Wealth doesn't trickle down – it just floods offshore

[Native Texan III]

Trickle up is rapidly accelerating and those not putting wealth offshore and avoiding tax are left behind to pay the missing tax for them or face reduced public services, reduced health care, security , infrastructure and education. The poor is some countries simply die for lack of affordability of basic medicines or clean water.

A far-reaching new study suggests a staggering $21tn in assets has been lost to global tax havens. If taxed, that could have been enough to put parts of Africa back on its feet – and even solve the euro crisis.

90,000 super-rich tax-cheats (0.001% of the world's population) are involved. The crimes are abetted by a network of "enablers" from banks like UBS, Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs. Their wealth is, as Henry puts it, "protected by a highly paid, industrious bevy of professional enablers in the private banking, legal, accounting and investment industries taking advantage of the increasingly borderless, frictionless global economy". According to Henry's research, the top 10 private banks, managed more than £4tn in 2010, a sharp rise from £1.5tn five years earlier.

The world's super-rich have taken advantage of lax tax rules to siphon off at least $21 trillion, and possibly as much as $32tn, from their home countries and hide it abroad – a sum larger than the entire American economy.

"These estimates reveal a staggering failure," says John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network. "Inequality is much, much worse than official statistics show, but politicians are still relying on trickle-down to transfer wealth to poorer people.

The sheer scale of the hidden assets held by the super-rich also suggests that standard measures of inequality, which tend to rely on surveys of household income or wealth in individual countries, radically underestimate the true gap between rich and poor.

However, Henry's research suggests that this acknowledged jump in inequality is a dramatic underestimate. Stewart Lansley (http://www.stewartlansley.co.uk/), author of the recent book The Cost of Inequality, says: "There is absolutely no doubt at all that the statistics on income and wealth at the top understate the problem."
The surveys that are used to compile the Gini coefficient "simply don't touch the super-rich," he says. "You don't pick up the multimillionaires and billionaires, and even if you do, you can't pick it up properly."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/22/21-trillion-has-been-stashed.html

[badcompany]

And, to think, the poor Federal Government has to get by on a measly $2.4 trillion this year.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2012_0.html

[TJDave]

It floods offshore where?

This article is primarily about foreign wealth and a great deal of that flows into this country. Most of the mega-wealthy have no problem keeping their money here and are treated royally for it. The American aristocracy has never had it better.

[bigmack]

Will these confused folk, like Native Texan Part 3, bow down at the feet of Mitt R after he passes LOWER Corp tax rates and doing away with a plethora of TAX LOOPHOLES (Allowing Co's like GE to pay NOTHING) :confused:

Both actions which will bring a COLOSSAL FLOOD of loot into the country.

But NOOOOO, Native Texan I, II, & now III, want to talk about rich people screwin' less than rich people.

Who's got a wall handy for NTIII to bang his head against? Same effect as this tired argument.

[Tom]

Good.
I respect their react to unfair tax laws.
I also respect them paying 990% of the taxes for us all.
God Bless the off shore accounts, for they represent the true Americans, paying far more than their share......FAR more their share than half of the others. A little something something hidden away - I fully support them.
they are entitled to it.

[badcompany]

Will these confused folk, like Native Texan IV, bow down at the feet of Mitt R after he passes LOWER Corp tax rates and doing away with a plethora of TAX LOOPHOLES (Allowing Co's like GE to pay NOTHING)

Both actions which will bring a COLOSSAL FLOOD of loot into the country.

But NOOOOO, Native Texan I, II, & now III, want to talk about rich people screwin' less than rich people.

Who's got a wall handy for NTIII to bang his head against? Same effect as this tired argument.

"Inequality" has been the talking point of choice, lately, for leftists, as it allows them to conveniently ignore the "equality" of resources that capitalism has provided. The average Joe has products available to him that were inaccessible to even the elites, just a few years ago.

[Tom]

Nature abhors equity - it favors survival of the fittest.
The idea of nature is to weed out the week and improve those left.
A welfare state only weakens a nation - no good comes from it.
Because we are compassionate beings, we make an exception and car for our elderly and those incapable of taking care of themselves. We call it our moral responsibility - it not their right, it our generosity.

Those who are able but unwilling to work to survive are the worst of the worst and should be culled from our shores. You know, those the president is whoring to these days for votes.

Let them float to Cuba....hcap says the HC is better there anyway.

