If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   UK: I know, we'll tax the rich 50%. They'll just lie back and think of England. The rich: My oh my, but isn't tax exile lovely this time of year   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 281
    More: Obvious, Lib Dems, parliamentary debate, Ed Miliband, cull, tax rates, Britain, income taxes  
•       •       •

10791 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Nov 2012 at 8:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



281 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-28 09:52:51 AM

onyxruby: You'll note that my tax figure is a far greater tax rate than Herman Caine's 9/9/9 plan.


No it isn't. Under the 9-9-9 plan, an individual would pay 9% of their income as taxes. Then, that individual would pay 9% of the remainder as sales tax at point of sale. Then, that individual would also pay the mark-up businesses pass along for the 9% VAT tax (essentially sales tax). Income taken at 9% happens first; the other two 9% happen concurrently on the remainder, totalling 8.19% each or 16.38%, giving a total of 25.38% which is greater than your 20% flat income tax figure.
 
2012-11-28 09:53:36 AM

david_gaithersburg: Here in Maryland our Dear Leader O'Malley passed a special millionaires tax in the hopes of raising an additional $1 bil. of revenue. He forgot to build a wall around the state and as a result he ended up losing $1 bil of revenue with a stroke of his pen. He has since redefined "millionaire" to mean $500k. Eventually in MD you will only need to earn $100k per family to be evil rich in his eyes.


All wealth redistribution schemes end this way.

Take from the richest, and either they leave or they opt for less stressful but lower-paid positions.

So you keep moving on down the line, until you're taking from normal people.

And who are you paying for?

The chronic poor, disabled, drug-addled, etc. No offense to these folks, but they contribute nothing to society, and at some point, taking care of the makers is more important than taking care of the takers.
 
2012-11-28 09:54:15 AM
And it should be noted that the wealthy benefit disproportionately from taxes, as compared to the poor. The wealthy have much more to lose if police could no longer protect their houses from thieves, and they're likely to be the first targets when the starving masses revolt. The wealthy own businesses that depend on national infrastructure to move goods; the poor can always walk to their dead-end jobs. The wealthy benefit enormously from having an educated, high-earning middle class to buy their goods and services, which is difficult if not impossible to have without at least some government aid.
 
2012-11-28 09:54:24 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: DrPainMD: Arkanaut: Dadoody: There is no real reason ANYONE should be forced to pay a 50% tax on anything. That's not taxation - that's outright theft of income. What governments need to do, but will not, is live within their budgets and means.

Stop it. The difference between taxation and theft is that you don't get to elect representatives to the Thieves Guild to tell them how much to steal from you, much less contribute to their elections and try to influence their outcomes. You also don't get to tell those representatives what to do with that money.

Come to think of it, the Thieves Guild should really be more transparent.

So, if they raised the income tax on everybody to 99.99% and eliminated all deductions, that wouldn't be theft? Because we have elections?

/"It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes."

No, the difference between taxation and theft is that, in theory, you get something of value for your taxes (schools, roads, police, your neighbors not having to rob your house so they can put food on the table). Theft is just theft, your money is gone and you'll never see it again.


By that definition, theft would be the proper word for the taxes taken from anybody making ~$75,000 or more.
 
2012-11-28 09:54:27 AM

incendi: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: What is bad about this?

Nothing, except his need to proclaim to the world about how he's going Galt turning what most people would consider reasonable decisions into a childish act of defiance.


No, it's not a childish act of defiance.

If you are being robbed, you do whatever you can to kill the robber.
 
2012-11-28 09:55:17 AM

onyxruby: Simplifying the tax code would save the economy Billions of dollars a year in accounting costs alone.


You think those dollars just disappear into Narnia now?
 
2012-11-28 09:55:24 AM

onyxruby: How can have everyone pay the same rate not be fair?


You can disagree with the answer to this question, but, if you don't know it, you should look it up. Until you can answer this question yourself, you should accept that taxation is not a subject on which you should have an opinion.

Again, it's fine to disagree with the answer, but to not be aware of the debate is to be completely ignorant of the discussion in which you are participating.
 
