• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate

TurtleDude said:
I love the love the left has for the clinton tax rates.
Click to expand...

Its not a love of Clinton tax rates, but the preference in the multiple choice question. As there are no current proposals on the table to raise or lower taxes other than the proposal to extend the temporary tax cuts as enacted in 2001/03 and extended in 2010. No one, at the moment, has the political courage to step outside the box of the question of to extend or to not extend or to partially extend.

The partial extension, which seems to have the most political momentum, involves institutionalizing (making permanent) all of the temporary tax cuts except for those "making" more than $250,000. That group would have an incremental tax rate as before 2001.... ie: The "Clinton" rates.

Personally, I have stated many times on this board that we should have a top rate on incomes of over $1M of 50% (as the higher the rate on earnings, coupled with low cap gain rates, the more you incent business owners to refrain from salary and re-invest in their businesses)... but that is not part of the multiple choice questions and not likely to happen in this decade.
 
Paul Austin said:
No, whats wrong is extremists who want to have children removed from the homes of families whose choice of political party they disagree with & would lie to advocate such.

You know the rules.
Click to expand...

Extremists who don't know the facts should keep off what they know nothing about, I think.
 
CalGun said:
So if a thousand millionaires hoard / don't spend a million each it's a billion not in the economy right? What of the million people, like me, that hoard a thousand dollars each? What are you going to do to them or do you only want to impact the smaller voting block?
Click to expand...

If it is hoarded by keeping it in a savings account, then it's available to others via loans from the bank. If it's hoarded by buying stocks, then it's available to the issuers of those stocks. It's only kept out of the economy if it's hoarded by keeping it under your mattress.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If it is hoarded by keeping it in a savings account, then it's available to others via loans from the bank. If it's hoarded by buying stocks, then it's available to the issuers of those stocks. It's only kept out of the economy if it's hoarded by keeping it under your mattress.
Click to expand...

As you know, the bankers are desperately trying to cover their backs over their incompetent debt-shambles, and we to pay their bonbuses, lest they should go abroad and rob others. They hoover up all our money and keep it under their mattresses, in effect, as you very well know.
 
JRog said:
Wealth inequality is when the amount of wealth is not evenly distributed. It's healthy to have inequality. EXTREME wealth inequality is when a significant amount of an economy's value rests with very few people. That is unhealthy because those who have the money, have so much of it that they can't possibly spend it (nor do they want to), which takes that money out of circulation. Sure they invest it where it will earn money, but investing does not generate demand, and therefore does not stimulate growth.

This is a good chart to reference
http://chewychunks.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/dan-ariely-wealth-inequality.png?w=630&h=263
Click to expand...

Could be more specific? What percent is damaging and what is merely troubling to you.

Demand can be created. I didn't demand a Walkman, an iPod or an iPhone.
 
And who is more likely to stuff it in their mattress or invest it? The millionaire or the person with only a $1000?


Dittohead not! said:
If it is hoarded by keeping it in a savings account, then it's available to others via loans from the bank. If it's hoarded by buying stocks, then it's available to the issuers of those stocks. It's only kept out of the economy if it's hoarded by keeping it under your mattress.
Click to expand...
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Could be more specific? What percent is damaging and what is merely troubling to you.

Demand can be created. I didn't demand a Walkman, an iPod or an iPhone.
Click to expand...

That would be a question best fit for a team of economists dedicated to the issue. I think it's safe to say, however, that the level of wealth inequality in which we currently find ourselves is more than just "troubling to me".
 
JRog said:
That would be a question best fit for a team of economists dedicated to the issue. I think it's safe to say, however, that the level of wealth inequality in which we currently find ourselves is more than just "troubling to me".
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but why should it be troubling to anyone else? What impact has it had on you? Since total wealth is not a distinct amount, then presumably the wealth is constantly on the move. Additionally, many aspects of wealth are capricious and subject to being rare. For example, Apple may sell for $500/share, and by that we assume that every share is worth $500. How fluid is that?

Furthermore, assuming that the current level of wealth inequality is "troubling to you", what is your solution to get the level to "below troubling"?
 
head of joaquin said:
I think that the OP makes a strong argument that the rich are traitors and have no allegiance to anything or anybody but themselves.

Maybe the conservatives need to rethink this silly meme.
Click to expand...

And to what allegence do the poor have? You're a very confused person, and frankly you're circular logic is middle school level.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
And to what allegence do the poor have? You're a very confused person, and frankly you're circular logic is middle school level.


Tim-
Click to expand...

So now the meme is -- the rich leave the country to avoid taxes, but the poor are traitors because . . . just because.

Conservative logic -- it's done it again!
 
head of joaquin said:
So now the meme is -- the rich leave the country to avoid taxes, but the poor are traitors because . . . just because.

Conservative logic -- it's done it again!
Click to expand...

Yep, I thought the langauge would confuse you further, and it appears I was correct. I know you think you're having a great time here at DP, that YOU have us all reeling, and our heads are about to explode, but the joke, sad as it is, is on you, peaches. IN a certain area of DP, you're the laughing stock already, and by both sides of the spectrum. Or maybe you didn't get that meme? :)


tim-
 
Hicup said:
Yep, I thought the langauge would confuse you further, and it appears I was correct. I know you think you're having a great time here at DP, that YOU have us all reeling, and our heads are about to explode, but the joke, sad as it is, is on you, peaches. IN a certain area of DP, you're the laughing stock already, and by both sides of the spectrum. Or maybe you didn't get that meme? :)


tim-
Click to expand...

Yep, you're confused, as is your language.

But I'm glad you find me so interesting.

