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 75
    More: Obvious, Lib Dems, parliamentary debate, Ed Miliband, cull, tax rates, Britain, income taxes  
•       •       •

10790 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-28 08:44:53 AM
7 votes:
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.
2012-11-28 08:22:17 AM
6 votes:
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.
2012-11-28 08:29:14 AM
5 votes:
Taxes should be viewed as a means of raising revenue for the government. When you raise taxes and revenue falls, you are doing it wrong! Why is that such a hard lesson to learn?
2012-11-28 08:22:02 AM
5 votes:
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.
2012-11-28 10:03:15 AM
4 votes:

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 08:36:57 AM
4 votes:

Fade2black: Lord Summerisle: They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.

Who's gonna pay for your free stuff now?

God forbid you get up off your ass and work for a living.


1) God forbid Wallyworld should pay a decent wage, we gotta have that cheap Chinese crap.

2) Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?
i219.photobucket.com
2012-11-28 08:30:07 AM
4 votes:

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


Read the article. It turns out that when the recession was worst in the UK, far fewer people were earning seven figures. The number of people making at least seven figures has since rebounded while taxes have remained the same, but forget about that because it doesn't tell the story Rupert wants (this is one of his flagship papers).
2012-11-28 01:05:11 PM
3 votes:

Sid_the_sadist: I'm a married, middled-aged guy with three kids, My wife and I both work for the Government and make about 50k a year combined before taxes.

We pay day care for two kids - 1400 a month
We pay after school care for one - 200 a month
We pay full priced meals for the one in school.

After Mortgage, car, utilities, insurance (health, home, and auto) fuel and groceries we live literally paycheck to paycheck. Our bank accounts have less that $20 in them several days before we get paid again.

I've done some research though, check this out...


We can get divorced (on paper), she keeps the kids (we would still live in the same house) She quits her job.

We vote Democrat the rest of our lives.



At first, she'll collect unemployment.


If you voluntarily leave a job, you don't get unemployment (some exceptions for hostile environments and such. You can also be denied unemployment if you are fired with cause.

We get welfare (roughly $1000 a month)

From what I can tell, this is calledTANF in MS. This is capped monthly at $110 for the 1st person, $36 for the 2nd, and $24 for each after. So that would mean your wife would have 36 kids. (I would mention that TANF has a welfare to work requirement, but with 36 kids, I'm sure one is disabled or under 12 months old, exempting her from that requirement). There are also unpleasant requirements for gaining TANF, such as your wife will basically have to have any of her bank account exhausted first, the State making sure you pay your child support for 36 kids and I'm not sure what they will say about the free housing provided by the divorced dad where he just happens to live as well.


We get WIC- free baby food and other staples

With so many kids (im sure you have at least five under 5 years of age), I think you need this. You'll be rolling in all that milk, dried beans, peaches and Boost for sure (PDF Alert). Straight ballin.

She immediately qualifies for $850 a month in food stamps
From what I can find, the average per person SNAP benefit is $123.29 per person in Mississippi. This doesn't make the number match as that means your wife would have about 7 people on SNAP... far shorter than the 36 from the TNAF calculation.

Health insurance for her and the kids is now free (I save 480 a month in health insurance premiums)
I'm sure you are just jumping at the chance to use the 'free' health care system that the great State of Mississippi has to offer. I'm sure it is better than the State benefits you kids get right now.


We get free cell phones
Yes, a free phone with 250 minutes or air time and 250 text messages per month is the pinnacle of success.

She can watch kids in our house or clean houses for cash that's not reported as income.
I'm sure when child services stops by, they'll look kindly on this. Also keep in mind that since she is now on TANF, SNAP and other programs, you will be required to pay 25% of your pay to the State for child support. They will then pay her the child support. If you don't pay on time, you can lose your professional licenses, passport, hunting permits or just toss you in jail.