2012-11-28 09:55:38 AM
A Tale Of Two Brothers

--Both born to humble lower middle class
--Brother A dropped out of school and spent all his money on cigarettes and drinking and now does not have a pot to piss in.
--Brother B studied hard, paid for his own education, worked hard, and is now successful.

Brother A is perceived as a victim.
Brother B is perceived as an evil selfish bastard.

Exceptions to every rule, but my experience with the poor is that laziness and poor decisions are responsible for the plight of many of them

Most of the 'rich' people I know are self-made.

//Willing to help anyone who is truly deserving of help, but no tolerance for all the 'Brother A's' out there.
 
2012-11-28 09:56:28 AM

theknuckler_33: Dancin_In_Anson: Joe Blowme: They are starting to run out other peoples money

I mentioned that statement a week or two ago and the Fark Dependents® went nugging futs about what an idiot Thatcher was to make such a statement. Ain't that a kick in the head?

It's remarkable that, 30 years later, there are still rich people around... you know, with all that socialism going on.


True. It's almost like some people of importance understand it to be true and govern accordingly.
 
2012-11-28 09:57:13 AM
hang the rich and take their money....then hang the politicians, lobbyists and journalists.
 
2012-11-28 09:58:05 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Zeb Hesselgresser: onyxruby: Flat tax 20 regardless of income source. No penalty for success, fair for everyone. Get rid of all the corporate tax loopholes for sending jobs overseas etc.

No. Regressive, punishes the poor.

Negative Income Tax. It combines a flat tax with a fixed annual subsidy/rebate to fix the regressive problems with the flat tax.

Basically, you tax everyone 30% and cut every household a check for $10,000 a year (or equivalent monthly payments).

It's demonstrably equitable, as it applies the same way to everyone. Thanks to the significant subsidy, you can eliminate traditional welfare (cutting every household an additional $100/person/month worth of discount coupons for food and essentials, which could be redeemed by retailers with the government, would serve to fill any gaps), and the very poor have no disincentive to find work, since additional income doesn't make you ineligible for the subsidy. Nor do high-income earners have any disincentive to make more, since they're never kicked into a higher tax bracket.

It's effectively a guaranteed minimum income system, but it doesn't disrupt markets the way raising the minimum wage does, since wages are effectively unlinked from basic survival. It also has a stabilizing effect during economic downturns, since the working class doesn't have to worry about whether it can meet a basic standard of living after taking a paycut, and so consumer confidence should remain higher, and the economy should recover faster.


Once we've finished automating pretty much everything, a system like this wouldn't be bad. We'll need some way to give the vast masses bearing skills no longer needed a way to keep surviving.
 
2012-11-28 09:58:25 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Negative Income Tax. It combines a flat tax with a fixed annual subsidy/rebate to fix the regressive problems with the flat tax.

Basically, you tax everyone 30% and cut every household a check for $10,000 a year (or equivalent monthly payments).



I'm not a communist or a fan of wealth redistribution, but I like this. Our current system charges 0% for people making less than a certain figure (something around $20k?), and makes up for it by charging the middle class 20%-30% and the bigger income earners 45%; then, it uses that money to provide public services that the poor, untaxed use, as well as to provide for things like welfare and food stamps which only the poor are allowed to use. That's taking the rich's money and giving it to the poor--wealth redistribution.

There is a lot of overhead in this complicated tax code, in the management of WIC and food stamps and welfare, and the like. Giving everyone a $10,000 tax credit and eliminating some of these services eliminates the overhead. Granted you have people like me, who can get by on $400/mo and so $10k is twice as much as I need; but there's no penalty to get a job, supplemental income would be good. Probably much more elective for me, though. And people could get room mates and afford rent.

It's a lot more straight-forward and cheaper to implement.
 
2012-11-28 09:58:30 AM

Cythraul: Dadoody: Taxes need to be reasonable all around.

There is no real reason ANYONE should be forced to pay a 50% tax on anything. That's not taxation - that's outright theft of income. What governments need to do, but will not, is live within their budgets and means.

