(V): your numbers seem a bit varied for both posts on millionaires.
1- In the UK, which has the fifth highest number of millionaires, membership of the elite club dropped 2.9% from 454,300 to 441,300,

2-The number of millionaires in the UK has fallen from 489,000 at the peak of the economic boom in 2007 to 242,000, reducing the elite club to 2003 levels.


I'd say 200,000 millionaire spread there.

Bwild: yes..... it's because of dates the articles were written. One is written in June 2012, the other in May 2009.

The clue is in the dates man!!

(V): theres no real dates there...you might have mentioned it.

Bwild: lol I'll aim to be less of a head screwer next time

(V): I think you may be taking the term "millionaires tax" a bit too literally. I seriously doubt the figures you are showing represent only the millionaires who generate enough income to be affected by the tax.

I suspect anyone could be included in those stats by simply being worth one million dollars, if they were to sell off all of their land and equipment and anything else they own... so technically speaking, those stats could include farmers who earn less in yearly income than an accountant earning, say, a paltry 200,000 a year.

I was not talking about everyone and anyone who might be worth one million dollars... I was obviously talking about those who generate income high enough to be affected by the so called "millionaires tax"... obviously I was wrong about that being obvious.

I'm also not talking about the fabulously wealthy who are simply living on their wealth and are not actively ingaged in business(s) that generate enough (yearly) income to be affected by the new tax. That too I thought was obvious, but once again you have proven me wrong.

So anyway, congratulations on once again proving me wrong through the inimitable power of narrow minded nick pickery.

Iamon lyme: Awwwww I thought I'd return the favour. ... All things being equal.

... again, the figures are ... taken out of context. I've tried to give you the opportunity to recheck your stated figures and the validity of such......

But no.... you have to believe your "power of narrow minded nick pickery."

READ>>>>>>>

"A gaping hole in this argument is that by the HMRC’s own admission, a great deal of this drop was accounted for by (the non-PAYE paying) super-rich bringing forward their income (‘forestalling’) and declaring it in 2009/2010 tax year instead, ahead of the pre-announced 50p tax rise. The key point is, by its nature forestalling can only happen once – those who did so could not have kept doing it in the years after; they would have had to have paid up. The 2010/2011 yield was thus artificially deflated; totally anomalous, and unreliable as a baseline. There may have been other more permanent forms of evasion in the mix, but the only way of knowing this – and the true effectiveness of the 50p tax – for sure would have been to wait for 2011/2012 returns. Which is presumably by Osborne avoided doing just that (given there was good evidence it raised a significant sum of money).

And so to last week’s numbers. They too take 2010 figures, on the number of people declaring an income above £ 1 million, compare it to 2009 and note a drop – leaving the Telegraph and Mail to argue without evidence that they have all moved abroad. But just as with the tax yield, these figures are highly distorted and unreliable, given we know many top rate payers moved their income for 2010 forward to 2009 (this is especially likely to be the case with millionaires, as few would be on PAYE)."

Live by the Daily Mail.. DiE by the Daily Mail.

I mean... would you agree with the daily Mails view Sarah Palin and all those who believe the same way she does are lunatics?

(V): "I mean... would you agree with the daily Mails view Sarah Palin and all those who believe the same way she does are lunatics?"

No, but I could agree that some people that other people have characterized as being lunitics might have forgotten to take their medication(s) or non-traditional medicinal herbs. Or maybe an acupunture needle was accidentally pushed all the way in? Who knows?

By the way... seeing as how you've brought up the issue of lunancy, how many people in a list of the top 6,000 earners in the UK do you believe can be found on that list?