Monday, July 12, 2010

Bolt Won't Return to High-Tax UK Until 2012

UK Telegraph -- "Organizers of next month's Aviva London Grand Prix at Crystal Palace had hoped to stage the first 100 meters head-to-head of the season between Bolt, Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell but the triple Olympic champion is set to shun the meeting because it would expose him to a huge tax bill. Unless the tax rules are relaxed, athletics administrators fear British fans will be denied the chance to see the sport's biggest star in action again until he returns to the capital in two years' time to defend his Olympic titles.

Since April, foreign sports stars competing in Britain are liable for a top rate of income tax of 50 percent but, controversially, the tax is charged not just on the money they earn in Britain but on a proportion of their worldwide sponsorship income."

MP: See previous CD posts on how high taxes drive highly-paid professional athletes away here, here, and here, illustrating the basic economic principle that "if you tax something, you get less of it."

HT: Kyle Stingily

27 Comments:

At 7/12/2010 7:46 PM, Blogger Gale Pooley said...

Bolt votes with his feet.

 
At 7/12/2010 10:27 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

You gotta admire the patriotism of Bolt. Right up there with Benedict Arnold, or Quisling.

Brit troops are taking lead and bombs from Islamics lunatics, but Bolt prefers his silken and perfumed hide not to be taxed too highly.

 
At 7/12/2010 10:38 PM, Blogger John Thacker said...

Benjamin, did you read the post or the story?

Bolt would literally have to pay millions of pounds were he to attend the race. That's net. It would actually cost him money to attend. His effective tax rate would be well in excess of 100%, because they propose to tax him on endorsement income that he'll get even if he doesn't run this race.

 
At 7/12/2010 11:33 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"You gotta admire the patriotism of Bolt. Right up there with Benedict Arnold, or Quisling"...

Typical pseudo benny, long on socialist yammer, short on substance...

 
At 7/12/2010 11:51 PM, Anonymous Lyle said...

Its the ideal person to tax, they can't vote so why not tax them if you can? Note that this is just like taxing rental cars to pay for stadiums, most folks who rent cars are not from the town in question. Britian has a bigger deficit problem than the US and needs revenue from someone, so taxing non voters is the first step. (With TV the only real looser is the promoter, the race could be staged anywhere and televised)

 
At 7/13/2010 12:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Benjamin, Usain Bolt is Jamaican. What does patriotism have to do with the UK trying to tax his earnings?

 
At 7/13/2010 1:08 AM, Blogger randian said...

the tax is charged not just on the money they earn in Britain but on a proportion of their worldwide sponsorship income

That's how California's corporate income tax works. They tax your worldwide income based on an apportioning formula that disregards actual California-source income. In many cases your effective taxable California income exceeds your actual California receipts.

 
At 7/13/2010 8:18 AM, Blogger bob wright said...

Benjamin:
Your attempt to link patriotism to paying taxes is insidious.

It's ironic that those who think paying taxes is patriotic generally want OTHER people to pay more in taxes - some vague amount they consider fair.

And, those in favor of OTHER people paying higher taxes get to define what "fair" is. Convenient.

So that you can prove me wrong, Benjamin, tell us how much extra you sent to the U.S. government when you completed your 2009 taxes.

How strong was your patriotism when you were writing your check?

In case you lost it, here is the link to make gifts to the U.S. Government.

 
At 7/13/2010 10:12 AM, Blogger Paul said...

"Brit troops are taking lead and bombs from Islamics lunatics, but Bolt prefers his silken and perfumed hide not to be taxed too highly."

Benji voted for the socialist community organizer who spent 20 years in Reverend Wright's church, and hung out with terrorists like Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. So I guess I find it odd Benji becomes the super patriot when somebody doesn't want to get fleeced by the government.

 
At 7/13/2010 10:28 AM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Yeah, the American right-wing votes more and more money to our coprolitic and parasitic military patronage-rural welfare economy, and then cry they want tax cuts.

I am just calling it like it is.

I know a quick way to end US involvement in foreign wars: A fair draft and a progressive consumption tax to finance mobilizations.


Poof, no more Afghanistan and no more Iraq.

Go cover Bolt with glory, and make him a martyr. This is what the US right-wing has come to.

Bolt as hero. Along with poor, overtaxed LeBron.

Boo-hoo-hoo

 
At 7/13/2010 10:40 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"I am just calling it like it is"...

No pseudo benny you're babbling on in a delusional state denoting your tenuous grip on reality...

"I know a quick way to end US involvement in foreign wars: A fair draft and a progressive consumption tax to finance mobilizations"...

How come you don't suggest that for the constitutionally questionable welfare programs, programs that cost us $9 trillion already and have accomplished nothing?

Maybe you can have someone read and explain this to you pseudo benny:

From another George Mason economist, Randall Holcombe: The Value Added Tax: Too Costly for the United States

 
At 7/13/2010 10:43 AM, Blogger Free2Choose said...

"Britian has a bigger deficit problem than the US and needs revenue from someone, so taxing non voters is the first step."

Last time they tried that, a bunch of disorganized colonists handed them their asses.

 
At 7/13/2010 10:56 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Last time they tried that, a bunch of disorganized colonists handed them their asses."

Hmmm...good point. Jamaica next, eh?

 
At 7/13/2010 11:02 AM, Blogger Junkyard_hawg1985 said...

The math for the higher tax rate from Great Britain:

We have a 50% tax rate on zero earnings because Bolt stays home. $0 dollars.

We have a loss of tax revenue from the lack of ticket sales and product sales at the event.

One more example of Laffer being right: Priceless.

 
At 7/13/2010 11:34 AM, Blogger bob wright said...

Democrats control the senate, the house and the president.

