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%?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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%?

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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]

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

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

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.

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.)

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.