[ArlJim78]

put Africa back on its feet, or solve the Euro crisis? yeah right.
"look at all these wonderful things we could be doing if it wasn't for all those filthy rich greedy people". don't buy into this crap, this "far reaching" study is suspect. the conclusion of the study is part of the mission statement of the group who performed it. how convenient.

anything that keeps money out of the hands of government is a good thing.
our government has pissed away trillions, and now they're dead broke, so they have to resort to class warfare and this idea of tax justice. "tax justice" means "everything we've done has failed but we need more money to continue our very important work". no thanks.

[singletax]

The largest redistribution of wealth from the productive to the non-productive is in the form of land value. Much larger then these foreign bank accounts or all the left-wing social programs. The value of land is a wealth transfer from producers (business and labor) who create the value to landlords who do nothing but reap the reward.

[rastajenk]

"These estimates reveal a staggering failure," says John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network. "Inequality is much, much worse than official statistics show, but politicians are still relying on trickle-down to transfer wealth to poorer people." Trickle-down has never been about a transfer of wealth in one direction. It's about creating wealth. Either this guy quoted knows that and is selling a lie, or he's ignorant. Neither one is supportive of his position.

[mostpost]

Good.
I respect their react to unfair tax laws.
I also respect them paying 990% of the taxes for us all.
God Bless the off shore accounts, for they represent the true Americans, paying far more than their share......FAR more their share than half of the others. A little something something hidden away - I fully support them.
they are entitled to it.

Unreal that you can post such tripe. The top one percent paid 37% of the taxes, not 99%. 37% is less than 99%. It is also less than 42%, which is how much of the nations wealth they control.

What the off shore accounts really represent is taxes they are not paying; money they are not reinvesting in the economy of the United States. They represent selfishness and greed. They represent anti-Americanism at its worst.

Not only do they not pay "far more than their share", they do not even pay taxes on all their income. They report some of their income and hide much of it in offshore accounts. They accuse people (Obama) of being anti-American, but they refuse to pay their share of supporting America.

Tax rates will always be too high for these people. If their tax rate were to drop to 1% they would still seek ways to avoid paying that one percent. And even as they were doing that, they would still look to the government to subsidize their business expenses and provide police and fire protection and roads to move their goods. All the while working to end minimum wage and all worker protections.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... They represent anti-Americanism at its worst.

Not only do they not pay "far more than their share", they do not even pay taxes on all their income...

Right. Income tax wasn't even a component of "Americanism" for about 200 years, much less a defining standard of "Americanism".

Argue all you want about greedy people not investing enough in the most dysfunctional investment around, but let's not get carried away in pretending like handing over massive amounts of earnings to the central government is somehow a core principal of our tenets or heritage.

[bigmack]

37% is less than 99%. It is also less than 42%, which is how much of the nations wealth they control.
Type slower. When you throw out 'heady' concepts like 37 is less than 99 it takes time to drink that in, it's so complex.

As if that wasn't enough to blow some minds, you then move into borderline genius material when (as you've done innumerably in the past) you equate some sort of otherworldly concept of 'fair share' being people paying a Federal tax equal to the grouping of the amount of wealth they "control."

1%=42%, paying 37% of the taxes. THAT'S NOT FAIR!

You're as bright as Krugman.

[badcompany]

Two guys work at the same job at the same pay for ten years. One guy manages to save and invest 10% of his income; while the other lives check to check.

In Mostpost's world, the saver who has accumulated some wealth should pay a higher tax than the check to check guy who has accumulated no wealth and therefore should pay nothing.

These are the types of scenarios you can construct when you take the bizarre theories of the left to their logical conclusions.

[NJ Stinks]

Two guys work at the same job at the same pay for ten years. One guy manages to save and invest 10% of his income; while the other lives check to check.

In Mostpost's world, the saver who has accumulated some wealth should pay a higher tax than the check to check guy who has accumulated no wealth and therefore should pay nothing.

These are the types of scenarios you can construct when you take the bizarre theories of the left to their logical conclusions.

The tax you pay is based on your total income. Total income includes more than just wages or salary. Of course, somebody who earns more than someone else pays a higher amount of tax. :rolleyes:

[bigmack]

The tax you pay is based on your total income. Total income includes more than just wages or salary. Of course, somebody who earns more than someone else pays a higher amount of tax. :rolleyes:
I realize it doesn't fit with this hackneyed, Neanderthal narrative you & Mostie continue to drill to the ground about people of wealth being 'mean' but how in the world did your response have anything to do with BadCo's most succinct and eloquent point?

[NJ Stinks]

I realize it doesn't fit with this hackneyed, Neanderthal narrative you & Mostie continue to drill to the ground about people of wealth being 'mean' but how in the world did your response have anything to do with BadCo's most succinct and eloquent point?

