• 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:
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
Click to expand...

I did not call you a moron. I said as a barrister you benefit as per your claims from the system of courts and laws that is tax payer supported.
 
winston53660 said:
I did not call you a moron. I said as a barrister you benefit as per your claims from the system of courts and laws that is tax payer supported.
Click to expand...

nor did I and your claims about me are silly and stupid.
 
TurtleDude said:
you need to pay as much as I do before you start demanding I pay more
Click to expand...

What was the total federal effective tax rate that Romney paid again? 14% wasn't it?
 
Catawba said:
What was the total federal effective tax rate that Romney paid again? 14% wasn't it?
Click to expand...


yeah which is much higher than most americans. and it is based on a different tax schedule

and it meant Romney paid far more actual tax dollars than probably everyone on this board who whines about his taxes

he paid millions in taxes and probably used less government services than you do
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah which is much higher than most americans. and it is based on a different tax schedule

and it meant Romney paid far more actual tax dollars than probably everyone on this board who whines about his taxes

he paid millions in taxes and probably used less government services than you do
Click to expand...


We understand that 10% of 100 is more than 10% of 1. My point is that Romney and others that derive most of their income from investments, pay a lesser percentage of total income in federal taxes than do most of America. That was one of the main distinctions between the candidates, and which one did Americans choose?
 
Catawba said:
We understand that 10% of 100 is more than 10% of 1. My point is that Romney and others that derive most of their income from investments, pay a lesser percentage of total income in federal taxes than do most of America. That was one of the main distinctions between the candidates, and which one did Americans choose?
Click to expand...
They chose Santa Claus.
 
Dooble said:
They chose Santa Claus.
Click to expand...

Were the 1990's Christmas than? Yeah, who would want to return to the economy of the 1990s when they could get their benefits, they've paid into, taken away to make more tax cuts for the rich. You are real surprised they didn't go for that, aren't you?
 
Catawba said:
Were the 1990's Christmas than? Yeah, who would want to return to the economy of the 1990s when they could get their benefits, they've paid into, taken away to make more tax cuts for the rich. You are real surprised they didn't go for that, aren't you?
Click to expand...
What benefits, liberal? A little specificity, please. This post is dangerously close to a Leftist rant.
 
Dooble said:
What benefits, liberal? A little specificity, please. This post is dangerously close to a Leftist rant.
Click to expand...

The Social Security, and Medicare benefits people have paid into all their lives. And why would the middle class choose to give up their home mortgage deductions and child care tax credits that enable them to keep working just so the wealthy can continue to receive their tax cuts? Its not like the tax cuts have produced the jobs they were supposed to under trickle down theory, so the people said no more.

BTW, You are the one that called Obama Santa Claus, I just followed your analogy to its logical conclusion.
 
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...

I put it in quotes for the figurative aspect of the term. I don't know whether you are troubled or not, I'm just engaged in a discussion.

You indicate that the increase in total wealth has gone almost entirely to the "wealthy class". Is this a secret club or can anyone join? Has anyone ever been kicked out of the club or is it a lifetime appointment, sort of like ex-Presidents?

I don't view that I"m doing any partisan defense, and I've yet to see any tangible result of this "unhealthy economic practice(quoting this time)" other than your palpable outrage because you "just don't like it (my own emphasis)".

Are you equally outraged by functional illiterates who can put a ball in a hoop can make 100's of times more than an English teacher, or do you reserve your outrage for just the big picture?

And you point out that there is all this economic harm occurring but I'm still waiting for you to point out some of that damage. Point me to the results, not the symptoms. And since you are so sure that there is damage, how would you fix it?

Do you want a tax on wealth and not just income? Should everyone be put in a union? Should all economic activity be taken over by the government and then the government apportion to each person their share?

Not sure why you find this to be partisan, but if that is your perspective, whatever.
 