In the United States, our tax monies go into fruitless military expenditures, high pensions and lavish lifestyles of many people on the government's dole, while our roads, dams, and infrastructure are falling into disrepair.

[i.qkme.me image 479x361]


Whats so funny? Have you seen some of the government employee pensions? Some of the employees are retiring on 200k/year (or more) on jobs that didnt pay that when the person was employed. I realize not every employee makes more in retirement but yeah some of them have quite high and lavish pensions.
 
2012-11-28 09:58:31 AM

SlothB77: Since the announcement the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000.

However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis.

that is just damning. suck it, warren buffett.


Believe it or not, but the deadline to file one's taxes in the UK has not passed yet for electronic filers. Electronic filers have until January 31st. To make any proclamation as to the definitive number of people filing with annual incomes of greater than 1 million GBP is premature.

It's like assuming the amount of taxes collected in the US in by February is the absolute total number of taxes that will be collected for the year, despite the Tax day being a couple of months off. Believe it or not, people don't always file their taxes ahead of the deadline.
 
2012-11-28 09:58:40 AM

King Of The Monkeys: Brother A is perceived as a victim.
Brother B is perceived as an evil selfish bastard.


Neat strawmen. Have you ever tried shoving it up your ass?
 
2012-11-28 09:59:10 AM

drb9: Isn't the other possibility that 2/3rds of the UK's millionaires made significantly less money this year than last? It's a crappy economy.


actually, the year before the tax hike went into effect, 2009-2010, when there were 16,000 millionaires, was the peak of the recession.

The economy should have started to rebound the following year. The timing was such that the loss of millionaires due to the tax would have been severely understated - the control year they were using here should have had a significantly smaller number of millionaires than normal because of the recession.
 
2012-11-28 10:00:00 AM

IlGreven: Dadoody: There is no real reason ANYONE should be forced to pay a 50% tax on anything. That's not taxation - that's outright theft of income. What governments need to do, but will not, is live within their budgets and means.

Greece is currently doing that. It's not working.


Umm no Greece was doing the opposite of that for so long that it doesn't matter what they do now.
 
2012-11-28 10:00:01 AM

bluefoxicy: Granted you have people like me, who can get by on $400/mo


Mom and Dad's place sure is cheap.
 
2012-11-28 10:00:35 AM

tom baker's scarf: onyxruby: Flat tax 20 regardless of income source. No penalty for success, fair for everyone. Get rid of all the corporate tax loopholes for sending jobs overseas etc.

pro tip. Sim City is a pretty fun simulation but not everything in it is 1:1 usable in the real world.

flat taxes are not fair. They have a much larger impact on the working poor and middle class families then they do on the rich.


Sim city, haven't played that in at least 15 years, kind of fun for a little while.

As for not being fair, how can something that affects everyone proportionally be anything other than fair? Many working poor are ineligible for a lot of tax breaks and pay a 25-33% tax rate.
 
2012-11-28 10:00:49 AM
There is only one "fair" form of taxation. (all statements in this post and all future post are appended with BOCTAOE

National property tax.

4 steps.

1. ~15% tax on all currency exports (goods are not taxed at export, only currency)
2. end all income, sales, sin, and specific activity taxes (fees such as natural resource use rents are still OK and dealt with in point 4)
3. enact a ~2.3% tax on all property under the protection of the US government including intellectual property
4. take the proceeds of all non-tax revenue such as fees and fines and distributed them equally to all citizens

This works because the people who own stuff pay for the government whose primary purpose is property rights enforcement. The people who don't own stuff benefit from living in the society and being good workers and consumers supporting the people who do own stuff.

Because of a single tax rate politicians no longer have the power to help their friends and punish their enemies, and because all non-tax revenue is returned to the people the government does not have financial incentive to enforce laws for profit.
 
2012-11-28 10:02:05 AM

SlothB77: drb9: Isn't the other possibility that 2/3rds of the UK's millionaires made significantly less money this year than last? It's a crappy economy.

actually, the year before the tax hike went into effect, 2009-2010, when there were 16,000 millionaires, was the peak of the recession.

