Super rich tax.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I bet some of these guys have their own 'blog'.

[BalarnyStone 0]

Can I have some official figures on that 1.2 billion. - if its a Tory "fact" then I'll ignore it.

 

It's a DWP 2010/11 figure. Although that's a govt. department, which is half made up of Conservatives, soo.......

 

 

Also every legal tax avoidance scheme used by the rich is designed, legislated and paid for by a network of the same people - the treasury/ lackeys enforce the laws demanded by their real masters.

 

This all sounds very Illuminati really, and thus not very credible. Like it or not, tax avoidance in the main is simply a product of complexity, not evil plots. Exploitation of it is of course easier for those with the resources to do so, but if you've invented a system of government or wider society that eliminates that inherent unfairness in life, then the Nobel Committee would definitely like to hear from you.

[Park Life 71]

Yeah Osbourne MUST BE A COMMUNIST!!

[BalarnyStone 0]

Yeah Osbourne MUST BE A COMMUNIST!!

 

Only in your own swiss cheese brain is what he said equivalent to what you said.

[Park Life 71]

Only in your own swiss cheese brain is what he said equivalent to what you said.

 

I'd take you more seriously if you could spell 'Blarney' right.

 

If you don't get the simplest thing...ie non-dom status of the super rich is first base in tax avoidance...The there is little need to take apart your neo-malthusian scatterbrain. Love. P.

[BalarnyStone 0]

I'd take you more seriously if you could spell 'Blarney' right.

 

If you don't get the simplest thing...ie non-dom status of the super rich is first base in tax avoidance...The there is little need to take apart your neo-malthusian scatterbrain. Love. P.

 

 

Ah bless. First off, it's my user name. I spell it how I want. Second, I get perfectly well that in your mind every single really rich person in the UK is trying to avoid tax, just like you think that every single really rich person in the UK is a non-dom. The fact remains, whether your fragile ego can take it or not, whether you've got enough neurons in that brain to understand this point or not, both of these simpleton like beliefs of yours can be proven to be false very easily, by anyone. They are as dim-witted and unintelligent as points of argument as when the average knuckle dragging talking chimp in the street claims that every immigrant in the country has stolen a native person's job. At minimum, both of you deserve castration to prevent the furtherment of your genes.

[jonasjuice 0]

I think you're all missing the point here that if the poor don't like it they should GET A FUCKING JOB!!!...Peasants....

[NJS 4389]

This all sounds very Illuminati really, and thus not very credible. Like it or not, tax avoidance in the main is simply a product of complexity, not evil plots. Exploitation of it is of course easier for those with the resources to do so, but if you've invented a system of government or wider society that eliminates that inherent unfairness in life, then the Nobel Committee would definitely like to hear from you.

 

The complexity is the invention I'm talking about - why should it be that way?

 

What if everyone had a designated bank acount into which all earned money was paid and at the end of the year (or pro-rata) a flat percentage was taken for tax? No transfer of money to foreign acounts. No non-dom status - just a tax at source nice and simple. No deductions for expenses, no relief for so called charitable donations or bollocks like growing timber - just one payment per month or year.

 

The fuckers would shit themselves - imagine actually having to pay the same percentage as everyone else.

Edited June 5, 2012 by NJS

[BalarnyStone 0]

The complexity is the invention I'm talking about - why should it be that way?

 

What if everyone had a designated bank acount into which all earned money was paid and at the end of the year (or pro-rata) a flat percentage was taken for tax? No transfer of money to foreign acounts. No non-dom status - just a tax at source nice and simple. No deductions for expenses, no relief for so called charitable donations or bollocks like growing timber - just one payment per month or year.

 

No argument from me, I'd vote for any party proposing that. But it's never been proposed though, in all the years of government sinc eincome tax was invented, including the most die hard socialist ones, so either the Illuminati really do control everybody, from Harold Wilson to Margret Thather, or there's some other reason we're both missing.

 

The fuckers would shit themselves - imagine actually having to pay the same percentage as everyone else.

 

Well, for this leap you have to buy into the Parky fantasy land view that the only people who pay tax in this country are the poor saps on 20%. I'd say there'd be many rich people who'd love the chance to pay at the rate most of the people do, as their 'fair' share.

[Gemmill 44931]

Massive shock to discover Balarny Stone being contrary in yet another thread. He's basically CT with less charm and fewer spelling mistakes.

 

I still think he's someone on a wind up though.

[ChezGiven 0]

One thing that's always perplexed me is why it's considered 'fair' that richer people should pay more tax than the poor. If people were that bothered about fairness, everybody would be paying a flat rate. Would people stand for being charged a different price for a pint, based on how much was in your wallet? Of fucking course not, because that's not an example of fairness at all. It's quite amazing that even in a world where, in percentage terms, rich people on average pay twice as much tax as the rest, that communists like this Parky fella still complain about the rich not paying their 'fair share' and want to get their hands on more of their money.

Equality and equity are very different. If everyone pays the same tax, the situation is equal but far from equitable under any coherent theory of social justice. Aristotlean justice is based on the principle of proportional contributions and need. Rawlsian justice on the contributions of the least well off. It's always perplexed you because you haven't grasped the concept you are trying to understand, fairness.

Edited June 5, 2012 by ChezGiven

[DEADMAN 0]

well with this current conservatives the rich will be let off again

[toonotl 2987]

The complexity is the invention I'm talking about - why should it be that way?

 

What if everyone had a designated bank acount into which all earned money was paid and at the end of the year (or pro-rata) a flat percentage was taken for tax? No transfer of money to foreign acounts. No non-dom status - just a tax at source nice and simple. No deductions for expenses, no relief for so called charitable donations or bollocks like growing timber - just one payment per month or year.

 

The fuckers would shit themselves - imagine actually having to pay the same percentage as everyone else.

 

Wow. To begin with 'Bollocks like growing timber' is incentivised for a reason. The argument for a simplified tax code has merit but the above is just plain idiocy.

[NJS 4389]

Wow. To begin with 'Bollocks like growing timber' is incentivised for a reason. The argument for a simplified tax code has merit but the above is just plain idiocy.

Wow. To begin with 'Bollocks like growing timber' is incentivised for a reason. The argument for a simplified tax code has merit but the above is just plain idiocy.

 

It's incentivised for the rich to save tax - the green credentials are a con to fool the naive.

 

Why do you thgink they've cut back on the Solar panel incentives? (which could be argued are similarly "green") - because too many plebs were gaining and no rich.

 

I realise my suggestion is "idiotic" in the sense that they would find ways around it but I was trying to make a point - the rich refuse to accept that they should contribute to society and will do anything to avoid it.

[Howmanheyman 33267]

I think the answer is putting servile toadies like our new friend, Mr Stone, up against the wall with the firing squad looking on waiting for their cue come la revolution.

 

Most are actually are pleased when someone they know does well for themselves however Balarney come across as a holier than thou arsehole with not a trace of empathy about him to his fellow working class man who he feels comfortable with in the clurb. Do they feel the same about you with those type of views?

 

As for the actual rich, I'm sure they could manage to live a very comfortable life even if they didn't avoid, (legally or not), their taxes.

[Happy Face 29]

The optimal tax rate on the highest earners is in the vicinity of 70%.

 

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.4.165

[Happy Face 29]

Hardly. I think it's more disgraceful that it's legal to charge someone a higher percentage of income tax just because they earn more, and call that 'fair'. Perhaps there would be less avoidance among the rich if there was a genuniely fair system of a flat rate. Maybe then the envious people frothing their knickers in jealousy would pay more attention to the people who really are stealing from the country while contributing absolutely nothing to it.

 

Of course it's 'fair'. All great wealth is earned off the back of society.

 

MacDonalds millionaires have made their wealth by forcefeeding faeces infested grade k meat to kiddies around the globe, they've contributed to an obesity problem that costs governments around the world a great deal. Tesco and convenience food purveyors resist proper labelling and do the same, driving down the cost of convenience shit while health foods come with a healthy price increase. They're in the same boat as tobacco barons. Oil billionaires jeopardise the environment of the entire earth, bankers bring about the financial ruination of the worldwide economy. Property developers drive up the prices of homeownership to levels that a first time buyer has little chance of getting on the ladder. Media magnates tap murder victims phones and cheer on illegal invasions.

 

It's only fair that the huge income they gorge themselves on as a result of exploiting society is redistributed to a greater degree than a milkman.

 

It's not envy, or anger that drives a progressive tax system though. I've used some cartoon examples there, and clearly there are a lot of wealthy people who are not pure evil, but it's simple economics. Any serious tackling of the deficit requires greater revenues for the government. Cuts and austerity measures cannot cover the cost of a growing and ageing population without poverty reaching levels where society begins to break down.

 

Krugman explains it best as always, the maths of higher taxes on the wealthy ....

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/the-simple-analytics-of-soaking-the-rich-wonkish/

[Kitman 2207]

I doubt anybody will agree on what's 'fair'. I expect the problem with the super rich, who most people would like to see taxed till their arses bleed, is that they can go and live wherever they want. I suppose the argument for not taxing them to buggery is that they bring substantial investment with them which would go elsewhere if they were driven away. I've not idea whether that has any merit or not.

[Happy Face 29]

I doubt anybody will agree on what's 'fair'. I expect the problem with the super rich, who most people would like to see taxed till their arses bleed, is that they can go and live wherever they want. I suppose the argument for not taxing them to buggery is that they bring substantial investment with them which would go elsewhere if they were driven away. I've not idea whether that has any merit or not.

 

That's what the 70% figure takes account of.

 

The notion that a British company (like Sports Direct) with £billions in turnover every year will stop investment in the UK because the chairman has to pay millions on personal income seems odd to me. Why would he cut off his nose?

[Kitman 2207]

That's what the 70% figure takes account of.

 

The notion that a British company (like Sports Direct) with £billions in turnover every year will stop investment in the UK because the chairman has to pay millions on personal income seems odd to me. Why would he cut off his nose?

 

I think it's a different issue when you have someone who's born and bred in the UK. Then it's a big imposition to have to live abroad and ration their visits to the UK. They'll pay extra to stay in the country. That's different to the likes of foreign nationals like Abramovich who have no real ties to Britain and can bugger off and take their toys with them. I was really talking about foreign nationals but it's true that the rich are mobile and can structure their affairs to suit themselves. Take your example of Sports Direct.....I expect clever people could arrange for the SD head office to be moved offshore along with trade marks, brand names etc if fatty decided to piss off.

[Happy Face 29]

I think it's a different issue when you have someone who's born and bred in the UK. Then it's a big imposition to have to live abroad and ration their visits to the UK. They'll pay extra to stay in the country. That's different to the likes of foreign nationals like Abramovich who have no real ties to Britain and can bugger off and take their toys with them. I was really talking about foreign nationals but it's true that the rich are mobile and can structure their affairs to suit themselves. Take your example of Sports Direct.....I expect clever people could arrange for the SD head office to be moved offshore along with trade marks, brand names etc if fatty decided to piss off.

 

Again, this seems wrong headed to me.

 

We can't tax at a higher rate, or actually collect taxes from most of the wealthiest, because if we did, they'd shift...surely that's their choice and we shouldn't allow them to stay without contributing what they can afford as everyone else has to.

 

A company turning over billions and reporting hundreds of millions in profits every year in the UK isn't going to shut down because the chairman moves. They may chase corporation tax incentives.

 

I'm not saying tax the rich to the hilt either, a 100% tax rate would obviously be prohibitive in the way you describe, it logically doesn't leave the billionaire much option other than to move away, but after all is said and done, once the maths is applied and you offset the lost income against the increaases, then 73% is reported to be the optimum level of taxation against the wealthiest in order to maximise revenues.

[BalarnyStone 0]

Equality and equity are very different. If everyone pays the same tax, the situation is equal but far from equitable under any coherent theory of social justice. Aristotlean justice is based on the principle of proportional contributions and need. Rawlsian justice on the contributions of the least well off. It's always perplexed you because you haven't grasped the concept you are trying to understand, fairness.

 

LOL. Everyone paying the same share isn't a coherent theory of equality? What bollocks. It's a theory you clearly disagree with, but that doesn't make it incoherent. And if we don't follow the Ancient Greek model of democracy, then why should we follow their model of income tax?

[NJS 4389]

I think there's also a tendency to have the wrong impression about incomes in this country.

 

The cliched "middle income" earners who everyone seemingly thinks are the bedrock of this country is a misnomer - I think only 11% of "normal" workers pay more than standard rate tax. The media deliberately talk as if theres a nicely spread of incomes up to the top earners - there isn't. This allows BS to talk about "fellow workers" as if they are the ones who'd suffer with a better tax policy. As I said I think most people who are on PAYE who don't have other income streams probably pay an acceptable level of tax imo.

 

This is why I'd have no qualms hitting the real rich - as I said anyone with more than 1m in assets - I think the number of those is something like 200,000.

[BalarnyStone 0]

Of course it's 'fair'. All great wealth is earned off the back of society.

 

MacDonalds millionaires have made their wealth by forcefeeding faeces infested grade k meat to kiddies around the globe, they've contributed to an obesity problem that costs governments around the world a great deal. Tesco and convenience food purveyors resist proper labelling and do the same, driving down the cost of convenience shit while health foods come with a healthy price increase. They're in the same boat as tobacco barons. Oil billionaires jeopardise the environment of the entire earth, bankers bring about the financial ruination of the worldwide economy. Property developers drive up the prices of homeownership to levels that a first time buyer has little chance of getting on the ladder. Media magnates tap murder victims phones and cheer on illegal invasions.

 

It's only fair that the huge income they gorge themselves on as a result of exploiting society is redistributed to a greater degree than a milkman.

 

It's not envy, or anger that drives a progressive tax system though. I've used some cartoon examples there, and clearly there are a lot of wealthy people who are not pure evil, but it's simple economics. Any serious tackling of the deficit requires greater revenues for the government. Cuts and austerity measures cannot cover the cost of a growing and ageing population without poverty reaching levels where society begins to break down.

 

Krugman explains it best as always, the maths of higher taxes on the wealthy ....

 

http://krugman.blogs...e-rich-wonkish/

 

They are indeed cartoon examples. It's nothing but empty rhetoric frankly. If you want a real lesson in wealth earned off the back of the masses, you'd do better to look at the examples where people really don't have a free choice in where they live, work, or shop. You'd raise far more by adding just a small amount on the basic rate, than using the politics of envy to justify taking a bigger share from those who have more than you. That really is just basic maths. Your maths is the kind where somehow people think you can fund the annual welfare budget which stands in the billions, from taxing bonuses and salaries that in only the rare cases, reach the million pound mark. Evne if that tax level was 99%, it's clearly bollocks economics.

[ChezGiven 0]

There are no theories of equality as you can measure it. There are theories of equity and social justice that underpin left and right politics though. Aristotle's principle of justice dominate western thought on the matter, that's why he is so famous. As I said, you haven't grasped the difference between equality which is a stark measure and equity which captures the unnderlying value judgements and therefore definition of fairness. Equality is therefore very often considered unfair e.g. People paying the same tax irrespective of income or circumstance.