Catawba said:
We understand that 10% of 100 is more than 10% of 1. My point is that Romney and others that derive most of their income from investments, pay a lesser percentage of total income in federal taxes than do most of America. That was one of the main distinctions between the candidates, and which one did Americans choose?
Click to expand...



why do you continue to post LIES? MOST AMERICANS PAY LESS OF of a percentage of their income on federal income taxes than those in the top 2% and far less than the 15% rate imposed on investments

And as to who won-that does not make your lie less dishonest.
 
Catawba said:
The Social Security, and Medicare benefits people have paid into all their lives. And why would the middle class choose to give up their home mortgage deductions and child care tax credits that enable them to keep working just so the wealthy can continue to receive their tax cuts? Its not like the tax cuts have produced the jobs they were supposed to under trickle down theory, so the people said no more.

BTW, You are the one that called Obama Santa Claus, I just followed your analogy to its logical conclusion.
Click to expand...
Slow down, Cata. You've touched on only one side of the story: the Liberal side of the story, which is the ONLY side as far as the Left is concerned. Yes, only a fool would say that the super rich have come out of all this squeeky clean. But for you to blanket that entire tax bracket with your vitriol, is plain stupid. The rich have their lawyers, and they can work the system with their own resources, but many do it within parameters set by the government. It's not their fault that most government officials are whores.

Now, the second part is our on own government: that beautiful class of bureaucrats who LOVE to spend OUR money, and LOTS of it. See, while the Left wags its finger at the larger cogs of the Private and Public Sectors, we tend to look at the WHOLE picture, and that picture is a helluva lot more realistic than yours.

You didn't follow anything to its logical conclusion. You followed things to your own conclusion: a Leftist conclusion.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
why do you continue to post LIES? MOST AMERICANS PAY LESS OF of a percentage of their income on federal income taxes than those in the top 2% and far less than the 15% rate imposed on investments

And as to who won-that does not make your lie less dishonest.
Click to expand...

True enough, until you add in payroll taxes, that really are just taxes as they go into the general fund to be spend on general expenses, just like income taxes.

What we need, to be totally fair, is a flat tax, just one flat tax, not a dozen, that exacts the same percentage of income from all citizens from all sources.

Then, we need to cut back the size and power of the federal government so that said percentage can go down without incurring debt.

Oh, yes, and for Hell to freeze, pigs to fly, and San Fransisco to vote Republican, all of which is about as likely as the size of the federal government actually decreasing, but then, that's another story.
 
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. They will squeeze until they suck the life out of them.
 
TurtleDude said:
why do you continue to post LIES? MOST AMERICANS PAY LESS OF of a percentage of their income on federal income taxes than those in the top 2% and far less than the 15% rate imposed on investments

And as to who won-that does not make your lie less dishonest.
Click to expand...


Unlike you, I don't ignore the fact that half the federal revenue is from FICA taxes, of which those like Romney pay none. Obviously, as we saw from the election, the middle class was painfully aware of this fact you conveniently ignore.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Unlike you, I don't ignore the fact that half the federal revenue is from FICA taxes, of which those like Romney pay none.
Click to expand...

Actually no, Romney pays just as much as anyone and more than most in FICA.

Obviously, as we saw from the election, the middle class was painfully aware of this fact you conveniently ignore.
Click to expand...

no, the middle class generally has no idea about effective tax rates.
 
cpwill said:
Actually no, Romney pays just as much as anyone and more than most in FICA.
Click to expand...

Forbes and I call BS on that.

"those taxpayers who rely on investments — the Buffetts, Romneys and soon to be Mark Zuckerbergs of the world – don’t pay payroll taxes if they’re not earning a wage; unearned income is not subject to payroll taxes. Statistically, the top 1% of income earners report 16% of total income but pay less than 4% of payroll taxes. That’s not only because payroll taxes are calculated on earned wages but also because contributions for Social Security are capped at $110,100. If you make more than that, the overage is not subject to Social Security; this is referred to as a regressive tax (as compared to our “regular” income tax system which is said to be progressive)."



no, the middle class generally has no idea about effective tax rates.
Click to expand...

Judging by the election, enough knew about effective tax rates! :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom