UK Wealth Tax Needed; Rich Not Paying Fair Share

[charlou]

Another view, from outside,is that the US is arguably the most socially and politically conservative country in the developed world,and in fact does not have an effective political left.

Seems Australia is following that political trend.

Where the fuck has our left option gone? All lost to informal votes, I fear.

[charlou]

That said, good on some of our states for taking a more enlightened approach ...

[padraic]

Another view, from outside,is that the US is arguably the most socially and politically conservative country in the developed world,and in fact does not have an effective political left.

Seems Australia is following that political trend.

Where the fuck has our left option gone? All lost to informal votes, I fear.

Indeed


I was a member of the ALP for 25 years. I left when they made that thug Latham leader. I was right,the obnoxious twat allowed Labor snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

At the last election, for the first time, I honestly could not tell which of the two major parties contained the bigger shower of incompetents and ratbags. I voted Greens and Independent. If I was an American, I think I would be in despair over the state of US politics.

[Seth]

Fuck that. Society doesn't grant me rights, my rights are inherent in my humanity and society can only infringe on my rights if I allow it to. You may buy into any bullshit your government feeds you about what it "needs" from you, but I don't. My government is supposed to work for me and protect me, not rob me blind to fund fuckwitted dependent class socialists who can't hold a job.

In other words you are a parasitical thief, you want rights without paying for them no different from someone who lives permanently on welfare without ever looking for a job. Libertarianism something for nothing

Not at all, I pay for what I use, I just don't care to pay for what YOU use.

[Seth]

Mitt Romney admitted that his tax level was 15%.

So? That's more than what half the country is paying, which is zero percent.

Warren Buffett said he paid less tax than his secretary.

Did he tell you how much his secretary makes? No, he did not. His secretary is probably in the top 20 percent.

Buffett is something of an exception, in having a strong altruism (he donates billions to charities), and he stated clearly (including in a communication to Obama) that he, Buffett, should be paying more tax.

Lying sack of shit. He can pay all the taxes he wants. The IRS has a special account specifically for people who want to pay more tax than they owe. Buffett doesn't make use of it.

One of the things about the very rich is that a large percentage of their earnings are capital gain, which is not taxed in most western nations.

Don't know about there, but here in the US it's taxed at 15 percent, plus, in my case, 5 percent state capital gains tax (you forget state taxes don't you). And that rate is set for everyone, from Romney and Buffett all the way down to the individual small investor by Congress in order to stimulate investment. By the way, if you're in the 25 percent or lower tax bracket, your capital gains tax this year is ZERO, thanks to Congress, so the rich are STILL paying more than the poor folks.

Another tactic is to make full use of offshore tax havens. Neither of these methods are available to the poor or middle class.

Sure they are. But they're also largely illegal.

A common tactic (which is illegal, but still rather frequently done), is to use an offshore bank which cooperates with the investor, by hiding details. If the business is importing, they get their suppliers to invoice them twice - once at a high rate. They pay the supplier at the true, lower rate, and the difference goes into the offshore bank, while the tax office gets shown the higher rate invoice. Thus they declare a false lower profit. The reverse happens with an exporter.

Which is tax fraud, which will get your business shut down. You can't use examples of criminality to argue that "the rich" don't pay taxes because it's simply not true.

There are lots of tactics like this. Some legal, and some illegal. End result is low taxes paid by those wealthy enough to have tax lawyers and accountants at their beck and call.

And still they manage to pay 97 percent of the taxes collected. Amazing.

In the USA, and many other western nations, there is a trend towards a widening of the gap between rich and poor. A big reason for this is tax avoidance and tax evasion by the rich. A 'cure' for this disparity is to make taxation fairer once more, and ensure the wealthy pay a solid whack of the government's needs.

Horseshit. You have absolutely no evidence to prove this allegation. I say that the biggest reason is the expansion of the lazy, non-working socialist dependent class who want other people to pay for their support.

As I said before, this will not affect the standard of living of the very rich. Anyone with $500,000 per year or more will never need more money to satisfy their wants and needs.

