment income surcharge??') effectively bringing tax up to 98% for these high earners. People should remember that this punitive taxation did not only drive entertainers out of the country, but also top surgeons and captains of industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Thats a very sobering and saddening thought. Ideally, come the revolution, all inherited wealth will be confiscated by the State, and spent on the greater good of the poor and society in general. That's why Americans are armed to the teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenog Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Further to my post above, I have checked up on the tax situation for the seventies period, and, yes, there was an investment income surcharge of 15% on top of the higher tax band rate of 83%, making the tax burden effectively 98%. My source here is Tolley's Income Tax Guide:- Between 1973-4 and 1983-4 an investment income surcharge of 15% applied to unearned income over £2,000 (between 1973-4 and 1977-8), £2,250 (1978-9), £5,000 (1979-80), £5,500 (1980-1 and 1981-2), £6,250 (1982-3) and £7,100 (1983-4). A reduced rate of 10% also applied between 1974 and 1979 on unearned income above £1,000 (1974-77), £1,500 (1977-8) and £1,700 (1978-9). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenog Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Yes, but whether LZ suffered the IIS (before avoiding it completely) would depend on how their earnings were structured. Any accountant worth their salt would have found a way around it. Any accountants worth their salt would have probably already left the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 This is not the only way in which Zep showed their scorn for their homeland. From February 1973 to the end, they played a grand total of 7 UK shows - less than one per year. They played NO full length shows ANYWHERE in '74, '76, '78, leaving '75 (5 UK shows), '79 (2 UK shows) & '80 (UK plans cancelled with their disbandment). The '75, '79 & '80 numbers are low on account of circumstances at the time (Robert's injuries & cautious reemergence from artistic hiatus after Karac's death). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Intersting replies. I think people who do what Lep and Floyd et al did and people are doing it now like Clarkson should be put on the spot to justify why they can't be happy with being 100's of times richer than everyone else and just accept that the country needs some wealth redistribution to help poverty and stuff like that. people don't need that much money. In fact if it's true Robert is worth £95 million then he's probably going to die with all the money he would have paid in tax still in his bank...so he spent alll that time living unhappily to save paying taxes that lost him money he hasn't even spent. I don't believe someone should dictate what level of wealth is sufficient for someone else. Rest assured someone - perhaps a beaudoin or a bureaucrat - thinks you have too much. Secondly, who's to say what Robert should do with his money. He may elect to set aside a substantial portion for philanthropic purposes, or blow it all on vinyl records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenog Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 They played NO full length shows ANYWHERE in '74, '76, '78, leaving '75 (5 UK shows), '79 (2 UK shows) & '80 (UK plans cancelled with their disbandment). The '75, '79 & '80 numbers are low on account of circumstances at the time (Robert's injuries & cautious reemergence from artistic hiatus after Karac's death). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 I don't believe someone should dictate what level of wealth is sufficient for someone else. Rest assured someone - perhaps a beaudoin or a bureaucrat - thinks you have too much. Secondly, who's to say what Robert should do with his money. He may elect to set aside a substantial portion for philanthropic purposes, or blow it all on vinyl records. I believe the general public should be able to dictate what level of tax they wish for different levels of society to pay as an acknowledgement of the innate unfairness of a pure capitalist system. The problem is though that much of the public have been tricked into believing that social/economic mobility is far higher than it really is in the US and UK, there obcessed with protecting some mythical pot of gold that they'll never get their hands on while the lower earners end up footing the bill for the low tax rates of the rich. That said I wouldnt have been agenst entertainers such as Zep being given some degree of exception both because they tend to be fair less exploitative than most high earners and because they added greatly to the cultural fabric of the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 When Robert Plant passes away and if he wishes to be buried with his wealth, then so be it. He's earned what he's worth because of his talent. He owes nobody anything. I don't know if he gives to charity, if he does good for him but if he doesn't then that's his choice. I always hear about "pro choice" but I guess that's selective, a person ought to have a choice about how much wealth they end up actually being able to keep because of their hard work or art. Government doesn't know best, they never do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 When Robert Plant passes away and if he wishes to be buried with his wealth, then so be it. He's earned what he's worth because of his talent. He owes nobody anything. I don't know if he gives to charity, if he does good for him but if he doesn't then that's his choice. I always hear about "pro choice" but I guess that's selective, a person ought to have a choice about how much wealth they end up actually being able to keep because of their hard work or art. Government doesn't know best, they never do. But the people who have all the money do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 No they don't but that wasn't what I was trying to say. Taxation is a necessary thing but it ought to be set at a fair equitable level. Politicans ought to know or be told by those who elect them how and what to spend that tax revenue on. Wealth shouldn't buy influence. Wealth shouldn't be taken away for the "greater good" either. There needs to be a balance. Right now, there's no balance that I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.