Millionaires flee higher taxes

[JustRalph]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9707029/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

As I walk along, I wonder what went wrong............

[Tom]

Reality sets in.........

[dartman51]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9707029/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

As I walk along, I wonder what went wrong............


I love that old Del Shannon hit. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

Reality sets in.........

Not for liberals, it doesn't. And it never will. They probably think these greedy, selfish, evil millionaires are also mentally deranged for wanting to hang on to as much as they can.

Boxcar

[lamboguy]

Not for liberals, it doesn't. And it never will. They probably think these greedy, selfish, evil millionaires are also mentally deranged for wanting to hang on to as much as they can.

Boxcarspeaking about conservatives, your buddy BIG MACK has been missing from this board for about 3 weeks now. he used to post all the time here. i hope everything is going well for him.

[boxcar]

speaking about conservatives, your buddy BIG MACK has been missing from this board for about 3 weeks now. he used to post all the time here. i hope everything is going well for him.

Maybe he self-destructed after the election. But I hope not. :eek: :eek:

Another one who has been M.I.A. for a very long time is Chickenhead. It seems he fell off the planet, too.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

speaking about conservatives, your buddy BIG MACK has been missing from this board for about 3 weeks now. he used to post all the time here. i hope everything is going well for him.

He lost a bet. Not sure how you missed it.

[lamboguy]

He lost a bet. Not sure how you missed it.i didn't know that he leaving this board was part of losing his bet. i miss his arrogance!

[boxcar]

i didn't know that he leaving this board was part of losing his bet. i miss his arrogance!

I miss his cartoons and sense of humor.

Boxcar

[Track Collector]

From the article:

Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.


*****************************

Just like what it will be in the US. Truth --> It has very little to do with increasing revenue.

The uneducated that buy into that tax those evil wealthy folks just eat this stuff up. Just more proof of the dumbing down of America.

But it did help the Democrats win the election. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Tell that to the Idiot N Chief.
And his math-challenged followers.

Good.
Those who are targeted like that have every right to say go to hell and leave. Some other country will benefit from the greed of nations.

[mostpost]

The headline says two thirds of British Millionaires left the country after the rate was raised to 50%. Here is what it says in the body of the story.

"It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes."
What the frack does that mean? "It is believed." To me it means we don't know so we'll just throw some "stuff" at the wall and see if it sticks. Then we will add the option that these millionaires might have reduced their incomes voluntarily to avoid the tax.

So there is ZERO evidence that two thirds of all British millionaires left the country. But there is plenty of evidence that the right wing media in Great Britain is as willing as the right wing media in the United States to distort the truth.

[Tom]

You must be Cleopatra, because you is in De Nile, mostie!:lol:

[mostpost]

From the article:

Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.


*****************************

Just like what it will be in the US. Truth --> It has very little to do with increasing revenue.

The uneducated that buy into that tax those evil wealthy folks just eat this stuff up. Just more proof of the dumbing down of America.

But it did help the Democrats win the election. :rolleyes:

That is flat out false.
The 50% rate went into effect April of 2010-the start of their 2010-2011 fiscal year. Tax revenues in the 2009-2010 fiscal year were 477.8 billions pounds sterling. In 2010-2011-after the rate was raised-they were 528.9 billion pounds. 538.9 billion is not 7 billion less than 477.8 billion, it is 51.1 billion more.
Here is the link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963#data
Scroll down or click on "get the data"
BTW revenue in 2011-2012 increased to 550.6B.

[boxcar]

You must be Cleopatra, because you is in De Nile, mostie!:lol:

See my number 4. :D

Boxcar

[Jay Trotter]

He lost a bet. Not sure how you missed it.I think that would be bet(s) as in more than one. Unfortunately, he turned out to be who I thought he was. :bang:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I think that would be bet(s) as in more than one. Unfortunately, he turned out to be who I thought he was. :bang:

Really? That's actually pretty disappointing.

[JustRalph]

I think that would be bet(s) as in more than one. Unfortunately, he turned out to be who I thought he was. :bang:

I have no idea what that means

[johnhannibalsmith]

I have no idea what that means

Maybe I misinterpreted, but I took it to mean, that hypothetically, if someone were to hypothetically wager hypothetical currency with the person in question, they could hypothetically not expect to hypothetically be made good on the hypothetical wager.

[elysiantraveller]

I have no idea what that means

Its cryptic...

zFFMXze6hJ0

[newtothegame]

That is flat out false.
The 50% rate went into effect April of 2010-the start of their 2010-2011 fiscal year. Tax revenues in the 2009-2010 fiscal year were 477.8 billions pounds sterling. In 2010-2011-after the rate was raised-they were 528.9 billion pounds. 538.9 billion is not 7 billion less than 477.8 billion, it is 51.1 billion more.
Here is the link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963#data
Scroll down or click on "get the data"
BTW revenue in 2011-2012 increased to 550.6B.can you PROVE it's false???
How do you know there was a population boom...say like 7%, that caused the increase in revenue? Just because the revenue went up does not mean that the millionaires didn't leave.....
And if the millionaires did leave, then YES there would be a cost to those millionaires leaving that wouldnt be shown in your poor attempt at justification.....

