• 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

Why do you despise the rich?

Because hoarding wealth is gluttony and they do so by corrupting the people's government to legislate their own greed.

Successful people do not hoard wealth, rich people do.
 
& how does that work when the head of a multinational doesnt set foot in that country?

How should it? Most of the CEO's get the bulk of their pay in stocks so why should theirs be treated differently than anybody else's in terms of taxes?
 
So then why are these people still allowed to benefit from their earnings in the UK? If they leave to avoid taxes in their home country, then they should not be allowed to profit from any holdings they have there. It's that simple. If you want to benefit, you have to put back in. If you abandon your nation, then your nation takes back everything it gave you, and people retain everything they built to help you get rich. Nations and the people in them are not for plundering by a few powerful vultures.

This is part of the trend for the upper upper class to remove themselves from the community of the rest of the world, employing hush hush banks in one nation, holding companies in another, and hiring workers in yet another. These people have no loyalty to anyone but themselves, and clearly have no loyalty to any of the people they're interacting with along the way. No nation should house or protect them, and their holdings should be sacrificed. If they won't show loyalty to anyone else, then no one should show loyalty to them.

So when I moved to Germany permanently from the US, I should've had all of my savings confiscated? I know you're referring specifically to the super rich, but I don't see how it would be different based on income.
 
I think that a healthy wealth distribution is one that includes some wealth inequality. I do, however, think that there needs to be a system through which people are prevented from becoming "too big to fail" so to speak, especially across generations of wealthy families. Extreme wealth inequality is damaging to an economy, but some inequality (along with upward mobility) promotes productivity and ambition.

Like I said I have no problem with success and if someone is a millionaire that is great, but there comes a point where it is no longer success but greed a hoarding of wealth. There comes a point where unlimited wealth becomes absolute power and we all know what happens then.
 
I directly quoted you, so it's not really a misquote...unless you don't understand what a quote is. You apparently equate taxes reverting back to their pre-Bush II rates as being similar to the plight of the Jews. I think that any Jewish person would be offended by your distasteful comparison.

Well that settles that, you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old AND you are willfully dishonest. That is a combination worthy of making my ignore list. Goodbye:)
 
How should it? Most of the CEO's get the bulk of their pay in stocks so why should theirs be treated differently than anybody else's in terms of taxes?

The difference is "anybody else" is in the country.

Makes a big old difference.
 
So when I moved to Germany permanently from the US, I should've had all of my savings confiscated? I know you're referring specifically to the super rich, but I don't see how it would be different based on income.

If you left the US to avoid paying your taxes, yes. As long as you paid your taxes then no harm no foul.
 
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

There were only 16,000 millionaires in the Uk?!
 
Because hoarding wealth is gluttony and they do so by corrupting the people's government to legislate their own greed.

Successful people do not hoard wealth, rich people do.

So in your opinion once somebody makes a huge amount of money they should either give it away or they should have it confiscated?
 
If you left the US to avoid paying your taxes, yes. As long as you paid your taxes then no harm no foul.

I believe the people in question paid their taxes owed then left to avoid paying future taxes. How does your reason for leaving change the situation, and how would the government ascertain their reasons for leaving in a court of law?
 
Australia

Really?

Australian tax codes:

$180,001 and over


$54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

The above rates do not include the Medicare levy of 1.5% (see Guide to Medicare levy for more information).

Let's see.. that works out to 45% + 1.5% for Medicare, or 46.5% as a top marginal tax rate. That would mean that the wealthy Brits moved halfway around the world, presumably that far away from family and friends, to save 3.5% on their taxes.

Could that really be?

If so, then it should be safe for the USA to raise its top marginal rate to 39%, as would happen if we went over the "fiscal cliff", and expect wealthy Brits and Kiwis to want to immigrate to the USA to avoid paying as much in taxes. Add their millionaires to ours, and we could increase our tax base substantially, it seems to me. All we need to do is amend our immigration laws to allow anyone with an income of over a million pounds to come here just for the asking.
 
The difference is "anybody else" is in the country.

Makes a big old difference.

Not really. Unless I am misreading/missing something, the owners of GM stock, for instance, might be spread all over the world, so should they all have to pay taxes on their dividends/cap gains everywhere in the world GM does business by your measure?
 
Really?