So knock yourself out. I'm sure I'm totally wrong about every part of your cunning plan and soon you, your ex-wife and the brood will be riding around in an iced out, brand new Escalade and laughing at all the rubes not living phat off the public dole.
2012-11-28 09:30:05 AM
3 votes:

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.
2012-11-28 09:04:32 AM
3 votes:
It's pretty simple: if you've got the means to take off BUT think you're getting a decent value for what you pay in taxes, you're more likely to stay put.

There's high taxes in places like Norway but the Norwegian government isn't jammed with cronies, crooks, nitwits and farktards.
2012-11-28 09:02:09 AM
3 votes:
If they already shelter their money offshore Romney-style and pay a lower tax percentage than what is left of the middle class, then why would even want to harbor them? They contribute nothing, and they draw more public resources as they take advantage of every public service and bend it to their will. They're the very definition of "takers".
2012-11-28 08:33:52 AM
3 votes:
Answer: Raise the top tax rate in all countries. Let "the rich" move to Somalia if they are really moving to escape taxes.
2012-11-28 08:33:48 AM
3 votes:

digistil: but forget about that because it doesn't tell the story Rupert wants (this is one of his flagship papers).


That's the Sydney Telegraph you're thinking of.

Rupert's UK papers are the Times and the Sun.
2012-11-28 08:29:59 AM
3 votes:
And here we are talking about allowing a (supposedly) temporary tax cut of 2% to expire and still allowing massive deductions. My God, what are we thinking?
2012-11-28 08:26:10 AM
3 votes:
That a bunch of fine upstanding citizens. During WWII, they would have left the country, because the war would have cost them too much.
2012-11-28 08:25:03 AM
3 votes:
They all left? Good. Piss off, you psychopathic bastards.
2012-11-28 08:21:57 AM
3 votes:
Put them on the terrorist and no fly list and deny them entry. That is what I would do.
2012-11-28 10:52:08 AM
2 votes:
Why can't we agree with the widely-accepted and unbiased charts that if taxation rises too far as compared to neighboring options, revenue goes down, and the trick is to raise taxes just to the level of your competition, not above it?


In this case some of the decline was due to the economy in general, but some was undoubtedly due to the options the wealthier have, such as claiming residency in a different country?


Conversely, if taxation is too low, revenues fall. I'm not talking about a simplistic Laffer Curve, so don't knock it down. I'm saying people will tend to work to improve their lives, but if there is an easy out to reduce their tax burden they will take it. How many of you liberals and moderates don't take any deductions on your personal taxes?

I've gotten to the point I hate dogma from both sides. England went too far with their top rate as compared to much of their competition. We may be a couple of points too low as compared to our competition. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes a little.

But I'm not a fool. Cut the spending first, then we can talk about raising taxes.
2012-11-28 10:32:50 AM
2 votes:

thespindrifter: 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. "




Why on earth woiuld they try to make less than $250k when dealing with marginal tax rates?

You do understand that you are taxed at the higher rates on the income OVER $250k right?

Tax deferment to make reported income around $250k makes sense. The wife taking time off to be with the kids makes sense. Stopping work because you think you will take home less if you earn more is pants on head retarded.

If you make $300k, only the $50k above 250 would be taxed at a higher rate.

Looking here:
(https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2012_California_Tax_Rates_and_Exemption s .shtml)

...it looks like for a single income earner they are taxed at 9.3% up to $250k, then at 10.3% on any income OVER $250k. A Whole 1% difference! On additional income.


Stop derping.
2012-11-28 09:30:07 AM
2 votes:

Z-clipped: Except that that's not fair for everyone, because there's a difference between taxing someone's grocery/rent/electricity money and taxing disposable income


How can have everyone pay the same rate not be fair? That's like saying we should have different speed limits based on income.

Right now as it stands the rich pay far lower than 20% tax because they can take their income source at a different tax rate. If memory serves Romney's tax rate for his returns that made the news was something like 14%. Most corporations pay far less than 20% of their income as well. You'll note that my tax figure is a far greater tax rate than Herman Caine's 9/9/9 plan.

