Super rich tax.

[Park Life 71]

Your premise is wrong. We tax to fund the things we deem should be publicly funded, like schools, hospitals etc. Redistribution of wealth as an actual purpose of government is more Mugabe/Stalin's style. If you want to incentivise people to work, you'll do better by invoking the American model, rather than the Stalinist one. You don't eliminate poverty by screwing over the rich, all that produces is the redefiniton of poverty as is happening now - it used to be based on the ability to feed yourself, now it's based on whether you can afford a decent telly. Full employment is irrelevant, this unfair system is used even when employment is at record lows. I sign up to the idea of a tax allowance, so paper boy's are irrlevant, but other than that, I see no moral basis in the idea that just because you earn less, you should pay less in percentage terms. In my dictionary, equity is the "quality of being fair and impartial". Making communist like assumptions that the only reason someone earns a lot is because they inherited it or otherwise didn't really earn it in a way a 'normal' tax payer does, or that they somehow had different opportunities in life, is not being impartial.

 

Yeah cause Soros is a top communist like.

 

 

 

In foreign policy, Soros advocates working with the United Nations to resolve international crises peacefully. Although he built much of his fortune using off-shore accounts outside the U.S. tax system, he supports more progressive taxes. Like billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, Soros advocates higher estate taxes yet selects charitable organizations. Apparently the government knows the best use of everyone's money but his own.

 

 

 

http://www.billionai...orge-soros.aspx

 

http://www.soros.org/

 

Edited June 7, 2012 by Park Life

[ChezGiven 0]

Your premise is wrong. We tax to fund the things we deem should be publicly funded, like schools, hospitals etc. Redistribution of wealth as an actual purpose of government is more Mugabe/Stalin's style. If you want to incentivise people to work, you'll do better by invoking the American model, rather than the Stalinist one. You don't eliminate poverty by screwing over the rich, all that produces is the redefiniton of poverty as is happening now - it used to be based on the ability to feed yourself, now it's based on whether you can afford a decent telly. Full employment is irrelevant, this unfair system is used even when employment is at record lows. I sign up to the idea of a tax allowance, so paper boy's are irrlevant, but other than that, I see no moral basis in the idea that just because you earn less, you should pay less in percentage terms. In my dictionary, equity is the "quality of being fair and impartial". Making communist like assumptions that the only reason someone earns a lot is because they inherited it or otherwise didn't really earn it in a way a 'normal' tax payer does, or that they somehow had different opportunities in life, is not being impartial.

First three sentences are so incoherent it actually makes me less inclined to point out the stupid stuff later in that post. Schools and hospitals funded by taxes are a redistribution of wealth. Social provision of schools and hospitals started because the private market didnt meet the needs of society. When i refer to redistribution of wealth, i dont mean tax the rich to give money to the poor.

 

It means funding those goods and services that are considered essential for man to 'flourish'. Bismarck introduced social welfare in Germany because he wanted the poor to have access to healthcare. As did Bevan in this country.

 

The reference to the initial distribution of wealth was a technical reference to central tenets of welfare economics to see if you'd studied the subject in any depth. Obviously not. I do actually often invoke the US system, its taxation is progressive, the tax rate goes up the more money you have and now its trying to implement universal healthcare.

 

The 'initial' distribution reference is not communism, welfare economics ignores it to allow it to make normative judgements about changes in welfare. We dont care about the initial distribution, we care about how interventions (taxation, spending) can improve welfare.

 

You see no moral basis for progressive taxation but even the United States accepts it as a fundamental feature of tax systems. You're out on a limb values wise.

Edited June 7, 2012 by ChezGiven

[Kitman 2188]

Is there anywhere in the world that has a single flat rate of tax on income?

[ewerk 27671]

I think Russia has a largely flat income tax.

[ewerk 27671]

 

F1's Ecclestone avoided potential £1.2bn tax bill

 

Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone has avoided a potential £1.2bn tax bill as a result of a secret deal with HMRC.

 

The deal involved a payment of just £10m, according to legal transcripts obtained by BBC Panorama.

 

Revenue & Customs spent nine years investigating the Ecclestone family's tax affairs before offering to settle in return for the payment from the family trusts in 2008.

 

Mr Ecclestone said he paid more than £50m in tax last year.

 

Mr Ecclestone, the chief executive of Formula 1, is currently on trial in Germany facing corruption charges. It is alleged he was behind a £26m bribe paid to a bank official.

 

Prosecutors allege the bribe was paid to ensure that Mr Ecclestone retained control of the sport.

 

Ecclestone admits paying former banker, Gerhard Gribkowsky, but says he was effectively the victim of blackmail as he was worried the banker would tell the tax authorities he had set up an offshore family trust.