Democrats rammed Obamacare down the throats of Americans.

How come Democrats haven't stopped farm aid programs?

How come Democrats haven't stopped rural aid programs?

 
At 7/13/2010 12:18 PM, Anonymous Benny The Man said...

Bob Wright-

I wish the Dems would show some guts and wipe out all rural welfare programs, including the enormous and largely hidden programs for rural infrastructure, and our enormous coprolitic military sector.

The Dems are wimps, so they won't.

Really, 80 years after the Dust Bowl, do we even need a USDA? Why?
Can we not eliminate the department for five years, and see if anything really happens?

 
At 7/13/2010 12:50 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Benji, I'm trying to find some way of calling you an idiot that hasn't already been used by someone else on this thread, and I can't think of anything. So, please just reread the existing comments, and pretend they're from me also.

 
At 7/13/2010 12:54 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"I wish the Dems would show some guts and wipe out all rural welfare programs, including the enormous and largely hidden programs for rural infrastructure, and our enormous coprolitic military sector.

The Dems are wimps, so they won't."

Uh, Benji, Obama is pushing a massive rural broadband initiative as part of his idiotic economic planning. He's up to his neck in ethanol and other Big Ag payoffs.
I don't think "guts" are the problem here. I keep point this out, but you refuse to be deterred by the facts, and just re-post the same one-note blather in post after post.

 
At 7/13/2010 12:57 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Poof, no more Afghanistan and no more Iraq."

A few years ago it was "poof" no more World Trade Center, and Benji casually went on about his business.

 
At 7/13/2010 1:44 PM, Anonymous Lyle said...

The situation is a bit different than 1775 in this case. If an american at that had gone to britian and had enough wealth he could have voted (recall that you had to have enough money to vote) What the UK does is to say if you want to come to our country you get to pay. Seems a quite reasonable thing to do. Doesn't cost anyone living there a bit. If they don't come no skin off any residents back.

 
At 7/13/2010 8:03 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

You gotta admire the patriotism of Bolt. Right up there with Benedict Arnold, or Quisling.

Bolt is Jamaican and as a free individual he should be able to run and earn money in whichever country he wants. If he prefers to keep more of the money that he earns instead of giving it to the British government that is his choice. And the last time I looked, there was nothing patriotic about giving a greedy government more money.

Brit troops are taking lead and bombs from Islamics lunatics, but Bolt prefers his silken and perfumed hide not to be taxed too highly.

Why should Bolt want to endanger British troops by giving the UK government money to fight a stupid war that creates more enemies and makes the world more dangerous?

 
At 7/13/2010 8:12 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

I know a quick way to end US involvement in foreign wars: A fair draft and a progressive consumption tax to finance mobilizations.

I know a better way; some courage on the part of voters to elect politicians that will not send troops abroad for political reasons that have little to do with national defense. But that courage does not exist. The right abandoned its principles of non-intervention and the left caved in and abandoned its peace platform.

Go cover Bolt with glory, and make him a martyr. This is what the US right-wing has come to.

You are confused. Bolt is a guy who is in the entertainment business and who has chosen to keep as much of his earnings as he can in his short career. Helping the UK to fund an idiotic war that is being pushed by the anti-liberty interests on the left and the right would not make him noble or a hero, no matter how you try to spin your incoherent narrative.

Of course, you can't possibly have meant what you wrote above so it makes sense for you to rephrase your illogical arguments.

 
At 7/13/2010 9:12 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"I know a better way; some courage on the part of voters to elect politicians that will not send troops abroad for political reasons that have little to do with national defense"...

Is that you Michael Moore?

 
At 7/13/2010 9:32 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Is that you Michael Moore?

My preference is for Ron Paul. He was right when he pointed out that the reasons given for the Iraq invasion were based on lies and that an Afghan occupation was a very bad idea. Both the right and the left were too cowardly to look at the facts and voters chose to elect Obama, who was pushing the 'good war' even more than that idiot John McCain. Cowardly voters are now paying for their sins. Sadly many young men and women have been crippled and killed because of that cowardice.

 
At 7/13/2010 11:36 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"He was right when he pointed out that the reasons given for the Iraq invasion were based on lies and that an Afghan occupation was a very bad idea"...

You of course have something credible to link all that to, right?

I mean I don't know about you but I'm loath to take a Mr. Hypocrite on earmark's word on anything...

 
At 7/14/2010 1:49 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

You of course have something credible to link all that to, right?

You mean a link showing that Paul opposed the Iraq invasion, the transfer of power to the President to wage war on the basis of the evidence as he sees it? Try youtube. There are hundreds of clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EywYDhPeY8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_gKOCb4QBA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aewpvcxAwTk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZ5cpaPlf4

I mean I don't know about you but I'm loath to take a Mr. Hypocrite on earmark's word on anything...

There is no hypocrisy. He votes against all spending bills but once they are passed he argues that it is Congress, not the President who should determine where the spending goes. All spending should be earmarked so that we can see where the money goes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn5h23TYsZI

It is now evident that Republicans are no longer the party of Robert Taft and that they have moved to accept FDR's statist ideology. In many ways they are the ideological equivalent of Democrats. On the issue of the war, both the left and the right have credibility problems because both were too cowardly to stand up to the lies that created the Iraqi adventure in the first place.

 
At 7/15/2010 8:11 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Iraq invasion, the transfer of power to the President to wage war on the basis of the evidence as he sees it?"...

Ahhh VangeIV, I didn't care about Ron Paul's point of view on Irag since he did his best to ignore the facts with his 'New York Times' like attitude...

"There is no hypocrisy"...

Thanks for playing since its obvious you intend to spin for Paul regardless of what really was happening...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home