It's not up to you to determine what someone else's "wants and needs" are. They get to determine that, and if they can make enough money to satisfy their wants and needs at whatever level, more power to them because it means that they are part of the productive class who works hard to earn what they own.

[Blind groper]

And still they manage to pay 97 percent of the taxes collected. Amazing.

That figure includes all the middle class, and a sizable portion of working class earnings. A but misleading.

[Seth]

And still they manage to pay 97 percent of the taxes collected. Amazing.

That figure includes all the middle class, and a sizable portion of working class earnings. A but misleading.

Here's the breakdown from the National Taxpayers Union and the IRS for 2009:

The top 1% paid 36.73% of the taxes paid.

The top 5% paid 58.66% of the taxes paid. That's everyone who makes more than $154,643 who are paying nearly sixty percent of all income taxes paid.

The top 10%, which is comprised of those making more than $112,124, paid 70.47%. This means that those making less than $154, 643 but more than $112,124 paid a little more than 12% all by themselves.

The top 25%, who make more than $66,193, paid 87.30%, so they paid roughly 17 percent.

The top 50%, who make more than $32,396 paid 97.75% of the taxes.

Bottom 50%, who make less than $32,396, paid only 2.25 percent of the taxes.

So, what income range do you define as the "middle class" and "working class" and how do you define "the rich?"

Give us some hard numbers so that we can look at the actual numbers of who pays what.

In my estimation, "the rich" is comprised of, at best, the top 10 percent of earners, and the "middle class" includes everyone between the top 50 percent and the top ten percent, while the "working class" comprises the bottom 50 percent who make less than $32,396. And that's being generous with the middle class which actually ought to include anyone making more than the median income, which is roughly $51,000 according to the Census Bureau for 2010. In reality "the rich" could be defined as the top 25 percent who make more than $66,193, and they pay EIGHTY SEVEN PERCENT of the taxes.

[Blind groper]

Seth

You are evading the point.

Sure, I agree that the very poor pay little or no tax. That is the way it should be. However the rich (let's call that the top 5%) are still paying, on average, less than the full tax level. I have already described some of the ways they get away with that.

I really do not care what percentage of the total they pay. I am more concerned of the benefits to be gained if they pay the full amounts they are supposed to, instead of using avoiding and evading techniques to pay substantially less.

PS. This will be my last post here for about 11 days. I am off on a scuba diving trip.

[MrJonno]

The rich get more out of being allowed to live in civilization so seems fair they pay more to maintain it

[Seth]

Seth

You are evading the point.

No I'm not, I'm debunking your claim by proving that the wealthy already pay the lion's share of taxes.

Sure, I agree that the very poor pay little or no tax. That is the way it should be. However the rich (let's call that the top 5%) are still paying, on average, less than the full tax level. I have already described some of the ways they get away with that.

Unless they are breaking the law by evading taxes, they are paying the "full tax level" that they are required by law to pay. You just don't like the tax level they are paying, in spite of the fact that even with this purportedly unfair share they are still paying most of the taxes that get collected.

I really do not care what percentage of the total they pay. I am more concerned of the benefits to be gained if they pay the full amounts they are supposed to, instead of using avoiding and evading techniques to pay substantially less.

Bullshit. You care deeply what percentage they pay. You'd be happy if they had to pay 90 percent, and I suspect that even then you wouldn't think it's "fair" because they would still have more money and a more opulent lifestyle that you.

If they are "evading" taxes, then they are breaking the law, and you can't base tax policy on the actions of lawbreakers. If they are creatively avoiding tax liability by being canny businesspeople and configuring their incomes to take advantage of favorable tax laws, they're doing absolutely nothing wrong and they ARE paying "the full amount they are supposed to." If you don't like the way taxes are assessed and structured, then bitch to Congress about it, because they are the ones who create the "loopholes." You're just pissed because "the rich" are better informed about tax law and are able to take advantage of deductions and exemptions and favorable rates through careful financial planning. That's just sour grapes. You, and anyone else, can do exactly the same thing if you want. The laws apply to you equally. If you fail to or refuse to take advantage of those laws, that's your fault, not the fault of rich people.