Meanwhile back on topic . . .
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Perhaps so, but why should it be troubling to anyone else? What impact has it had on you? Since total wealth is not a distinct amount, then presumably the wealth is constantly on the move. Additionally, many aspects of wealth are capricious and subject to being rare. For example, Apple may sell for $500/share, and by that we assume that every share is worth $500. How fluid is that?

Furthermore, assuming that the current level of wealth inequality is "troubling to you", what is your solution to get the level to "below troubling"?
Click to expand...

I don't believe I ever used the phrase "troubling to me", so I am now sure why you keep putting that in quotes.
Total wealth is certainly a moving target, but the increase in the total wealth of the nation has gone almost entirely to the wealthy class while the average US worker has increased in productivity. Translated to layman's terms, this is an indication that employers are squeezing more productivity out of employees and pocketing the extra income. Furthermore, what I do find "troubling" is partisan defense of unhealthy economic practices. You'd argue that it is the right of the nation's wealthiest to increase their income by almost 300% over the last 30 years while the employees generating that revenue have stagnant real wages. I'd have to disagree.
 
Hicup said:
And to what allegence do the poor have? You're a very confused person, and frankly you're circular logic is middle school level.


Tim-
Click to expand...

I think the point here is that we've witnessed the pursuit of wealth being held above the pursuit of a healthy society. Please explain to me how one can be patriotic while threatening to withdraw their wealth from this nation's economy if their taxes go up? How can someone care about the society in which they live when they create a business model to ensure their employees work just below full time to exempt them from having to provide medical insurance? Keep in mind that these investors/companie can still generate profit while paying higher taxes or providing medical insurance. The only issue here is that they wouldn't generate as much income.
 
JRog said:
I don't believe I ever used the phrase "troubling to me", so I am now sure why you keep putting that in quotes.
Total wealth is certainly a moving target, but the increase in the total wealth of the nation has gone almost entirely to the wealthy class while the average US worker has increased in productivity. Translated to layman's terms, this is an indication that employers are squeezing more productivity out of employees and pocketing the extra income. Furthermore, what I do find "troubling" is partisan defense of unhealthy economic practices. You'd argue that it is the right of the nation's wealthiest to increase their income by almost 300% over the last 30 years while the employees generating that revenue have stagnant real wages. I'd have to disagree.
Click to expand...


what do you expect? those who have money left over from paying expenses and the bloated tax bills levied by a greedy and wasteful government can invest that money and increase their wealth
 
RLN said:
You're correct. It's called moving your money while you sit still. ;)

The Myth of the Millionaires' Exodus
Click to expand...

Britain is having the same problems we are in getting the wealthy to pay their fair share. They simply used faulty data to "prove" that raising taxes doesn't increase revenues.

There are evidently parts of the Government intent on fighting a war on behalf of the richest 1% in our society. The first casualty of that war looks to be the truth about the 50p tax.
Click to expand...
The amusing thing is that great lengths and expense the wealthy are going through to prevent us from taking less of their money. You'd think they would want us to raise taxes so they would be paying less?
 
iguanaman said:
Britain is having the same problems we are in getting the wealthy to pay their fair share. They simply used faulty data to "prove" that raising taxes doesn't increase revenues.

The amusing thing is that great lengths and expense the wealthy are going through to prevent us from taking less of their money. You'd think they would want us to raise taxes so they would be paying less?
Click to expand...


I love the attitude of those who claim FAIR SHARE

fair share is me paying no more than YOU. I don't get anything MORE from the government than YOU do so WHY is it FAIR FOR ME TO PAY MORE
 
TurtleDude said:
I love the attitude of those who claim FAIR SHARE

fair share is me paying no more than YOU. I don't get anything MORE from the government than YOU do so WHY is it FAIR FOR ME TO PAY MORE
Click to expand...

You get an entire system of courts and laws barrister that you claim to have made a living off of.
 
winston53660 said:
You get an entire system of courts and laws barrister that you claim to have made a living off of.
Click to expand...

that is far more moronic a comment than I normally see in your posts. It has no relevance and is a personal commentary that is not germane. The fact is, those who want to live off the government tit tend to claim those who supply the milk need to pay more

fair share is everyone paying the same amount. right now the top 5% pay more federal income taxes than the rest of the country combined. 95% of the Nation is not coming close to paying their fair share

and don't give me the crap about ability to pay. That doesn't cut it on just about any other service. I don't pay GUIDO the Barber more for a shave or a haircut than a guy making minimum wage. A gallon of gas doesn't cost me 400 dollars compared to the 3.30 a guy who makes 20K a year pays.
 
winston53660 said:
You get an entire system of courts and laws barrister that you claim to have made a living off of.
Click to expand...

And a very good living at that, he claims to sock away 80% of his after tax income. Yet he squeals the loudest because it might become only 77%.
Doesn't he know you can't take it with you?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
The question is will obama and the Democrats learn anything from this.


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


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

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income"

: “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.
Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billions in lost tax revenue.


Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate - Telegraph
Click to expand...


??? No one is proposing a 50% tax rate for the wealthy. A more relevant question would be how many millionaires left the US the last time tax rates were 4% higher than they are now?
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
And a very good living at that, he claims to sock away 80% of his after tax income. Yet he squeals the loudest because it might become only 77%.
Doesn't he know you can't take it with you?
Click to expand...


you need to pay as much as I do before you start demanding I pay more
 
winston53660 said:
Go scre......never mind I'll just report this.
Click to expand...

feel free. I guess they will look at yours too but attacking your post is no violation. You on the other hand made personal comments about me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom