U.K.’s 25% Tax Hike on the ‘Rich’ Produces *Less* Tax Revenues

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2012 10:59 PM GMT
    As others point out there will still be those who think it's worth it because of some nebulous concept of "fairness" - economy and tax revenues be damned.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/02/uks-25.html

    As taxes assume a leading role in U.S. policy debate ... the first receipts on a new wealth tax in the U.K. have brought disappointing results to British Treasury officials.... [S]ome observers, political conservatives among them, are taking the recent experience in the U.K., which last year raised its top rate on high income earners from 40% to 50%, as a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of a tax-the-rich policy.

    Britain’s Telegraph newspaper reported that the U.K. Treasury–in the first test of the wealth tax policy introduced last year–received 509 million pounds less for January than the same month in 2011. The Treasury had projected that monthly revenues would actually increase by more than 1 billion pounds. ...

    The disappointing results could move Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne to drop the tax after an official analysis is completed next month, but the Tory official’s Liberal Democrat coalition partners remain strongly committed to higher rates for Britain’s highest earners.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 12:51 AM GMT
    Ahem... "the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate."

    It's quite simple. Close the loop holes and seize their assets. By force, if necessary. Unless you support two forms of justice as well as two economies. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Feb 26, 2012 12:58 AM GMT
    You know, America is an amazng place. Here we have the Brits increasing taxes and losing revenue yet the Liberal Thug choir continues to chant the same song about taxing the hell out of Americans with great income.

    There is another funny thing occuring at the moment. The U.S. Consulate in Zurch is putting on more staff. In fact, there is a hiring bonanza. Why? Because current staff can't keep up with ex-pat American's turning in passports and renouncing their U.S. citizenship.

    As I've said before: 100% of zero is still zero folks.

    Ya'll have fun now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 1:03 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidAhem... "the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate."

    It's quite simple. Close the loop holes and seize their assets. By force, if necessary. Unless you support two forms of justice as well as two economies. icon_rolleyes.gif


    "The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad."

    Yeah you'd rather that they be punished to the point that they leave.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 1:11 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidAhem... "the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate."

    It's quite simple. Close the loop holes and seize their assets. By force, if necessary. Unless you support two forms of justice as well as two economies. icon_rolleyes.gif


    "The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad."

    Yeah you'd rather that they be punished to the point that they leave.


    It's not about punishment. It's about what's good for the country. The rich push austerity measures, which don't work, and then don't want to pay their taxes to make up for the dip in revenues the invariably results from said measures.

    And if wealthy citizens are moving their money abroad, seize it until they pay their taxes. Very simple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 2:56 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidAhem... "the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate."

    It's quite simple. Close the loop holes and seize their assets. By force, if necessary. Unless you support two forms of justice as well as two economies. icon_rolleyes.gif


    "The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad."

    Yeah you'd rather that they be punished to the point that they leave.


    It's not about punishment. It's about what's good for the country. The rich push austerity measures, which don't work, and then don't want to pay their taxes to make up for the dip in revenues the invariably results from said measures.

    And if wealthy citizens are moving their money abroad, seize it until they pay their taxes. Very simple.


    No, quite simply people are moving abroad and why wouldn't they? This in itself is a far greater loss than any short term assets that can be recovered. It's sad that you're so myopic and so intent on punishing the rich over I dunno, things like job creation, economic growth that you can't see the cost in human capital.

    Of course that's why liberal policies like the ones like yours fail - it's pretty much darwinian and stagnation through self inflicted wounds.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 4:02 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidAhem... "the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate."

    It's quite simple. Close the loop holes and seize their assets. By force, if necessary. Unless you support two forms of justice as well as two economies. icon_rolleyes.gif


    "The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad."

    Yeah you'd rather that they be punished to the point that they leave.


    It's not about punishment. It's about what's good for the country. The rich push austerity measures, which don't work, and then don't want to pay their taxes to make up for the dip in revenues the invariably results from said measures.

    And if wealthy citizens are moving their money abroad, seize it until they pay their taxes. Very simple.


    No, quite simply people are moving abroad and why wouldn't they? This in itself is a far greater loss than any short term assets that can be recovered. It's sad that you're so myopic and so intent on punishing the rich over I dunno, things like job creation, economic growth that you can't see the cost in human capital.

    Of course that's why liberal policies like the ones like yours fail - it's pretty much darwinian and stagnation through self inflicted wounds.


    There's no indication that people are moving. Rather they are moving their money abroad. How about you deal with the fact that you're endorsing the violation of British law?

    Again, you think it's perfectly fine for laws to be flouted, contracts broken, when it suits the rich. But when it's time for them to pay their fair share, you have every rationalization in the book.

    You really have no moral center at all, do you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 4:15 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidAhem... "the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate."

    It's quite simple. Close the loop holes and seize their assets. By force, if necessary. Unless you support two forms of justice as well as two economies. icon_rolleyes.gif


    "The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad."

    Yeah you'd rather that they be punished to the point that they leave.