The economy should have started to rebound the following year. The timing was such that the loss of millionaires due to the tax would have been severely understated - the control year they were using here should have had a significantly smaller number of millionaires than normal because of the recession.


I like how you're supporting the Laffer curve in two threads at the same time.

My guess though is that, paradoxically, the more you increase the number of threads talking about the Laffer curve that it will reduce the number of people who think it isn't total horseshiat.
 
2012-11-28 10:02:33 AM
"or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes."

If those steps include legal manuevers like investing in business assets or donating to orphanages or supporting municipal bonds or whatever the British tax code incentivizes to aid the economy, then that is not an all bad thing. I gave an extra grand to Drs Without Borders last year to avoid getting hit by the AMT. Does that make the AMT a bad thing that hurt the country?
 
2012-11-28 10:02:38 AM

RexTalionis: Believe it or not, but the deadline to file one's taxes in the UK has not passed yet for electronic filers. Electronic filers have until January 31st. To make any proclamation as to the definitive number of people filing with annual incomes of greater than 1 million GBP is premature.

It's like assuming the amount of taxes collected in the US in by February is the absolute total number of taxes that will be collected for the year, despite the Tax day being a couple of months off. Believe it or not, people don't always file their taxes ahead of the deadline


Understood. But two things: it was announced tax rates were being decreased and there was no economic downturn like 09-10 this year.
 
2012-11-28 10:03:10 AM

King Of The Monkeys: Brother A is perceived as a victim.
Brother B is perceived as an evil selfish bastard.


This is so absurd it almost falls under Poe's law. It doesn't even apply to the real world.

What we have in the real world, are people who climbed to the top on everyone else's back, claim no one ever gave them a hand so why should they return the favor, and then try to pull the ladder up behind them. Those are the evil selfish bastards.
 
2012-11-28 10:03:15 AM

MoxieLover:
No, it's not a childish act of defiance.

If you are being robbed, you do whatever you can to kill the robber.


If you consider taxation robbery, go on and take up arms, turn that robbery in to a murder. Or you could grow the fark up, join civilized society, and acknowledge that taxation is a necessity.
 
2012-11-28 10:03:25 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: theknuckler_33: Dancin_In_Anson: Joe Blowme: They are starting to run out other peoples money

I mentioned that statement a week or two ago and the Fark Dependents® went nugging futs about what an idiot Thatcher was to make such a statement. Ain't that a kick in the head?

It's remarkable that, 30 years later, there are still rich people around... you know, with all that socialism going on.

True. It's almost like some people of importance understand it to be true and govern accordingly.


That is EXACTLY the point.
 
2012-11-28 10:04:46 AM

bluefoxicy: Our current system charges 0% for people making less than a certain figure (something around $20k?),


Your ideas seem to be based on that blatant lie above. Our current system charges the poor social security and medicare at a higher rate than the rich, sales taxes, property taxes (rolled in rents in most cases), and assorted fees.

Only people who make literally $0 are charged no tax in the US.
 
2012-11-28 10:05:24 AM

onyxruby: As for not being fair, how can something that affects everyone proportionally be anything other than fair?


Look it up. Google "marginal utility" or "progressive taxation". You shouldn't have an opinion on this if you can't answer this question.

You can disagree with the reasoning. That's fine. Just shut the fark up about the issue entirely if you're not going to bother learning anything about it.
 
2012-11-28 10:06:05 AM

Tigger: My guess though is that, paradoxically, the more you increase the number of threads talking about the Laffer curve that it will reduce the number of people who think it isn't total horseshiat.


The more evidence that is presented, like this article, that supports the Laffer Curve, the less people will think its total horseshiat. You'll still go ahead and raises here in the USA. Predictably, the same thing will happen here that happened in the UK. Then people like you will still say the Laffer Curve is horseshiat again. And people will stop listening to you.
 