[mostpost]

can you PROVE it's false???
How do you know there was a population boom...say like 7%, that caused the increase in revenue? Just because the revenue went up does not mean that the millionaires didn't leave.....
And if the millionaires did leave, then YES there would be a cost to those millionaires leaving that wouldnt be shown in your poor attempt at justification.....
That's the best you can do? There was a population boom. One that nobody noticed until you? A 7% boom would mean 4M new Brits. It took 17 years for the population of Britain to grow by 4M. (1992 to 2008) ooopS 16 YEARS.

There have been posts that I made that embarrassed me after I posted them. This is one should embarrass you. :blush:

Your problem is you don't see the subtleties. If I say we will raise revenue by raising taxes on millionaires, it does not necessarily mean all of that raise will come from millionaires. The story in the Telegraph theorized that the millionaires left the country or "took steps to reduce their tax liability." What is one of the things they can do to effect that reduction? They can take some of that income and reinvest in their business. That means hiring workers or increasing hours.

In fact that is the rationale behind raising taxes on the wealthy; not to get so much more revenue from them, but to force them to reinvest in their businesses, and by so doing, provide jobs for workers who will pay taxes.

[JustRalph]

In fact that is the rationale behind raising taxes on the wealthy; not to get so much more revenue from them, but to force them to reinvest in their businesses, and by so doing, provide jobs for workers who will pay taxes.

This might be the most delusional rationale ever concocted. Obviously you have never run a business nor do you have a basic grasp of what it is like to run and finance a business on a daily basis. All business costs are passed on to customers. Higher taxes impede growth, which impedes hiring.

You reveal yourself to be such a fool sometimes..........

[newtothegame]

That's the best you can do? There was a population boom. One that nobody noticed until you? A 7% boom would mean 4M new Brits. It took 17 years for the population of Britain to grow by 4M. (1992 to 2008) ooopS 16 YEARS.

There have been posts that I made that embarrassed me after I posted them. This is one should embarrass you. :blush:

Your problem is you don't see the subtleties. If I say we will raise revenue by raising taxes on millionaires, it does not necessarily mean all of that raise will come from millionaires. The story in the Telegraph theorized that the millionaires left the country or "took steps to reduce their tax liability." What is one of the things they can do to effect that reduction? They can take some of that income and reinvest in their business. That means hiring workers or increasing hours.

In fact that is the rationale behind raising taxes on the wealthy; not to get so much more revenue from them, but to force them to reinvest in their businesses, and by so doing, provide jobs for workers who will pay taxes.
After reading the bolded part above, you are right about an embarassment as far as post goes.......:lol:

So, in theory its one way or another we are going to force (YOUR WORD) business to either pay more in taxes or higher more workers who will pay more into the system.......

Amazing this country has made it this far with this type of mind set!!

[Jay Trotter]

Maybe I misinterpreted, but I took it to mean, that hypothetically, if someone were to hypothetically wager hypothetical currency with the person in question, they could hypothetically not expect to hypothetically be made good on the hypothetical wager.Hypothetically, of course, you would hypothetically be correct my friend!

Its cryptic...Deeply imbedded.

Really? That's actually pretty disappointing.Certainly puts an exclamation point on some of his pontifications, doesn't it? :faint:

I have no idea what that meansReally?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
In fact that is the rationale behind raising taxes on the wealthy; not to get so much more revenue from them, but to force them to reinvest in their businesses, and by so doing, provide jobs for workers who will pay taxes.


So you union guys can bleed them drier?
mostie, are you related to Wrong-way Corrigan? :lol:

[hcap]

You must be Cleopatra, because you is in De Nile, mostie!
See my number 4.
Your number 4 is closer to a number 2

Number 4....
Not for liberals, it doesn't. And it never will. They probably think these greedy, selfish, evil millionaires are also mentally deranged for wanting to hang on to as much as they can.

[Tom]

The bitterness continues.......:lol:

[hcap]

The bitterness continues.......:lol:
Not for liberals, it doesn't. And it never will. They probably think these greedy, selfish, evil millionaires are also mentally deranged for wanting to hang on to as much as they can.
Bitterness? I"m bitter? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You obviously think think your shit smells like roses

[JustRalph]

Jay, I was serious. I don't keep up with inter-personal bets etc. I do about a million things a day, most days. I really didn't know what you meant.

I am normally watching tv news, surfing the net and working on a project for my wife's business all at the same time. While having fun posting here.

