RE: Who is going to give up profit? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DesideriScuri -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/27/2012 3:48:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Warren Buffett has a very valid point. For years we have heard that if taxes were raised on the rich, they would simply stop investing. That never made sense to me. Why give up profits? Are they really going to give up 70% profit because they cant make 85%?


Perhaps that 70% isn't acceptable as an incentive. It could very well end up that they can get 80% investing outside the US. What would you do then? 70% or 80%?




tazzygirl -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/27/2012 4:08:06 PM)

They still pay the same tax rate.

Are you suggesting that they will go to foreign investments if taxes rise? Like they arent doing so now?




thompsonx -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/27/2012 4:28:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Warren Buffett has a very valid point. For years we have heard that if taxes were raised on the rich, they would simply stop investing. That never made sense to me. Why give up profits? Are they really going to give up 70% profit because they cant make 85%?


Perhaps that 70% isn't acceptable as an incentive. It could very well end up that they can get 80% investing outside the US. What would you do then? 70% or 80%?

That was not the question. The question, in case you missed it, was why would you keep your money in the bank at a fraction of 1% instead of making 70% as opposed to 80%.. Your post gives one the sense of a man with a paper asshole trying to fight a forest fire.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/27/2012 4:57:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
That was not the question. The question, in case you missed it, was why would you keep your money in the bank at a fraction of 1% instead of making 70% as opposed to 80%.. Your post gives one the sense of a man with a paper asshole trying to fight a forest fire.


So, if all the realistic options aren't given, one should just stfu and deal with it? Well, you should know by now that I'm not going to go that route. If I see an option that could be realistically viable, I'll point it out.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/27/2012 5:02:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
They still pay the same tax rate.
Are you suggesting that they will go to foreign investments if taxes rise? Like they arent doing so now?


Or, they'll do so to a much greater extent. Couldn't that be a possibility? I'm not saying they aren't investing outside the US now. I'm just saying that it's possible that they may take whatever they were going to invest domestically, and go foreign with it. I make the assumption that those that are investing a great deal do so both foreign and domestic.




tazzygirl -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/27/2012 5:15:21 PM)

And how does that change the taxes?




switchdavid69 -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/27/2012 6:16:03 PM)

1 % ?. Your'e in the wrong parking spot. I'm getting 7 % in the annunity I am invested in. There is a small cost to manage it, but certainly better than a passbook account..




tazzygirl -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/27/2012 6:20:18 PM)

Is that worth giving up 70%, simply because you are no longer getting 85%?




meatcleaver -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/28/2012 1:50:20 AM)

For years Britain has been the most capitalistic and business friendly country in western Europe (according to most reports) with a tax system for the rich that leaks like a ceive and where taxmen turn a blind eye to tax dodging. So much so, a tax rate for the rich in Britain, returns far less tax than a similar tax rate in Germany or France. Britain is a tax dodgers paradise (if you are rich) and its government protects tax havens and makes deals with Swiss banks that more or less legitimises tax evasion.

However, British business investment is lower than most other countries in western Europe, it job creation is less, though this is obscured by the fact temporary part time minimum wage jobs which don´t produce enough income to live on appear to be counted as full time jobs. The British experience provides no evidence that creating a socialist state for the rich, in tandem with a brute capitalist state for the poor, improves investment, job creation or average living standards.

In fact, if Britain collected the tax due, never mind increasing tax rates, Britain would not have a deficit. I suspect similar in the US, maybe someone can enlighten us.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/28/2012 5:42:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
In fact, if Britain collected the tax due, never mind increasing tax rates, Britain would not have a deficit. I suspect similar in the US, maybe someone can enlighten us.


[sasrcasm] How can that be?!? Raising tax rates is the only way to raise tax revenues! Closing loopholes won't do it! [/sarcasm]

I suspect that the US could run in the black if the loopholes are closed. And, as the National Debt is being paid off, slowly lower the tax rates to meet yearly spending.




Yachtie -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/28/2012 6:27:47 AM)

fr

Almost two-thirds of the country�s million-pound earners disappeared from Britain after the introduction of the 50p top rate of tax, figures have disclosed.

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.

Last night, Harriet Baldwin, the Conservative MP who uncovered the latest figures, said: “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.

Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.




Yes, ideological tax hikes do have consequences.








meatcleaver -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/28/2012 6:51:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
In fact, if Britain collected the tax due, never mind increasing tax rates, Britain would not have a deficit. I suspect similar in the US, maybe someone can enlighten us.


[sasrcasm] How can that be?!? Raising tax rates is the only way to raise tax revenues! Closing loopholes won't do it! [/sarcasm]



Pointless raising tax rates if loopholes aren't closed, all it will mean is the rich will avoid paying even more taxes.




LizDeluxe -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/28/2012 7:03:04 AM)

Look at France. See what happens when you tax the shit out of the wealthy.




meatcleaver -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/28/2012 7:09:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

Look at France. See what happens when you tax the shit out of the wealthy.


Well the rich always say they will leave if taxes are raised too high but most don't. It is true some will leave and freeload on another country, like Britain where they can get away with paying next to nothing but I doubt ordinary French people are bothered about losing rich freeloaders to their neighbours.

It is a fallacy that allowing the rich to freeload will somehow create more investment and jobs, it has never happened in Britain and Britain is the spiritual home of rich freeloaders in Europe.

I also notice it is rightwing rags (newpapers) that are spreading scare stories about an exodus of the rich from France but it appears to be scaring no one.




mnottertail -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/28/2012 7:12:39 AM)

Whats wrong with France?  They are cutting their deficits.  They still have like 39 of the biggest 500 companies in the world, same as its been for some years........No big or much at all in the way of business and company jobs leaving.

