Get live statistics and analysis of Alan Smith's profile on X / Twitter

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　 So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　 So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving). The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving). The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving). The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving). The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving). And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　 Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　 But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!“　 “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”　 “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”　 “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　 The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　 And that’s how it works. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　 For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Maybe we should stop asking people to pay more tax - and start asking where all the money’s going.

A chancellor who has never run a business and reports to a prime minister who has never run a business and is advised by civil servants who have never run a business - is about to advise business owners how to run a business.

This might backfire for Starmer. I just asked my 16-year-old son who he’d vote for. His reply: “Anyone but this lot”.

Imagine you ran a business and the top 1% of your customers generated 30% of your income. And then you did everything to make them leave and never come back. Even though they funded your business, you didn’t like them because they were successful. So your business went bust.

A prediction: The UK state pension will be means tested. So those that have been responsible and saved for their retirement will receive less than those who didn’t. It may not be fair - but that’s where it’s going.

There are 156 billionaires in the UK. If the government taxed them all 100% of their wealth, it would cover just one year of social welfare and NHS spending. What happens after that? The problem isn’t tax – it’s uncontrolled spending.

Is this the biggest political own-goal in history? I’ve just come off a call with a founder who’ll sell his business for £150 million next year. He’s now taken the decision to relocate overseas prior to the completion of the sale. He’s moved from the acceptance of paying 20% capital gains tax on the sale proceeds, through the possibility of paying 39% and has now concluded that he can avoid paying anything at all. As a result, HMRC will lose a minimum of £30 million (assuming rates remain unchanged) in tax receipts. And that’s just one transaction. This is the Laffer Curve playing out in real time. I’m currently receiving multiple calls and emails from other founders exploring exactly the same idea. Whatever your political views are, this has been a disastrous PR exercise from the government. In business and the economy, confidence is everything. It’s going to take a long time to turn this sentiment around.

“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” Thomas Sowell

France tried it. Wealth fled. Sweden tried it. Wealth fled. Spain tried it. Wealth fled. Everywhere it’s tried, it fails. But Lord Kinnock says we should try it.

Between 1999–2002, Gordon Brown sold 395 tonnes of our gold at around $275/oz - about half of our reserves. Today that same gold is worth £47B+. One of the worst financial decisions made by a modern government.

A prediction: The UK state pension will be means tested. So those that have been responsible and saved for their retirement will receive less than those who didn’t. It may not be fair - but that’s where it’s going.

A chancellor who has never run a business and reports to a prime minister who has never run a business and is advised by civil servants who have never run a business - is about to advise business owners how to run a business.

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　 So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　 So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving). The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving). The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving). The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving). The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving). And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　 Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　 But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!“　 “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”　 “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”　 “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　 The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　 And that’s how it works. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　 For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

France tried it. Wealth fled. Sweden tried it. Wealth fled. Spain tried it. Wealth fled. Everywhere it’s tried, it fails. But Lord Kinnock says we should try it.

Is this the biggest political own-goal in history? I’ve just come off a call with a founder who’ll sell his business for £150 million next year. He’s now taken the decision to relocate overseas prior to the completion of the sale. He’s moved from the acceptance of paying 20% capital gains tax on the sale proceeds, through the possibility of paying 39% and has now concluded that he can avoid paying anything at all. As a result, HMRC will lose a minimum of £30 million (assuming rates remain unchanged) in tax receipts. And that’s just one transaction. This is the Laffer Curve playing out in real time. I’m currently receiving multiple calls and emails from other founders exploring exactly the same idea. Whatever your political views are, this has been a disastrous PR exercise from the government. In business and the economy, confidence is everything. It’s going to take a long time to turn this sentiment around.

Between 1999–2002, Gordon Brown sold 395 tonnes of our gold at around $275/oz - about half of our reserves. Today that same gold is worth £47B+. One of the worst financial decisions made by a modern government.

Gary Stevenson says the UK had a wealth tax in the 60s and 70s. We didn’t - although we did have 90% income tax rates. The result was that the wealthy left the UK, the economy stagnated and the IMF bailed us out.

Imagine you ran a business and the top 1% of your customers generated 30% of your income. And then you did everything to make them leave and never come back. Even though they funded your business, you didn’t like them because they were successful. So your business went bust.

This might backfire for Starmer. I just asked my 16-year-old son who he’d vote for. His reply: “Anyone but this lot”.

Maybe we should stop asking people to pay more tax - and start asking where all the money’s going.

20 years in business and I’ve never known it like this. - Entrepreneurs & their lawyers working around the clock to close their business sale before 30/10. - Clients removing their tax-free cash from pensions - Investors selling portfolios to crystallise gains 🤯

Spoke with a small business owner this morning He broke down his numbers: When he sells £100 of work, the customer pays £120. Here’s who ends up with the money: VAT: £20.00 Corporation Tax: £25.00 Dividend Tax: £29.51 ——— Total to HMRC: £74.51 No wonder small businesses are struggling.

Here's some facts; - There are 5.6 million small businesses in the UK. - SMEs account for 99.9% of the business population. - Total employment in SMEs is 16.7 million (61% of the total), - Annual turnover from SMEs is estimated at £2.4 trillion. - 90% of new businesses fail, often resulting in the founders losing all their life savings. - Small/medium businesses are the heart and soul of the British economy. Starting and growing a business takes guts, resilience, and ambition—and it needs to be supported for the economy to thrive. Global corporations employ armies of accountants to minimise or eliminate their taxes. Small businesses don’t have the luxury or budget for that; frankly, most don’t want to. They’re happy to pay their fair share but draw the line when they believe they’re taken advantage of. A vibrant, flourishing economy that's supportive of business will generate far more tax revenue than one that crushes the British entrepreneurial spirit. I truly hope that Rachel Reeves will see sense next week.