If you can't see it, I can't help you.

[TJDave]

BadCo's most succinct and eloquent point?

The more you make the less you pay?

I like it. Who wouldn't? ;)

[mostpost]

Two guys work at the same job at the same pay for ten years. One guy manages to save and invest 10% of his income; while the other lives check to check.

In Mostpost's world, the saver who has accumulated some wealth should pay a higher tax than the check to check guy who has accumulated no wealth and therefore should pay nothing.

These are the types of scenarios you can construct when you take the bizarre theories of the left to their logical conclusions.

We are not talking about two guys who earn the same pay for ten years. We are not saying that a person's tax rate should be based on how much money they have. We are talking about the one percent, who control 42% of the wealth in this country. They do not control that 42% because they saved and invested better. They control it because their salaries were much better then the average person. We are talking about people whose salaries are in the hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars. We are talking about people whose so called investments were often given to them.

Let's look at income. A person in the top one percent brings earns an average of $717,000 a year. That is more than 17 times what an average person earns. It is not unreasonable for that 1%er to pay a higher tax rate than the average person. Especially when that higher rate only applies to earnings over a certain amount. In other words, the millionaire pays the same tax rate on his first $50,000 as does the person whose total salary is $50,000.

[bigmack]

We are talking about the one percent, who control 42% of the wealth in this country. They do not control that 42% because they saved and invested better. They control it because their salaries were much better then the average person.
Note the use of "control." What do you think people of wealth do with money, put it under a mattress? Wealth is grown & most of that money is invested in businesses, municipalities, etc...

Why do you think most $1M+ lotto winners are tapped after a short period of time?

[Saratoga_Mike]

. We are talking about people whose so called investments were often given to them.



What do you mean by "so-called investments?"

[badcompany]

What do you mean by "so-called investments?"

To rationalize the confiscation of wealth, leftists will contend that the money wasn't earned legitimately.

If the top 1% did pay the same percentage of their wealth, he'd have an another stat to support why they should be paying even more. It never ends.

[mostpost]

What do you mean by "so-called investments?"
I mean that a lot of executives are given stock options as a part of their compensation package.

[delayjf]

We are talking about people whose so called investments were often given to them.

Well I do agree with you that stock options awarded as compensation should be taxed as personnal income.

[Tom]

We are talking about people whose so called investments were often given to them.

So if a man earns a fortune by wise investing, he has right to give it his children?

[newtothegame]

I mean that a lot of executives are given stock options as a part of their compensation package.
Do you know what compensation means? It means as part of the JOB they do, it is a form of their pay....
I get stock options. Are you even partially insinuating that I do not EARN them????

[newtothegame]

and, further more, I pay a large chunk of them too taxes. Not less then my personal income rate. Recently, the company changed them from "options" to grants. When they were options, I paid a strike price and paid capital gains on anything over and above that price I gained. Otherwise, they were worthless at anything less then strike price. Now, in the form of grants, I am taxed at the rate of personal income.

[Tom]

Does he even understand what a stock option is?
I was given a stock option once instead of a raise.
The price of the stock never hit my option price again - dropped like a rock until it vanished!

Having your management and employees owning part of your company is a win/win situation. It gives everyone incentive to work harder to gain success, for which they share in the rewards.

Coming from a union and government background, I can see where he would be confused, think he is just plain entitled to everything. Those of us rooted in reality know better.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I mean that a lot of executives are given stock options as a part of their compensation package.

We might actually agree on this point. I believe many execs are overcompenstated, and it's always justified by pointing to relative metrics. But this is a board of director issue, not an issue for the govt to address, imo. Some progress is being made, but it's slow.

[newtothegame]

We might actually agree on this point. I believe many execs are overcompenstated, and it's always justified by pointing to relative metrics. But this is a board of director issue, not an issue for the govt to address, imo. Some progress is being made, but it's slow.
Mike, you hit the nail on the head...it really doesnt matter what a company wants to pay its execs. Sure, they have to deal with the PR of it but, if they are willing then so be it.
But, it is not the governments place to determine what is or isnt right in the form of compensation packages.
Amazingly, I read somewhere that government workers were paid a substantial amount more then the private sector counter parts...yet the government wants to control what the private sector makes.....ohhh the irony with our huge deficits...lol

[fast4522]

Do you know what compensation means? It means as part of the JOB they do, it is a form of their pay....
I get stock options. Are you even partially insinuating that I do not EARN them????

The old codger means you should pay more taxes on what you earn just because your still in the earning game. He could care less because he is enjoying retirement.