Simplifying the tax code would save the economy Billions of dollars a year in accounting costs alone.
2012-11-28 09:26:46 AM
2 votes:

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?
2012-11-28 09:24:04 AM
2 votes:

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. "


This sounds lke a win-win type of story? They still can live lavishly on $250,000/year, wife can stay home with kids and the dog, her old job can be filled by someone who actually NEEDS a job to support their family (and who will pay taxes on the money they earn so the government will still get theirs whether it comes from this woman or not). What is bad about this?
2012-11-28 09:18:41 AM
2 votes:

JosephFinn: That's all different varieties of poverty-level wages. Just because Wal-Mart's are the best of the worst doesn't mean they're good.


Oh, so you're American then.

/minimum work for maximum gain
//It's not fair that the rich are doing it and you're just wishing you could flip burgers for $80k/year
2012-11-28 09:17:32 AM
2 votes:
They are starting to run out other peoples money
2012-11-28 09:12:24 AM
2 votes:

Lord Summerisle: Been working and paying a large chunk of my salary in tax and NI since I was 17, chum. Which is more than most of these rich coonts can say, most of whom owe their wealth to being born into the privileged classes and who use the loopholes and tax havens provided for them to avoid paying their share.


Someone sounds jealous.

Who gives a rats arse if the wealth was inherited? It still belongs to them, not the gov't. I work for my paycheck, but i don't begrudge those who don't have to. It's their money, they can do what they want with it.
2012-11-28 08:59:35 AM
2 votes:
This is why you change income/capital gains taxes such that they come off the top at the source; employers have to dock the income tax automatically, or investors have to pay capital gains tax on the dividends they pay out.

Then it doesn't matter WHERE the bastards are. If they invest in any company in Britain, or are in any British company's employ, they're taxed.

And to prevent those companies moving overseas to more tax-friendly nations, you impose tariffs on their goods and services that are even higher.

If the market will generate a reduced profit, they'll suck it up and accept it. That's why pharmaceutical companies still do business in Canada, even though we lobby and legislate for significantly lower price points than American insurance companies do. Sure, they can sell the same pill for 3x the price south of the border, but they still sell them here, because they still make some profit.
2012-11-28 08:58:16 AM
2 votes:
Let them leave and be glad they're gone. Have them take all their schitt too. Believe me, the rich currently do not contribute to the world in almost any sense. Their money has already left long before the people that own it left.

They're clogging our roads with their delivery trucks, they're taking our shared natural resources for their own personal profit, they're polluting our water and air with their chemical effluent.

They drank your milkshake
2012-11-28 08:56:50 AM
2 votes:
I believe the expression is, good riddance to bad rubbish.
2012-11-28 08:56:13 AM
2 votes:

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.
2012-11-28 08:52:07 AM
2 votes:

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.


You're either really bad at math or really bad at sociology. Which is it?
2012-11-28 08:37:11 AM
2 votes:
Been working and paying a large chunk of my salary in tax and NI since I was 17, chum. Which is more than most of these rich coonts can say, most of whom owe their wealth to being born into the privileged classes and who use the loopholes and tax havens provided for them to avoid paying their share.
2012-11-28 08:34:37 AM
2 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com

Whoop. He's starting to shrug.
2012-11-28 08:32:21 AM
2 votes:

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


Who's gonna pay for your free stuff now?

God forbid you get up off your ass and work for a living.
2012-11-28 08:26:06 AM
2 votes:
FTA: 50p

What the fark am I reading?
2012-11-28 08:25:54 AM
2 votes:
What's English-English for "Screw you, I got mine"?
2012-11-28 08:22:56 AM
2 votes:
I'm sure that won't happen here

More free shiat for everybody!
2012-11-29 04:51:08 AM
1 votes:

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: DrPainMD: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: This sounds lke a win-win type of story? They still can live lavishly on $250,000/year, wife can stay home with kids and the dog, her old job can be filled by someone who actually NEEDS a job to support their family (and who will pay taxes on the money they earn so the government will still get theirs whether it comes from this woman or not). What is bad about this?

Win-win? How so? With his wife's lack of income and him reducing/deferring his, they will have less to spend (costing the economy jobs) and will pay less in taxes (reducing the jobs that the government can create). Any way you look at it, the effect on GDP and jobs will be negative.

Nope, his wife isn't erasing her job, she is merely not working it anymore. There will be someone else filling her position. Spending her paycheck to increase the GDP and paying her taxes...all this situation did was oopen up a job for someone who obviously needs it more desperately and give the wife more time to spend with her family.


Literally every economist on the planet would disagree with you.
2012-11-29 04:49:54 AM
1 votes:

Cobataiwan: Keep in mind, people can simply work less and then they will disappear from the income rolls for their previous income. They don't need to move abroad.


It can get even MORE complicated. Human psychology is complex and varied. Take your surgeon. Let's say that he gets $10k per operation, including incidentals. As you say, it's grueling, he has to remain certified, etc...

Okay, let's say that his 'magic number' for being satisfied with life is $500k. With a 0% tax rate, he does 50 operations, with a 10% tax rate, he goes ahead and does 6 more operations. But, at 50% he can only reach 100 operations by getting perilously close to burning out, and may decide to 'settle' for $200k while only doing 40 operations a year. This can be especially pronounced with progressive tax rates - Only making $5k on that last operation might not be worth it for him, while the initial 1 at the full $10k is easily worth it.

Basically, a low tax rate can actually cause people to work more to meet what they consider a optimal quality of life/money supply.
2012-11-28 01:16:59 PM
1 votes:

wingnut396: Sid_the_sadist:

At first, she'll collect unemployment.

If you voluntarily leave a job, you don't get unemployment (some exceptions for hostile environments and such. You can also be denied unemployment if you are fired with cause.

We get welfare (roughly $1000 a month)

From what I can tell, this is calledTANF in MS. This is capped monthly at $110 for the 1st person, $36 for the 2nd, and $24 for each after. So that would mean your wife would have 36 kids. (I would mention that TANF has a welfare to work requirement, but with 36 kids, I'm sure one is disabled or under 12 months old, exempting her from that requirement). There are also unpleasant requirements for gaining TANF, such as your wife will basically have to have any of her bank account exhausted first, the State making sure you pay your child support for 36 kids and I'm not sure what they will say about the free housing provided by the divorced dad where he just happens to live as well.


We get WIC- free baby food and other staples

With so many kids (im sure you have at least five under 5 years of age), I think you need this. You'll be rolling in all that milk, dried beans, peaches and Boost for sure (PDF Alert). Straight ballin.

She immediately qualifies for $850 a month in food stamps
From what I can find, the avera ...


OH SNAP!
2012-11-28 01:16:39 PM
1 votes:

Sid_the_sadist: wingnut396: Sid_the_sadist: I see hundreds of people every day collecting their checks while wearing gold chains that cost more than my monthly salary and driving a brand new Escalade on 24's

I think you mean you saw on person using their EBT wearing a gaudy 10K plated chain driving a 10 year old Escalade from the Credit Clown Car Corral on rent to own 24"s rims.

Unless you work at the continuous convention for stereotype welfare queens.

And I think you are a reality denying moran. Come vacation for one week down here, take notes, take pictures, you'll either explode or leave with a different outlook.


Skippy, I live no more than 2 hours or so down I-10 from most of rural south Mississippi and have for most of my life. I know what exactly what you claim you are seeing. I also know the tons of rent to own car lots, the crappy gold jewelry in pawn shops and the cheap rim places in the better parts of such locations. I've worked right next to them. There are not hundreds of welfare recipients driving around in brand new Escalades every day.

I will completely agree that there are some people that are totally gaming the system. I have absolutely no doubt that is happening. But it is not happening on the scale you are suggesting. Living in section 8 housing and using welfare is not a kind existence. It not horrible, but well, that is the farking point in having welfare IMO. People should not have to be living in shanty towns with open sewage and picking through the dump for food.
2012-11-28 11:25:16 AM
1 votes:
I'm a married, middled-aged guy with three kids, My wife and I both work for the Government and make about 50k a year combined before taxes.

We pay day care for two kids - 1400 a month
We pay after school care for one - 200 a month
We pay full priced meals for the one in school.

After Mortgage, car, utilities, insurance (health, home, and auto) fuel and groceries we live literally paycheck to paycheck. Our bank accounts have less that $20 in them several days before we get paid again.

I've done some research though, check this out...


We can get divorced (on paper), she keeps the kids (we would still live in the same house) She quits her job.

At first, she'll collect unemployment.
She immediately qualifies for $850 a month in food stamps
We save $1600 in day care
Any kids in school get free lunches
Health insurance for her and the kids is now free (I save 480 a month in health insurance premiums)
We get free cell phones
We get welfare (roughly $1000 a month)
We get WIC- free baby food and other staples
All this increases as soon as we have another kid
She can watch kids in our house or clean houses for cash that's not reported as income.
We vote Democrat the rest of our lives.

What is our incentive to continue working?
2012-11-28 10:29:55 AM
1 votes:

Mr. Carpenter: 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,


Why? Their math is pretty cocked up, but there is nothing wrong with their outcome of having a one income household, a bit of work-life balance, and participating in a legitimate tax deferment plan (which usually means putting money into retirement, which keeps you off the dole in the future). That's not going Galt, that's going Ward Cleever, and we should be pushing to create a society where that is enabled. The sad thing is that in this country, the majority of the wealthy aren't producing anything near their compensation, so if they quit in defiance they are lowering costs WAY more than output. It's a good deal. Now just let the inheritance tax come back (with a suitably high exemption) so we can get the Paris Hiltons' capital moving towards merit eventually and it's a good path.
2012-11-28 10:16:15 AM
1 votes:

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 10:12:27 AM
1 votes:
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 10:11:29 AM
1 votes:
Tax the rich and give that money to the lazy, no good, POS drains on society. Yea, that'll work.
2012-11-28 10:03:10 AM
1 votes:

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 10:00:00 AM
1 votes:

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 09:59:10 AM
1 votes:

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 09:54:27 AM
1 votes:

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 09:53:36 AM
1 votes:

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 09:46:44 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-28 09:46:20 AM
1 votes:

onyxruby: How can have everyone pay the same rate not be fair? That's like saying we should have different speed limits based on income.


The minimum cost of living is not zero. A true flat percentage tax fails to acknowledge this.
2012-11-28 09:42:07 AM
1 votes:

RexTalionis: This article is stupid. The article initially makes the claim that of the 16,000 Britons who previously filed tax returns showing that they have an income of over 1 Million GBP, 2/3rds have left for tax exile.

This claim is fallacious. Later on in the article, it admits that thus far, 10,000 Britons have filed a tax return showing incomes of greater than 1 million GBP (so it's not 2/3rds - more like 1/3rd). Furthermore, has anyone bothered to point out that the deadline for filing one's taxes has not passed in the UK yet? All paper tax filings are due on October 31st, but electronic online filings are due on January 31. There's literally another 2 months (and several days) before the final deadline for all taxes to be filed.


FTFM

Oh, and let's not forget that for most of 2012, the UK has been mired in a double-dip recession. Could that possibly have an impact on the number of individuals claiming incomes of over 1 million GBP?
2012-11-28 09:41:15 AM
1 votes:

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."
2012-11-28 09:33:09 AM
1 votes:

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.


They bought their tickets Shayna, I say let em crash.
2012-11-28 09:31:26 AM
1 votes:

sodomizer: For a millionaire, this is a simple financial decision: what's the best tax rate for my residency dollars?

This is one of the many reasons that "tax the rich" is theft by wishful thinkers who will destroy their country with it.