The rich are going to Britain and Switzerland and will certainly help pay in the NHS and other 'socialist' British programs.

The multimillion dollar homes flooding the French market (LOLOLOLOLOL) will be sold at pennies on the dollar, you think?

Maybe the 'republicans' can send our poor to France to fill the hole.




meatcleaver -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/28/2012 7:27:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The rich are going to Britain and Switzerland and will certainly help pay in the NHS and other 'socialist' British programs.



The average Brit pays 50% of what the average American pays for full medical cover. The French and the Germans pay more for medical cover but still a lot less than the average American.

The real cost for Britain in subsidising the rich while hitting the poor with austerity, is the welfare bill is rising to enable the working poor to have a income they can live on. Subsidising the rich is not cost free. 




mnottertail -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/28/2012 7:28:51 AM)

We are still struggling with that concept, and it is being touted with steroids here that the rich need subsidies.  




fucktoyprincess -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/28/2012 7:31:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

For years Britain has been the most capitalistic and business friendly country in western Europe (according to most reports) with a tax system for the rich that leaks like a ceive and where taxmen turn a blind eye to tax dodging. So much so, a tax rate for the rich in Britain, returns far less tax than a similar tax rate in Germany or France. Britain is a tax dodgers paradise (if you are rich) and its government protects tax havens and makes deals with Swiss banks that more or less legitimises tax evasion.

However, British business investment is lower than most other countries in western Europe, it job creation is less, though this is obscured by the fact temporary part time minimum wage jobs which don´t produce enough income to live on appear to be counted as full time jobs. The British experience provides no evidence that creating a socialist state for the rich, in tandem with a brute capitalist state for the poor, improves investment, job creation or average living standards.

In fact, if Britain collected the tax due, never mind increasing tax rates, Britain would not have a deficit. I suspect similar in the US, maybe someone can enlighten us.


This is true for many countries. Take Greece as an example. Tax evasion is routine there. And hence, the government has collapsed. So why haven't all of the tax dodgers stimulated their economy? Because supply side economics simply do not work. We proved it in the U.S. We have examples in many European countries. And still, the conservatives are belly aching about taxes on the wealthy and the disincentives to investment.

Here is the thing. Whether we tax the wealthy or don't, they will only invest where they want to. So we might as well keep our society and government properly funded in the interim. Again, why are we morally obligated to the wealthy? I think the moment as a country one feels one has to make extra accommodations for the wealthy, the worse off as a society one will become. One needs a well thought out progressive tax system and a strong tax collection system to keep a civilized country afloat. This is simple reality (one which you see, but which conservatives do not.)





DesideriScuri -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/28/2012 9:32:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
For years Britain has been the most capitalistic and business friendly country in western Europe (according to most reports) with a tax system for the rich that leaks like a ceive and where taxmen turn a blind eye to tax dodging. So much so, a tax rate for the rich in Britain, returns far less tax than a similar tax rate in Germany or France. Britain is a tax dodgers paradise (if you are rich) and its government protects tax havens and makes deals with Swiss banks that more or less legitimises tax evasion.
However, British business investment is lower than most other countries in western Europe, it job creation is less, though this is obscured by the fact temporary part time minimum wage jobs which don´t produce enough income to live on appear to be counted as full time jobs. The British experience provides no evidence that creating a socialist state for the rich, in tandem with a brute capitalist state for the poor, improves investment, job creation or average living standards.
In fact, if Britain collected the tax due, never mind increasing tax rates, Britain would not have a deficit. I suspect similar in the US, maybe someone can enlighten us.

This is true for many countries. Take Greece as an example. Tax evasion is routine there. And hence, the government has collapsed. So why haven't all of the tax dodgers stimulated their economy? Because supply side economics simply do not work. We proved it in the U.S. We have examples in many European countries. And still, the conservatives are belly aching about taxes on the wealthy and the disincentives to investment.
Here is the thing. Whether we tax the wealthy or don't, they will only invest where they want to. So we might as well keep our society and government properly funded in the interim. Again, why are we morally obligated to the wealthy? I think the moment as a country one feels one has to make extra accommodations for the wealthy, the worse off as a society one will become. One needs a well thought out progressive tax system and a strong tax collection system to keep a civilized country afloat. This is simple reality (one which you see, but which conservatives do not.)


I have gone 'round and 'round with many Progressives and Liberals. The griping about taxes being at historic lows and tax cuts for the rich are ridiculous. The rich are carrying more and more of the load for Federal income tax revenues. Fewer and fewer wage earners have a Federal income tax liability. That's been the trend since the Bush tax cuts (not making any statement on the trend before the Bush tax cuts). Federal Income Tax revenues are nearing historic highs. How is it the rich "aren't paying enough," fewer and fewer wage earners are even paying Federal income taxes, and yet, Federal Tax revenues are nearing record highs?

Is tax revenue lower than the historic average as determined by %GDP? Yes. When I asked why (it hasn't been on CM, btw), I get "the recession, duh" as a response. If it's the recession that is causing the tax revenues as %GDP to be so low, how will raising rates fix the problem? Raising rates isn't going to turn the recession around.

Leave rates alone. Abolish all loopholes (outside of progressive tax brackets) and let the economy grow. Revenues will rise with the economy.




tazzygirl -> RE: Who is going to give up profit? (11/28/2012 9:37:50 AM)

quote:

Is tax revenue lower than the historic average as determined by %GDP? Yes. When I asked why (it hasn't been on CM, btw), I get "the recession, duh" as a response. If it's the recession that is causing the tax revenues as %GDP to be so low, how will raising rates fix the problem? Raising rates isn't going to turn the recession around.


Its not just the recession. Its also the distribution of wealth.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875