2012-11-28 10:08:22 AM

Surpheon: bluefoxicy: Our current system charges 0% for people making less than a certain figure (something around $20k?),

Your ideas seem to be based on that blatant lie above. Our current system charges the poor social security and medicare at a higher rate than the rich, sales taxes, property taxes (rolled in rents in most cases), and assorted fees.

Only people who make literally $0 are charged no tax in the US.


(No I didn't read the thread, so yes I'm babbling irrelevancies if it's a bunch of Brits in here. Although it could be converted easily enough by discussing the regressive nature of the VAT.)
 
2012-11-28 10:09:13 AM

bluefoxicy: Under the 9-9-9 plan, an individual would pay 9% of their income as taxes. Then, that individual would pay 9% of the remainder as sales tax at point of sale. Then, that individual would also pay the mark-up businesses pass along for the 9% VAT tax (essentially sales tax). Income taken at 9% happens first; the other two 9% happen concurrently on the remainder, totalling 8.19% each or 16.38%, giving a total of 25.38% which is greater than your 20% flat income tax figure.


The problem with that is your assuming all of the salary gets spent at the point of sale. If you look at the IRS website you'll find standard deductions for sales tax or you can calculate your own. Sales tax disproportionality affects young working families since they spend more money at the point of sale.

By way of point think of the target demographic for most sales - people 21-35 years of age. These are people that are raising families and get hit the hardest by sales tax. Once you hit around 35 you have most of the stuff you need in life and don't buy nearly as many things. That is why Caine's tax proposal would have hit young working families the hardest.
 
2012-11-28 10:09:24 AM

genner: IlGreven: Dadoody: There is no real reason ANYONE should be forced to pay a 50% tax on anything. That's not taxation - that's outright theft of income. What governments need to do, but will not, is live within their budgets and means.

Greece is currently doing that. It's not working.

Umm no Greece was doing the opposite of that for so long that it doesn't matter what they do now.


So you're admitting austerity doesn't work?
 
2012-11-28 10:09:42 AM

SlothB77: RexTalionis: Believe it or not, but the deadline to file one's taxes in the UK has not passed yet for electronic filers. Electronic filers have until January 31st. To make any proclamation as to the definitive number of people filing with annual incomes of greater than 1 million GBP is premature.

It's like assuming the amount of taxes collected in the US in by February is the absolute total number of taxes that will be collected for the year, despite the Tax day being a couple of months off. Believe it or not, people don't always file their taxes ahead of the deadline

Understood. But two things: it was announced tax rates were being decreased and there was no economic downturn like 09-10 this year.


Don't be a moron. The UK has been, for most of 2012, been in a double dip recession brought on by the current government's austerity measures.

Link
 
2012-11-28 10:09:47 AM

SlothB77: Tigger: My guess though is that, paradoxically, the more you increase the number of threads talking about the Laffer curve that it will reduce the number of people who think it isn't total horseshiat.

The more evidence that is presented, like this article, that supports the Laffer Curve, the less people will think its total horseshiat. You'll still go ahead and raises here in the USA. Predictably, the same thing will happen here that happened in the UK. Then people like you will still say the Laffer Curve is horseshiat again. And people will stop listening to you.


Wait, you are saying that people adjust their behavior to better their own interests? pfffffffttttttttt
you are teh stupid.
 
2012-11-28 10:09:59 AM

incendi: MoxieLover:
No, it's not a childish act of defiance.

If you are being robbed, you do whatever you can to kill the robber.

If you consider taxation robbery, go on and take up arms, turn that robbery in to a murder. Or you could grow the fark up, join civilized society, and acknowledge that taxation is a necessity.


OK, then do whatever you can to block, prevent, or disable the robber. The point is, the government is trying to take too much of a person's income; that person should do whatever they can (like voting against those who support the robbery, enacting laws to block the robber, hide assets, reduce taxable income to just-below the higher percentage rate, move to a more tax-friendly place) to block the robber. If the taxation increases for the wealthy, and the government employment numbers would benefit, or the lazies would be given the fruits of the productives' efforts or inheritances or risks taken, or the wealth would be redistributed, then there is nothing wrong with doing whatever is necessary to block the robber.
 
2012-11-28 10:11:29 AM
Tax the rich and give that money to the lazy, no good, POS drains on society. Yea, that'll work.
 
2012-11-28 10:12:23 AM

SlothB77: The more evidence that is presented, like this article, that supports the Laffer Curve, the less people will think its total horseshiat


Laffer CURVE. The sooner folks like you learn what the fark that means and make any sort of rational argument that we're actually anywhere near t* on high income individuals, who haven't had tax rates this low in a generation, the sooner we might be able to have a rational discussion. Rather than this religious "taxes are evil!" and "markets will do fine with 20% of the participants in possession of 80% the total wealth - don't worry about it!".

If you look at the periods of America's greatest economic expansions, taxes were higher. What does that suggest about where we are on the Laffer Curve right now?
 
2012-11-28 10:12:27 AM
Funny how it NEVAR occurs to the rich to actually pay a decent wage to the lower classes, thereby raising their tax bracket (and resulting in their shouldering a larger burden of the total tax collected.)
 
2012-11-28 10:12:58 AM
It's unlikely they actually left the country. A lot of compensation was brought forward so that executives could bank it before the rate increase. A lot of it was delayed, betting that the new Conservative government would lower the rate (which they did). There was some complex fiddling with pension contributions.

Most people who earn £1 million in salary are directors of large companies. They can leave if they want, but there's a whole queue of underlings ready to take their place.
 
2012-11-28 10:14:55 AM

theknuckler_33: If people making over a million pounds could just hide their money somewhere to avoid the 50% tax rate, why wouldn't they just do it to avoid ANY tax rate?


Because all the hiding places are guarded by governments of questionable reliability and morality, and there's a very good chance any money hidden there will disappear forever.

/but the odds are better than those of keeping that money in the UK, it seems
//keep farking that chicken libs, you've poured too much spunk into it to give up now
 
2012-11-28 10:15:22 AM

HAMMERTOE: Funny how it NEVAR occurs to the rich to actually pay a decent wage to the lower classes, thereby raising their tax bracket (and resulting in their shouldering a larger burden of the total tax collected.)


It has, a few times. Henry Ford is probably the most famous example. But most of the rich are as shortsighted and greedy as the average human, just given the means to enact their will on others that the poor don't have.
 
2012-11-28 10:16:15 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Negative Income Tax. It combines a flat tax with a fixed annual subsidy/rebate to fix the regressive problems with the flat tax.

Basically, you tax everyone 30% and cut every household a check for $10,000 a year (or equivalent monthly payments).


As a fraud investigator, I have laughed at Fair Taxers when they suggest it. Creating fake people has been used for ages to seek lawful employment and apply for credit. Now imagine being able to get a $10k check for every fake person you can make? Yeah, the idea was thought-up by retards trying to shore-up some numbers in their highly flawed model. Flat taxes only work when there is very little wage disparity and no poverty.
 
2012-11-28 10:18:43 AM

Pair-o-Dice: Tax the rich and give that money to the lazy, no good, POS drains on society. Yea, that'll work.


Who suggested that?

I thought the left wanted to trim a few trillion from government spending and add a trillion or two in new revenue? You know, trying to be responsible instead of just borrowing it all. Reagan coined the term 'deficits don't matter'.
 
2012-11-28 10:19:32 AM

SlothB77: RexTalionis: Believe it or not, but the deadline to file one's taxes in the UK has not passed yet for electronic filers. Electronic filers have until January 31st. To make any proclamation as to the definitive number of people filing with annual incomes of greater than 1 million GBP is premature.

It's like assuming the amount of taxes collected in the US in by February is the absolute total number of taxes that will be collected for the year, despite the Tax day being a couple of months off. Believe it or not, people don't always file their taxes ahead of the deadline

Understood. But two things: it was announced tax rates were being decreased and there was no economic downturn like 09-10 this year.