B....bu....but Obama!!!!
2012-11-28 09:31:06 AM
1 votes:

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?


That is no surprise to me. When i pull it out farkers usually scream Troll because facts make them uncomfortable.
2012-11-28 09:29:12 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-28 09:20:39 AM
1 votes:
My country's top tax rate is 45 cents in every dollar over $180,000 plus the 1.5% healthcare levy on total income. No one is running away from here.

The Torygraph is living up to its name.
2012-11-28 09:11:26 AM
1 votes:

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. "
2012-11-28 09:08:10 AM
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: It's pretty simple: if you've got the means to take off BUT think you're getting a decent value for what you pay in taxes, you're more likely to stay put.

There's high taxes in places like Norway but the Norwegian government isn't jammed with cronies, crooks, nitwits and farktards.


Winner, winner chicken dinner.
2012-11-28 09:04:31 AM
1 votes:
For a millionaire, this is a simple financial decision: what's the best tax rate for my residency dollars?

This is one of the many reasons that "tax the rich" is theft by wishful thinkers who will destroy their country with it.
2012-11-28 09:02:59 AM
1 votes:
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?

Keep farking that chicken, conservatives.
2012-11-28 08:59:28 AM
1 votes:

onyxruby: Flat tax 20 regardless of income source. No penalty for success, fair for everyone.


Except that that's not fair for everyone, because there's a difference between taxing someone's grocery/rent/electricity money and taxing disposable income. Progressive taxation is the only system that can take into account externalities and the increased benefit the wealthy receive from the social contract.

Screw your Flat/"Fair" Tax nonsense.
2012-11-28 08:56:27 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-11-28 08:52:41 AM
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: digistil: but forget about that because it doesn't tell the story Rupert wants (this is one of his flagship papers).

That's the Sydney Telegraph you're thinking of.

Rupert's UK papers are the Times and the Sun.


Doh, you're right, I was thinking of the Times, not the Telegraph.
2012-11-28 08:52:37 AM
1 votes:
Bono heard saying 'There goes the neighborhood'.

/He hides his money in Cyprus, then criticizes people for not doing their fair share.
2012-11-28 08:50:43 AM
1 votes:
I guess they'll be moving to Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Estonia or Poland? Why didn't they do that already?

Top marginal combined personal incomes tax rates in OECD countries (Excel file download)
2012-11-28 08:48:04 AM
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: FTA: 50p

What the fark am I reading?


50 pence.

As in 50 pence in every pound.

Basically 50% income tax on all income above £150,000
2012-11-28 08:39:20 AM
1 votes:
*shrug* weak laws allowed this. I would be willing to bet that those people who "no longer live in Britain" are still drawing income and benefits of British citizenship from there.
2012-11-28 08:35:47 AM
1 votes:

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

Read the article. It turns out that when the recession was worst in the UK, far fewer people were earning seven figures. The number of people making at least seven figures has since rebounded while taxes have remained the same, but forget about that because it doesn't tell the story Rupert wants (this is one of his flagship papers).


Huh?

FTA: "However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis. "
2012-11-28 08:34:07 AM
1 votes:

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

Read the article. It turns out that when the recession was worst in the UK, far fewer people were earning seven figures. The number of people making at least seven figures has since rebounded while taxes have remained the same, but forget about that because it doesn't tell the story Rupert wants (this is one of his flagship papers).


The Smellograph is a right wing propaganda rag, but it doesn't belong to Murdoch. You might be thinking of the Sun and the London Times.
2012-11-28 08:28:50 AM
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: FTA: 50p

What the fark am I reading?


That's going to look really shiatty on my 1080p monitor.
2012-11-28 08:23:57 AM
1 votes:
If I'm understanding this correctly, the rich should pay less in taxes because when a recession is in full force, it even impacts them.
2012-11-28 08:20:53 AM
1 votes:
This is why we should just raise an army of the people, arrest them, and take what they have. Maybe even find a final solution for these pests later on.
 
Displayed 75 of 75 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report