The Paradise Papers have shed new light on how the world’s richest people hide their wealth offshore, driving up inequality levels across the world. “Tax havens are at the root of a massive intergenerational transfer of wealth which enriches the old and impoverishes the young,” wrote Gabriel Zucman in response to the latest revelations, which are based on leaked company registries from 19 separate tax havens.

But how do members of the top 1% (in income terms) really feel about levels of taxation, those who avoid paying it, and how this impacts on society as a whole? Is it time for a clampdown, and do they agree with the IMF’s recent assertion that higher tax rates don’t affect growth? Here’s a collection of their views:

‘I’d consider moving to Switzerland if rates rose above 50%’



Given the huge intergenerational divide, the UK has to think hard how to tax wealth. I’m not usually a fan of taxing wealth – you really want to tax the generation of it, not the stock of it – but current circumstances are so extreme that we need drastic measures just to avoid social unrest. I’d strongly oppose raising marginal rates above 50%, because the people you’re trying to target are too mobile. I can already see how many of my colleagues move to Singapore for tax reasons. I’d consider moving to Switzerland if rates rose above 50%. The path we are on is unsustainable and I think that is massively underestimated by the Tories. We have to start redistributing from the wealthy old to the young, on a massive scale.

Analyst for hedge fund, earns about £250,000 per year

‘We need global cooperation on tax avoidance’



There’s a part of me that really doesn’t blame the companies or individuals who look offshore to avoid tax. The companies are judged primarily on their profits, and I suspect many individuals who tut tut about this would take the view of their tax adviser if they suddenly found themselves £100 million richer. We live in a world where competition trumps (no pun intended) cooperation, but until there is global cooperation on tax avoidance it will always be possible to conduct business in this way. Who will enforce sanctions on offenders? It would have to be a global “tax police” or else governments will simply offer minimal sanctions and more sweetheart deals to keep corporations in their own country.

Works in recruitment, earns £150,000- £300,000 per year

‘I feel I’m winning because I’m beating others. It’s a zero-sum game’

The government has “gamified” the tax system, and I have no choice but to play. In our neo-capitalist society, I feel that I’m winning because I’m beating others. The economic system is unsustainable, and it feels like chaos – a major economic crash, social unrest – isn’t far away. In such an insecure climate I have to get as much as I can, while I can. It’s a zero-sum game.

Data scientist, earns about £150,000 per year

‘The system is bizarre ... I could game it even more’

The tax situation is bizarre. I am nearing the point where completely untaxed growth and income from my savings will exceed my normal after-tax income. Probably if I incorporated my business I could game the system even more. Allowing people to put £20,000 a year tax-free into an ISA [tax-free savings account] is just a simple bung to the rich. How many people have this level of savings? We have “ISA millionaires” who are “earning” tens of thousands a year on their savings and paying no tax at all. Anyone with assets above a certain level (£1m perhaps) should pay an annual 1% on those assets. Include pension pots and ISAs – the whole lot.

Legal professional, earns £150,000-£170,00 per year

‘Would people really leave if the tax rate increased? I wouldn’t’

Tory friends of mine talk about “everyone with money leaving the UK” if the tax rate was increased. Would this really happen? I own a company and I’m not going to leave my friends and family in order to pay a bit less tax. My staff wouldn’t move abroad. It really wouldn’t be practical even if I wanted to.

The top rate should be higher. These people can afford to pay more and this is how civilised society works. People are negative because they don’t see evidence of the benefits of redistributing wealth: they see their tax go up, but the stories of food banks, NHS waiting times and poverty all persist. Most of my colleagues are against a tax rise, but it’s not something we discuss often: people tend to disagree quite passionately.

Company shareholder, £250,000 per year

‘The rich tell the story that suits them’

When the rich own the agenda they tell the story that suits them. Governments should have the courage to properly use information such as the IMF’s findings. The top rate in the UK is too low. Super-high earners can only earn that much in a developed society, but they aren’t prepared to pay their share of the costs to maintain such a society. We should increase income tax and dramatically increase inheritance tax.

Strategy director, earns about £400,000 per year

‘Most of the people I worked with inhabited a bubble’

Most people I worked with thought a tax rate above 50% felt wrong. Psychologically the “government-takes-half-my-money” threshold is important, driving more people to avoid tax. But addressing wealth inequality using an income tax is a blunt instrument – let’s address wealth inequality directly with a wealth tax.

I doubt many of the people I used to work with gave much thought to the sustainability of the status quo, although they weren’t bad people. They just mostly inhabited a bubble where things were mostly just fine. They’re aware that there are poor people, but they probably underestimate the scope and depth of poverty.

Semi-retired, worked for a hedge fund; earns 20 times the UK median income

‘If an ill person has a stash of gold, should that be exempt?’

Why should property wealth be exempt? If an ill person has a stash of gold in a vault somewhere, should that be exempt also? Or a lovely old Bentley that they’re emotionally attached to? Many older people live in houses much larger than their needs, often denying growing families larger homes in a scarce market. The value tied up in a house can be released through companies that will offer a loan, to be paid back only after the asset owner has deceased (should they wish to continue living in their home whilst they need care). Ultimately, if one can afford to pay for oneself then one should.

Recruitment executive, £150,000-£300,000 per year



‘In the choice of caring for my family or society, I choose my family’

In the choice between caring for my family or society in general, I choose my immediate loved ones every single time. I will do everything for my children, and that will include giving them as much advantage as I can. Could we simply have a cap on how much an individual can inherit, perhaps linked to the average yearly salary? Until we have clear and fair rules, we find ourselves in a gamified tax system in which I play to win.

Data scientist, about £150,000 per year

‘It’s crazy to protect inheritance at the expense of young taxpayers’

Many people – myself included, but particularly my parents’ generation – are sitting on property wealth that was not earned. But even if it was, I think it’s entirely appropriate to use property wealth to offset care in old age. Someone has to pay – should this be me, or younger taxpayers who don’t have the advantages of owning assets (including a home)? It appears crazy to me to suggest that the state should protect the inheritance of my kids at the expense of younger taxpayers. The government will inevitably look at wealth taxes: as an employer and a high-income earner, I don’t believe lowering tax encourages me to work harder, employ more or generate more wealth.

Partner in US-based law firm, earning more than £500,000 per year

‘Inheritance tax is easily avoidable and does very little’

Inheritance tax is easily avoidable and does very little to prevent inequality, whilst also irritating people. A wealth tax that you pay during your lifetime would make more sense. Someone who inherits a large fortune would pay a wealth tax on it every year. Someone who was given that fortune eight years before the donor died would also pay a wealth tax – right now they’d pay zero inheritance tax.

Semi-retired, worked for a hedge fund; earns 20 times the UK median income

Follow the Guardian’s Inequality Project on Twitter here, or email us at inequality.project@theguardian.com