Hell, the only reason the UK left the recession in Q3 is because of the enormous spending that accompanied the Olympic Games. According to manufacturing data, the UK is on track to go into a triple dip recession right now.
 
2012-11-28 10:19:37 AM

thespindrifter: david_gaithersburg: Here in Maryland our Dear Leader O'Malley passed a special millionaires tax in the hopes of raising an additional $1 bil. of revenue. He forgot to build a wall around the state and as a result he ended up losing $1 bil of revenue with a stroke of his pen. He has since redefined "millionaire" to mean $500k. Eventually in MD you will only need to earn $100k per family to be evil rich in his eyes.

/btw
//This farking babbling economic idiot
///Is who so called progressives plan to have as our next president.

California is about to learn this very hard lesson the usual way: increase taxes on the wealthiest members of society, and if they have other options (such as living where taxes are less) then they can afford to leave and enjoy that option, leaving the poor behind. California is about to learn that increasing estimated "revenue" while driving away the people who earn that revenue will in fact result in missing their projections by quite a lot. Also, the ones who actually choose to stay will find other ways around the problem:

"After the election, my wife and I are going partial Galt. We're in California, so our state income tax went up in addition to what's sure to come out of Washington.

My wife quit her job last week. I increased my participation in a tax deferment plan offered by my employer to bring my taxable income as close to $250K as possible. We'll be cutting back a little, but the government is going to getting a whole lot less.

My wife's entire salary barely covered our tax bill - she was 100% slave to the government, while I was a 10% slave. Now she is 100% free, and I'll be a ~35% slave As a couple, 17.5% of our time is slaving on the government plantation from an astounding 55% previously.

My wife is deliriously happy, our children are delighted to have mom home, the dog gets more walks, and I find not spending money rapturously satisfying. "


I hope you get pancreatic cancer and insurance only covers 200k, leaving you with 1.1M in medical bills. Or better yet, perhaps you could just die and allow someone willing to participate in improving our society to take your place, that would be far better yet.

/I made 400k last year, not crying about paying my fair share.
//donated an additional 100k to charity
 
2012-11-28 10:19:39 AM
Good heavens. The number of people declaring income of more than £1m per annum fell from 16,000 to 6,000 in the year the economy collapsed and has since climbed back to 10,000. How remarkable. Clearly it's because of aliens taxes.
 
2012-11-28 10:20:54 AM
Vegan Meat Popsicle: "You're either really bad at math or really bad at sociology. Which is it?"

It can be both.
And, odds are, it is.
 
2012-11-28 10:22:05 AM

Lord Summerisle: They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.


exactly.

Nothing says "we've screwed this country plenty, so we're taking the money we effectively stole from you and are leaving" than exactly that happening.

It'd be nice if the UK actually stood up to this stuff by retaliating against the rich who left via disallowing them to have any interests in the UK or actually deeply examining their businesses properly, but then again the UK has about the same amount of balls as the US does when it comes to public interest vs corporations: none.
 
2012-11-28 10:23:35 AM

RexTalionis: Don't be a moron. The UK has been, for most of 2012, been in a double dip recession brought on by the current government's austerity measures.


keep raising taxes, thereby reducing revenues and they will have to enact even more drastic austerity measures.
 
2012-11-28 10:24:02 AM

madgonad: As a fraud investigator, I have laughed at Fair Taxers when they suggest it. Creating fake people has been used for ages to seek lawful employment and apply for credit. Now imagine being able to get a $10k check for every fake person you can make? Yeah, the idea was thought-up by retards trying to shore-up some numbers in their highly flawed model. Flat taxes only work when there is very little wage disparity and no poverty.


And the current system isn't vulnerable to fraud? Isn't that exactly what this thread is about? Rich people pretending not to owe taxes via a loophole?

Actually, is any system not subject to widescale fraud? Actually I'd tend to think handing out checks would be fairly easy to keep on the straight-and-narrow if you just require people to show up in-person with a photo ID to collect. I'm pretty sure a few fraudulent $10k checks here and there would be a lot smaller loss than millions upon millions in tax dodges.
 
Displayed 50 of 281 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report