PS. This will be my last post here for about 11 days. I am off on a scuba diving trip.

Have fun! Try not to get the bends.

[Seth]

The rich get more out of being allowed to live in civilization so seems fair they pay more to maintain it

They do. Lots more.

[Coito ergo sum]

The rich already pay far more than their "fair share"

Yes, I am aware of this argument.
The argument is based on a particular value system. I cannot argue against it on that basis, but my values are different.
I believe in the "greater good for the greater number." A value system designed to be the "greater good for a minority" is one I reject.

If the goal is the greater good for the greater number, then the rich should pay at least the same percentage tax as everyone else, since that permits the poor to become less poor, and permits the government (of whatever nation) to pay off debt.

They do, don't they? Higher incomes pay higher percentages here, except on capital gains. But, the reason why capital gains is taxed at a lower rate is that the money invested has already been taxed as earned income, and now it is being passively invested. So, the money sits there, at risk, and then accrues interest or increases in value like a stock. So, the idea is that the money invested is being taxed at 15% because it isn't earned income -- it's investment OF earned income, previously taxed.

[Coito ergo sum]

the more economically successful a company is, the more people it can hire and the more wealth it can generate and the more money the government can collect. Killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a common socialist problem

This argument too, is one I have heard many times. The problem is that it does not stand up to investigation. There is absolutely no solid empirical evidence for the "trickle down" effect, and many economists have carried out studies to try to prove it. What they have found instead is that giving more money to the wealthy through lower taxes simply means the rich get richer. The rest of us get shafted.

Who is "they" and can you cite your authority?

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm happy to pay MY OWN RENT. I'm not going to pay YOUR RENT just because you are a greedy, lazy socialist fuck. Go get a job and create some wealth or wither away and die. It's your choice.

But none of you socialist fucks are going to steal what is mine, what I have labored for, to suit your needs or desire for "fairness" in life. Life is not fair. Get used to it.

Adapt or die.

As I said you are happy to pay what you think is a fair rent but you don't get to decide what a fair rent rent, the people do which you are just one very small part

Actually, while I disagree with Seth on most stuff, here is where I disagree with you. "The people" don't get to decide what rent I can charge on my house, or a room in my house, or a condo that I own. I ought to be able to charge a $1,000,000 a day if I want to. If my rental is worth it, then someone will pay it. If nobody wants it, I lose and it sits empty. The rental value of something is what a willing buyer is willing to pay a willing seller. That's it.

This whole idea of centralized decision-making relative to prices of things is something Seth rightly objects to. Here in the US, the only "rent" that is controlled would be apartments in cities like New York City, which has the most extensive rent control/rent stabilized laws in the country. Everywhere else, the amount of rent paid is controlled by buyers and sellers.

In the US, there is protection for property owners, and except where carefully crafted, a law that merely tells a property owner how much or how little she can charge to rent a house or something can be challenged as a "taking" of that property by the government, which requires that just compensation be paid to the property owner.

[MrJonno]

Actually, while I disagree with Seth on most stuff, here is where I disagree with you. "The people" don't get to decide what rent I can charge on my house, or a room in my house, or a condo that I own. I ought to be able to charge a $1,000,000 a day if I want to. If my rental is worth it, then someone will pay it. If nobody wants it, I lose and it sits empty. The rental value of something is what a willing buyer is willing to pay a willing seller. That's it.

You in the US effectively have infinite land, if someone can't afford the rent they can go and live somewhere cheaper. In the UK where minimum wage won't even cover a single room in a flat the state basically has to pay part of the persons rent or that person lives on the street (and has a fair chance of ending up in jail which costs the state a lot more than rent) there is a strong argument for some sort of rent control. There isnt really any rent control in the UK so basically the state ends up paying property owners via benefits to rent out their rooms which isnt a healthy situation for the tax payer