Australian tax codes:

$180,001 and over




Let's see.. that works out to 45% + 1.5% for Medicare, or 46.5% as a top marginal tax rate. That would mean that the wealthy Brits moved halfway around the world, presumably that far away from family and friends, to save 3.5% on their taxes.

Could that really be?

If so, then it should be safe for the USA to raise its top marginal rate to 39%, as would happen if we went over the "fiscal cliff", and expect wealthy Brits and Kiwis to want to immigrate to the USA to avoid paying as much in taxes. Add their millionaires to ours, and we could increase our tax base substantially, it seems to me. All we need to do is amend our immigration laws to allow anyone with an income of over a million pounds to come here just for the asking.

The article said they are going to Australia and I'm sure there tax code is complex and the millionaires must see going there is to their benefit.Their must be some reason they are going there instead of coming here since on the surface our tax seems lower. One thing for sure they are leaving the UK in droves and draining its coffers by billions, their is a lesson to be learned here. Yes you really can kill the goose that lays the golden egg and you can do so without firing a shot.
 
Not really.

Yes, really. Being in a different country makes a huge difference.

Unless I am misreading/missing something, the owners of GM stock, for instance, might be spread all over the world, so should they all have to pay taxes on their dividends/cap gains everywhere in the world GM does business by your measure?

Not by my measure, no, in fact quite the opposite. I stated that was an unreasonable proposition.
 
Well that settles that, you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old AND you are willfully dishonest. That is a combination worthy of making my ignore list. Goodbye:)

:2wave:

Ignoring opposing viewpoints leads to willful ignorance.
 
The article said they are going to Australia and I'm sure there tax code is complex and the millionaires must see going there is to their benefit.Their must be some reason they are going there instead of coming here since on the surface our tax seems lower. One thing for sure they are leaving the UK in droves and draining its coffers by billions, their is a lesson to be learned here. Yes you really can kill the goose that lays the golden egg and you can do so without firing a shot.

Actually, their effective rates are the rates paid after deductions and other tax avoidance methods. So, regardless of how complex their code may be, the effective rates are still higher than in the US, so......yea.
 
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

Its bull****.

The "millionaires" did not leave, they used loopholes to avoid taxes. You see, you can be registered in places like Gibraltar, Gurnsey and still live full time in the UK and pay no taxes. Add to that, the ton of pro-millionaire tax loop holes there are, then well.
 
Not really. Unless I am misreading/missing something, the owners of GM stock, for instance, might be spread all over the world, so should they all have to pay taxes on their dividends/cap gains everywhere in the world GM does business by your measure?

The corporation pays taxes in each area where the company does business.
 
The corporation pays taxes in each area where the company does business.

I am aware of that. The issue as I understand it was whether the CEO should have to pay personal income taxes everywhere the company does business as well, which is insane IMHO.
 
I am aware of that. The issue as I understand it was whether the CEO should have to pay personal income taxes everywhere the company does business as well, which is insane IMHO.

That would be difficult to even determine, to say the least.
 
Really?

Australian tax codes:

$180,001 and over




Let's see.. that works out to 45% + 1.5% for Medicare, or 46.5% as a top marginal tax rate. That would mean that the wealthy Brits moved halfway around the world, presumably that far away from family and friends, to save 3.5% on their taxes.

Could that really be?

If so, then it should be safe for the USA to raise its top marginal rate to 39%, as would happen if we went over the "fiscal cliff", and expect wealthy Brits and Kiwis to want to immigrate to the USA to avoid paying as much in taxes
. Add their millionaires to ours, and we could increase our tax base substantially, it seems to me. All we need to do is amend our immigration laws to allow anyone with an income of over a million pounds to come here just for the asking.[/
QUOTE]

Apparently Australia is doing just that and it explains why UK millionaires are going there.


"In a controversial move the Australian government has announced plans to introduce a new visa category offering a fast-track residency path for substantial investment in Australia. It is believed that the pathway to permanent residency will rest upon the investment of at least AU$5 million across a range of different investment assets."

Australian government chases the millionaires
 
Really?

Australian tax codes:

$180,001 and over




Let's see.. that works out to 45% + 1.5% for Medicare, or 46.5% as a top marginal tax rate. That would mean that the wealthy Brits moved halfway around the world, presumably that far away from family and friends, to save 3.5% on their taxes.

Could that really be?

If so, then it should be safe for the USA to raise its top marginal rate to 39%, as would happen if we went over the "fiscal cliff", and expect wealthy Brits and Kiwis to want to immigrate to the USA to avoid paying as much in taxesQUOTE]

Apparently Australia is doing just that and it explains why UK millionaires are going there.


"In a controversial move the Australian government has announced plans to introduce a new visa category offering a fast-track residency path for substantial investment in Australia. It is believed that the pathway to permanent residency will rest upon the investment of at least AU$5 million across a range of different investment assets."

Australian government chases the millionaires

The Aussies beat us to it.
 
Well firstly many abandon the country completely, so your argument doesnt apply to them, but secondly we now live in a world of global companies so a lot of CEO's etc. live abroad & you cant demand they all live in all the countries they operate in, nor pay tax in them all, & they will pick the best one for them.

So then why should they be allowed to take what they've gotten from the people of a country away from that country? If you do business in a country, you should be taxed by that country for the business you're doing. If you refuse to pay the taxes, then your business is now an illegal one.


& how does that work when the head of a multinational doesnt set foot in that country?

Because they conduct business there. It has nothing to do with where the person lives. It has to do with where the money is.

Because it's their property, why do you think? Where was it agreed upon that the government has that sort of authority over individual property?

Well then we, the people who live in the countries that these people are pillaging and abandoning, want a new agreement.

For someone supposedly studying to be a laywer, this idea that "loyalty" and your emotional perception of what people "should do", rather than the law being the deciding factor, is outrageous. Might as well be a doctor that plans on hurting patients intentionally with that sort of mindset.

Wow... that's pretty rude right there. Also stupid, since my skill in profession has nothing to do with my opinions about the relationships between government and business. I know full well what the law says. I also know when and why I disagree with it. There is a big difference between saying what the law is, and saying what it should be.

In the U.S. no matter where you get profits, it gets taxed. This helps prevent offshore tax havens. And you have to report it either way, so if it is offshore, they know you owe, and you pay, else face tax evasion. It doesn't require pillaging private citizens with terrifyingly inappropriate government authority as you suggested. Good grief.

And this is a good thing, though apparently it's not as effectively carried out in the UK, which is what the OP is about. Good reading skills. Also, in this country, there are far too many means by which to avoid paying those taxes. But you already know that. Those are some of the loopholes that conservatives and liberals agree ought to be done away with. So where's the controversy here? I want to enforce the rules as they exist, and possibly alter the numbers if they're too low. And if a business does not comply with the laws of the country where it is doing business, then the business should be kicked out of the country, since it is operating a criminal enterprise and breaking the law.

And now we here from the socialist-fascist crowd. What you are advocating is pretty much what Nazi's did to the Jews and the Soviet Union did to East Germans. You would hold people in a country hostage and confiscate their wealth. In short you advocate turning a country into a prison.

Name-calling... brilliant. Also contradictory, as fascism and socialism are very different philosophies, but I don't really expect you to know that. They're just buzzwords, right? And this is totally the same scenario as Nazi Germany, except for the part where these companies and their owners are violating the laws of the countries where they're doing business, and actually hurting people. But aside from that, demanding that profiteers actually compensate the nations where they build their wealth for all the benefits, services, and labor they obtain there is exactly like persecuting a religion.

So when I moved to Germany permanently from the US, I should've had all of my savings confiscated? I know you're referring specifically to the super rich, but I don't see how it would be different based on income.

Did you break any tax laws in the US before you left? Did you continue to reap the benefits of doing business here while avoiding paying for those benefits? No? Then clearly this doesn't apply to you. And technically, I never said anything about confiscation. I see that a few people went there, but I didn't mention in. If a business wants to use tricks and loopholes to avoid paying its due, then the nation that's being cheated should refuse to extend the protections of their laws to that business. That might manifest, in some cases, as confiscating what is left behind, but again, this is only a reaction to gross violations of the law and what amounts to massive theft from the people of a country. If you refuse to participate in the social contract, don't be surprised when no one else wants to extend its protections to you.

I believe the people in question paid their taxes owed then left to avoid paying future taxes. How does your reason for leaving change the situation, and how would the government ascertain their reasons for leaving in a court of law?

And an excellent response by the nation that is being abandoned would be to disallow any future business from those who do not hold any loyalty to the country that protected and benefited them for so long. If they want to cut and run, why shouldn't the UK or any other nation do the same? This is literally just reciprocating to these people what they have done in the first place.

Pasch's wall of text crits you in the face.
 
Back
Top Bottom