In the last week I have been very busy with some graphics work, a small video production and some banking stuff.

Sorry I didn't keep up. I get it,,,,,,,,I think :lol: You didn't get paid?

Btw, frequent flyers are off my radar too. Anybody with multiple monikers I stopped trying to keep track of a long time ago.

[mostpost]

After reading the bolded part above, you are right about an embarassment as far as post goes.......

So, in theory its one way or another we are going to force (YOUR WORD) business to either pay more in taxes or higher more workers who will pay more into the system.......

Amazing this country has made it this far with this type of mind set!!
__________________

Had I thought about it further, I probably would have used the word encourage rather than force. Aside from that, everything I said is true. Economic growth during times of higher taxation is not just greater, it is significantly greater. Not only that but the growth is distributed more equitably among all segments of the populace.

The wealthy do not grow the economy, the middle class does. For the past thirty plus years we have been systematically destroying the middle class. For the past thirty years we have been depressing wages, increasing deficits and widening the gap between the richest and the poorest. Deny that all you want, the statistics bear me out.

I have stated many times that the period of greatest growth in the United States coincided with the period of highest tax rates-the forties, fifties and sixties. The response was that the growth during those years was because the USA was the only functioning economy. That is nonsense. By the early to mid nineteen fifties Europe was well on its way to recovery. Prior to that, the lack of a strong European economy was not an aid to the US economy, it was a detriment.

The idea that higher taxes encourage economic growth is not one I invented.

Did the rich really pay these tax rates? Well, of course not. But they paid more, and had to find an accepted way to reduce taxes. There were four basic strategies for avoiding taxes. These all used to help America, and now have fallen:
Giving to charity. Take a look around. When were your town's university buildings, concert hall, sanctuaries, Elk's Lodge, Shriner Hospital and other charitable structures first built? Odds are they were first built when the rich had an incentive to get a charitable deduction, because of high tax rates in 1918-1982. Lower rates since 1982 have created rich people who never give substantially to charity, like Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison.
Municipal Bonds. Interest on State and local bonds is not taxed by the federal government. Therefore, your city and state could pay much less interest than the going rate on bonds it issued, because these bonds were saving the rich in taxes, from paying 50% to 90% taxes they would pay on other income. Now, your local bonds, for such things as schools and water improvements, cannot be issued at low rates. Now cities and states have to issue bonds at higher rates - which you pay for in taxes. The rich demand a higher rate, because by buying muni bonds, they only get a deduction from the current 15% tax rate on what they earn on dividends on stock, or the 35% they earn on other investments - not a deduction from 50% to 90% tax rates of before. You lose. Your state loses. Your cities and water districts lose.
Other tax breaks for purposes that we democratically have valued: Congress and Presidents have always proposed tax breaks for purposes that help America fill a specific need. When the rich paid 70% or 90% they had a lot of incentive to make these kinds of investments which were given a tax break: research and development, for new equipment that makes labor more efficient, for building senior housing and low income housing, for enterprise zones, for new jobs. True, some of these tax breaks were unwise or obtained by lobbyists, but many resulted from campaign promises that we all voted for. Some helped the economy. Now, with tax rates so low on the rich, they have less incentive to make these investments.
Delaying income by staying invested in the economy. Everybody pays tax only when they take income out of a business as profits or sale of the business. If the money stays invested instead, in growing the business, it isn't taxed. The rich used to leave their income invested in their firms and businesses because if they took it out as salary or profits they would be taxed at 50% or even 90%. If the money is kept in the businesses, they invest in expansion instead. Then the business would grow and employ American workers, because the rich left money in. The ultimate way to avoid taxes was to pass the business on to family after death, which they also used to do. Now, with lower tax rates, the rich take the money out as income, put it in their pockets or nose, buy luxuries and invest it overseas. Calling taxes on the rich a tax on "job creators" is simply false. The money they take out at lower tax rates subtracts from jobs. Jobs would be created by higher tax rates.

The quote is from a website www.taxtherich2012.org
it explains much better than I can why taxing the wealthy creates jobs and lowering taxes does not.

[Jay Trotter]

Jay, I was serious. I don't keep up with inter-personal bets etc....

Sorry I didn't keep up. I get it,,,,,,,,I think :lol: You didn't get paid?This is a totally "hypothetical" situation. :rolleyes: Lesson learned. The only one supposedly out of pocket are the kids at the school I was hypothetically going to sponsor.

Btw, frequent flyers are off my radar too. Anybody with multiple monikers I stopped trying to keep track of a long time ago.Now I'm the one who is confused. Not sure how the "multiple monikers" thing comes into play here?

[boxcar]

Had I thought about it further, I probably would have used the word encourage rather than force. Aside from that, everything I said is true. Economic growth during times of higher taxation is not just greater, it is significantly greater. Not only that but the growth is distributed more equitably among all segments of the populace.

The wealthy do not grow the economy, the middle class does. For the past thirty plus years we have been systematically destroying the middle class. For the past thirty years we have been depressing wages, increasing deficits and widening the gap between the richest and the poorest. Deny that all you want, the statistics bear me out.

I have stated many times that the period of greatest growth in the United States coincided with the period of highest tax rates-the forties, fifties and sixties. The response was that the growth during those years was because the USA was the only functioning economy. That is nonsense. By the early to mid nineteen fifties Europe was well on its way to recovery. Prior to that, the lack of a strong European economy was not an aid to the US economy, it was a detriment.

The idea that higher taxes encourage economic growth is not one I invented.



The quote is from a website www.taxtherich2012.org
it explains much better than I can why taxing the wealthy creates jobs and lowering taxes does not.

Mosty, when are you ever going to learn? One of the primary goals of Marxism is the destruction of the middle class, so that a society has but two classes. Communism Lite (Socialism which you love so much) has done a very good job in slowly eroding away the middle class.

Boxcar

[Tom]

You obviously think think your shit smells like roses

....and loving it! :lol::lol::lol:

[eddy1]

This is a totally "hypothetical" situation. :rolleyes: Lesson learned. The only one supposedly out of pocket are the kids at the school I was hypothetically going to sponsor.

ah, so let me see if i understand. if you ( a liberal ) could have kept money that was rightfully yours, the little people would have benifited through your generosity. but since this money, rightfully yours of course, was withheld, you will not be helping said little people.......?

[mostpost]

ah, so let me see if i understand. if you ( a liberal ) could have kept money that was rightfully yours, the little people would have benifited through your generosity. but since this money, rightfully yours of course, was withheld, you will not be helping said little people.......?
I think you are wrong and I think you are assuming something. First of all it is not if Jay Trotter could have kept money that was rightfully his. It's if he had received money that is rightfully his from someone who owed him that money. Then he would have contributed that money to the school in question.

But that does not mean he is not helping them. I suspect that Jay Trotter has already contributed to that school; probably a significant amount. The money he was expecting from an unnamed source-hint: think fast food-would have allowed him to help even more.

Maybe JT can tell me if I am off base.

[Jay Trotter]

Maybe JT can tell me if I am off base.You are correct mostie! I do support this school already and I pledged (to myself) that should I win this hypothetical wager that I would donate all of my winnings on top of my existing support. I had no intention of keeping anything for myself. :ThmbUp:

I know it's a crazy "liberal" thing to do but what can you do, eh!

[JustRalph]

Now I'm the one who is confused. Not sure how the "multiple monikers" thing comes into play here?

Not really directed at you. Just a general statement. There have been times when I was receiving multiple IM's and discussing things in threads and later found out that the multiple discussions and threads were with the same person. Recently I had a little debate with a person whom I later found out was someone who was tossed and came back.

Just for the record I can't keep track of some.....My wife calls it Ralphsheimers

[LottaKash]

[QUOTE=mostpost]Had I thought about it further, I probably would have used the word encourage rather than force.QUOTE]

Whoops, your "propaganda" is showing again....

Yikes, you think this is all a "game", don't you....WE WIN !....Wait until you see what's "really" behind Door-#1....Just give it a little more time, and shortly, you will see what you think you have won....:eek:

I don't think you're gonna like it tho....Me, I know what is coming next, and I know I ain't gonna like it....

I say, God help us all !....

[Rookies]

You are correct mostie! I do support this school already and I pledged (to myself) that should I win this hypothetical wager that I would donate all of my winnings on top of my existing support. I had no intention of keeping anything for myself. :ThmbUp:

I know it's a crazy "liberal" thing to do but what can you do, eh!

REALLY? VERY BAD FORM. :ThmbDown:

Boy, hopefully the cheque is in the mail.

[delayjf]

I have stated many times that the period of greatest growth in the United States coincided with the period of highest tax rates-the forties, fifties and sixties

Actually, the greatest period of economic growth was the post Civil War "Gilden Era" - with a zero income tax rate.

[boxcar]

Your number 4 is closer to a number 2

Only if you divide by 2. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[eddy1]

I think you are wrong and I think you are assuming something. First of all it is not if Jay Trotter could have kept money that was rightfully his. It's if he had received money that is rightfully his from someone who owed him that money. Then he would have contributed that money to the school in question.

But that does not mean he is not helping them. I suspect that Jay Trotter has already contributed to that school; probably a significant amount. The money he was expecting from an unnamed source-hint: think fast food-would have allowed him to help even more.

Maybe JT can tell me if I am off base.

I think trotter knows that I was making a "tongue in cheek" jab at what this thread was originally about, taxing the "rich".

Already overtaxed, and now likely to be asked for more, they will have to look for places to offset the additional burden. Charitable giving is one likely place to cut back.