There is a third option. Move to an economy where you get a better quality of life for your tax "dollar".

For me personally, given my education and skills, the UK provides the best quality of life when compared to the taxes I pay.

Does that mean you've experienced significant periods of living abroad or just added an international dimension to choices of hell for the sake of that opposing viewpoint?

Local government definitely pay out for current retired staff. Where else do you think the money comes from for the shortfall in the gold plated pension?

Not sure what you mean by "current" retired staff. If they're retired they're former staff. Once they've retired the Pension Fund pays out their pension - retired staff no longer form part of the liabilities of the Organisation's Pension Fund (except the ones who retired early and their retirement costs weren't capitalised, but these are slowly dying off - these are very rare nowadays).

The shortfall in the PF is the snapshot deficit between Assets & Liabilities at the valuation date. It's funded by the contributions of Employees and Employers (mainly Employers). Employers only pay into the PF when the person hasn't retired. They do not pay the actual pension itself, the pension is effectively a drawdown of the accumulated benefits.

I better get onto a few councils to let them know they are fiddling the books, as they are paying to fund former staff. Those who are currently retired.

I'm fairly sure diehard collectivists hope that people who pay a lot of tax decide to stay, given how much this small group ponies up. After all, if they left and decided to go private abroad, who would pay for Jeremy Kyle's sofa-bound audience to be kept in the lager fags and muffin top manner to which they've become accustomed.

I imagine it's not always a question of being successful in the present tense but of enjoying the fruits of existing success when those fruits are ripe enough and while there is still time to enjoy them - and as you say, not paying through the nose for everybody else's costly personal habits. In terms of conditions here, relative political stability and the relative transparency of legal processes are two major advantages, but personal factors such as family and friends will always figure. In this context I'm not sure Council Tax would be at the top of the considerations list but the cost of public services compared to their quality won't go away.

Same rule applies - are those relatives net contributors or net beneficiaries of public services?

Personal example - my mum has arthritis and various other health issues and my dad has heart problems. It would be extremely hard for us to relocate elsewhere and still get the same quality of life as the reduction in taxes would be more than offset by increased costs such as health.

Statistically each powerfully built PH Director will have 9 family members who are net beneficiaries of public expenditure such as CT. it's not just the Jeremy Kyle afficionados who benefit.

Can't see your logic on that.

Wife wont move too far from her family.
I'd move tomorrow

I wouldn't be taking the extended family so any costs would still remain in the UK while the tax revenue would leave.

Yes, you agree then.