 

Offshore trusts

 

Panorama's investigation goes back to 1995 when Mr Ecclestone secured ownership of the lucrative TV rights of Formula 1.

 

Shortly afterwards he moved this prize asset offshore, giving the rights to his then wife, Slavica.

 

She transferred them to a family trust in Liechtenstein, before selling them for a huge profit, free of UK tax.

 

It may be the biggest individual tax dodge in British history, and is legally watertight provided Mr Ecclestone did not set up, or control, the trust.

 

If he had done, Mr Ecclestone has admitted, he could have faced a tax bill of more than $2bn - or £1.2bn.

 

Barrister and tax expert Jolyon Maugham said this was a "pretty substantial" loss of tax.

 

"I'm certainly not aware of anything else remotely approaching that sort of magnitude, in my fairly extensive experience."

 

UK tax authorities spent nine years investigating the Ecclestones' tax affairs before agreeing a settlement.

 

HMRC does not comment on individual cases, but Panorama has obtained evidence from the previously unpublished transcripts of interviews conducted by a German public prosecutor.

 

One of the lawyers who helped run the Ecclestone family trusts, Frederique Flournoy, told the prosecutor: "In summer 2008, the Inland Revenue offered to conclude the matter if we paid £10m. We decided to pay up."

 

According to Ms Flournoy's evidence, the Ecclestone family trusts earn around £10m in interest every six weeks.

 

Labour MP Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general, said: "Ten million may sound like a lot to some people but you have to look at it in the round.

 

"And if we're talking about a trust fund in which they are making huge amounts of money like this, then it isn't very much is it?"

 

Divorce payments

Mr Ecclestone says he gave away his fortune to avoid inheritance tax laws that he considered to be "very unfair" at that time.

 

Having gifted the assets to his wife, Mr Ecclestone can't receive payments from his family's offshore trusts.

 

But Ms Flournoy told the German prosecutor he's been receiving payments from his wife since his divorce: "Mrs Ecclestone received disbursements from the Trusts. In other words, she also has a personal asset. That is also the basis on which the divorce ruling fixed the payment amounts to Ecclestone."

 

When asked how high the divorce payments were to Mr Ecclestone, she said: "I don't know the exact figure, however it must be around $100 million a year."

 

Mr Ecclestone said his divorce was a "private matter". He says he has always paid his fair share of tax and that he is "proud to be British and proud to make my contribution by paying my taxes here."

 

Slavica Ecclestone's lawyer said her estate planning was based on legal advice and that she was entitled to privacy in her tax affairs.

 

A lawyer for the family trusts said Mr Ecclestone has not exerted any control over the management of the trusts. He said the transcripts from the German prosecutor contained errors.

 

[Monkeys Fist 39803]

Just remind me what the "deficit" figure was that Gideon originally said that they used to justify their slash and burn policies?

[ewerk 27671]

In fairness these are well established tax avoidance measures. What I find troubling is the measures that mega-rich men like Ecclestone and Philip Green will go to in order to avoid paying their fair share of tax. It's not surprising but they're not being asked to pay what they can't afford and will do anything possible to not pay their 'moral' share.

[DEADMAN 0]

i think a form of taxation on richest transactions should happen but not for everyone i think the rich should be taxed badly they are the real crooks and fraudsters avoiding tax etc.

[Howmanheyman 29112]

i think a form of taxation on richest transactions should happen but not for everyone i think the rich should be taxed badly they are the real crooks and fraudsters avoiding tax etc.

They are taxed badly, Deaders, very badly indeed.

[Rob W 0]

trouble is the rich can always employ people to find the loopholes - first thing is to cut the loopholes and close your ears to the screams of pensioners,etc etc

[ewerk 27671]

They are taxed badly, Deaders, very badly indeed.

 

 

Until they get rich enough where it's worth their while investing in serious tax avoidance schemes/measures. Then they can end up paying much less (proportionately) than you or me.

[Howmanheyman 29112]

 

 

Until they get rich enough where it's worth their while investing in serious tax avoidance schemes/measures. Then they can end up paying much less (proportionately) than you or me.

Yes. They are taxed badly.

[ewerk 27671]

[Howmanheyman 29112]

.........said the blind man.

[ChezGiven 0]

http://m.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2014/03/31/140331crbo_books_cassidy?currentPage=all

 

May be of interest to some, not got it yet but it's on my list.

[ChezGiven 0]

Better review:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/28/thomas-piketty-capital-surprise-bestseller

[Park Life 71]

http://m.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2014/03/31/140331crbo_books_cassidy?currentPage=all

 

May be of interest to some, not got it yet but it's on my list.

Did you get it?