    It's not about punishment. It's about what's good for the country. The rich push austerity measures, which don't work, and then don't want to pay their taxes to make up for the dip in revenues the invariably results from said measures.

    And if wealthy citizens are moving their money abroad, seize it until they pay their taxes. Very simple.


    No, quite simply people are moving abroad and why wouldn't they? This in itself is a far greater loss than any short term assets that can be recovered. It's sad that you're so myopic and so intent on punishing the rich over I dunno, things like job creation, economic growth that you can't see the cost in human capital.

    Of course that's why liberal policies like the ones like yours fail - it's pretty much darwinian and stagnation through self inflicted wounds.


    There's no indication that people are moving. Rather they are moving their money abroad. How about you deal with the fact that you're endorsing the violation of British law?

    Again, you think it's perfectly fine for laws to be flouted, contracts broken, when it suits the rich. But when it's time for them to pay their fair share, you have every rationalization in the book.

    You really have no moral center at all, do you?


    Where do you see that they are violating British law? The only one without a moral center here is the one who would seek to take the rightful earnings of others in search of a failed social premise. It is ironic that you do the things I have not done - ie create arguments against those I have not made. They have paid their fair share but it is quite likely they have shifted where and how they earn it - which is precisely why the increased taxes didn't result in greater earnings. In addition - the article itself suggests they are either relocating if not considering relocation.

    I'm sorry that your level of comprehension on this point is limited. You apparently see no differentiation between tax evasion and aversion - but of course that would be the case of one who lives on the benevolence of others.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 4:17 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidAhem... "the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate."

    It's quite simple. Close the loop holes and seize their assets. By force, if necessary. Unless you support two forms of justice as well as two economies. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Oh cool. Another reason why I would never vote for a democrat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 4:23 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidAhem... "the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate."

    It's quite simple. Close the loop holes and seize their assets. By force, if necessary. Unless you support two forms of justice as well as two economies.


    Classic statist jackbooted thuggery that sounds like. Or Hugo Chavez-like socialism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 4:43 AM GMT
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

    "But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 5:08 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidAhem... "the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate."

    It's quite simple. Close the loop holes and seize their assets. By force, if necessary. Unless you support two forms of justice as well as two economies. icon_rolleyes.gif


    "The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad."

    Yeah you'd rather that they be punished to the point that they leave.


    It's not about punishment. It's about what's good for the country. The rich push austerity measures, which don't work, and then don't want to pay their taxes to make up for the dip in revenues the invariably results from said measures.

    And if wealthy citizens are moving their money abroad, seize it until they pay their taxes. Very simple.


    No, quite simply people are moving abroad and why wouldn't they? This in itself is a far greater loss than any short term assets that can be recovered. It's sad that you're so myopic and so intent on punishing the rich over I dunno, things like job creation, economic growth that you can't see the cost in human capital.

    Of course that's why liberal policies like the ones like yours fail - it's pretty much darwinian and stagnation through self inflicted wounds.


    There's no indication that people are moving. Rather they are moving their money abroad. How about you deal with the fact that you're endorsing the violation of British law?

    Again, you think it's perfectly fine for laws to be flouted, contracts broken, when it suits the rich. But when it's time for them to pay their fair share, you have every rationalization in the book.

    You really have no moral center at all, do you?


    Where do you see that they are violating British law? The only one without a moral center here is the one who would seek to take the rightful earnings of others in search of a failed social premise. It is ironic that you do the things I have not done - ie create arguments against those I have not made. They have paid their fair share but it is quite likely they have shifted where and how they earn it - which is precisely why the increased taxes didn't result in greater earnings. In addition - the article itself suggests they are either relocating if not considering relocation.

    I'm sorry that your level of comprehension on this point is limited. You apparently see no differentiation between tax evasion and aversion - but of course that would be the case of one who lives on the benevolence of others.


    It's a violation of law to dodge taxes by opening a post-office box in the Canary Islands to claim your business earnings occur "offshore", while continuing to benefit from the government services that you do not wish to pay for. It's basically theft and fraud. Of course, you don't see it that way because you're a sociopath who puts money ahead of taking care of the very community that allows you to earn said money.

    And I don't live on the "benevolence of others" any more than you do. I simply facilitate a different return on investment, which someone as obsessed with money as you are cannot fathom.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 5:10 AM GMT
    AlphaTrigger said
    Christian73 saidAhem... "the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate."

    It's quite simple. Close the loop holes and seize their assets. By force, if necessary. Unless you support two forms of justice as well as two economies.


    Classic statist jackbooted thuggery that sounds like. Or Hugo Chavez-like socialism.


    Nope. It's justice, after 40 years of the wealthy and corporations buying their government to create a crypto-fascist regime of government by and for powerful corporations.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Feb 26, 2012 6:35 AM GMT
    If the middle class must pay their taxes, then so must the rich. It's not too difficult to understand, is it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 7:46 AM GMT
    KissTheSky saidIf the middle class must pay their taxes, then so must the rich. It's not too difficult to understand, is it?


    Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand that the rich in the West almost consistently are taxed at a punitive level relative to the middle class - how is that so difficult for you to understand?

    Perhaps it surprises you still after the mountain of evidence that the pay far more of the US treasury than the rich in other countries both in percentage and absolute terms relative to any other level of income.

    Perhaps it is difficult for you to understand that in most cases the rich _do_ pay their taxes. How is that so difficult for you to understand?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 7:50 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidAhem... "the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate."

    It's quite simple. Close the loop holes and seize their assets. By force, if necessary. Unless you support two forms of justice as well as two economies. icon_rolleyes.gif


    "The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad."

    Yeah you'd rather that they be punished to the point that they leave.


    It's not about punishment. It's about what's good for the country. The rich push austerity measures, which don't work, and then don't want to pay their taxes to make up for the dip in revenues the invariably results from said measures.

    And if wealthy citizens are moving their money abroad, seize it until they pay their taxes. Very simple.


    No, quite simply people are moving abroad and why wouldn't they? This in itself is a far greater loss than any short term assets that can be recovered. It's sad that you're so myopic and so intent on punishing the rich over I dunno, things like job creation, economic growth that you can't see the cost in human capital.

    Of course that's why liberal policies like the ones like yours fail - it's pretty much darwinian and stagnation through self inflicted wounds.


    There's no indication that people are moving. Rather they are moving their money abroad. How about you deal with the fact that you're endorsing the violation of British law?

    Again, you think it's perfectly fine for laws to be flouted, contracts broken, when it suits the rich. But when it's time for them to pay their fair share, you have every rationalization in the book.

    You really have no moral center at all, do you?


    Where do you see that they are violating British law? The only one without a moral center here is the one who would seek to take the rightful earnings of others in search of a failed social premise. It is ironic that you do the things I have not done - ie create arguments against those I have not made. They have paid their fair share but it is quite likely they have shifted where and how they earn it - which is precisely why the increased taxes didn't result in greater earnings. In addition - the article itself suggests they are either relocating if not considering relocation.

    I'm sorry that your level of comprehension on this point is limited. You apparently see no differentiation between tax evasion and aversion - but of course that would be the case of one who lives on the benevolence of others.


    It's a violation of law to dodge taxes by opening a post-office box in the Canary Islands to claim your business earnings occur "offshore", while continuing to benefit from the government services that you do not wish to pay for. It's basically theft and fraud. Of course, you don't see it that way because you're a sociopath who puts money ahead of taking care of the very community that allows you to earn said money.

    And I don't live on the "benevolence of others" any more than you do. I simply facilitate a different return on investment, which someone as obsessed with money as you are cannot fathom.



    If it were a violation then it would be pursued - or do you think that you know so much better than the British tax authorities? It seems rather presumptuous for you to argue that the shortfall is due to evasion. "It's basically theft and fraud." Basically? Is it or isn't it? The only one who is a sociopath here is you Christian - with your utter disregard for the law and your rapacious need to punish others who do better than yourself and benefit society far more than you do.

    Must be particularly difficult for you to work in a world where your income is not reflective of the value you create or more likely you destroy given your world view that depends on the benevolence of others.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 9:55 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    KissTheSky saidIf the middle class must pay their taxes, then so must the rich. It's not too difficult to understand, is it?


    Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand that the rich in the West almost consistently are taxed at a punitive level relative to the middle class - how is that so difficult for you to understand?

    Perhaps it surprises you still after the mountain of evidence that the pay far more of the US treasury than the rich in other countries both in percentage and absolute terms relative to any other level of income.

    Perhaps it is difficult for you to understand that in most cases the rich _do_ pay their taxes. How is that so difficult for you to understand?

    Whether it is wealth inequality, income inequality, or tax "fair share", there is never a solid justification given by the left as to why a particular level would be fair. As an example restated differently, the left has never stated with any basis what a fair tax rate is for the wealthy. If the wealthy were already paying what the left now wants them to pay, the left would be arguing it is not fair and would want it still higher. It is clear that what drives the left has nothing to do with fairness, but rather, the satisfaction of raising the taxes on the rich for self-gratification and for votes, because some of the less wealthy think if someone else pays more, it is less likely they will have to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 9:57 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said
    KissTheSky saidIf the middle class must pay their taxes, then so must the rich. It's not too difficult to understand, is it?


    Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand that the rich in the West almost consistently are taxed at a punitive level relative to the middle class - how is that so difficult for you to understand?

    Perhaps it surprises you still after the mountain of evidence that the pay far more of the US treasury than the rich in other countries both in percentage and absolute terms relative to any other level of income.

    Perhaps it is difficult for you to understand that in most cases the rich _do_ pay their taxes. How is that so difficult for you to understand?

    Whether it is wealth inequality, income inequality, or tax "fair share", there is never a solid justification given by the left as to why a particular level would be fair. As an example restated differently, the left has never stated with any basis what a fair tax rate is for the wealthy. If the wealthy were already paying what the left now wants them to pay, the left would be arguing it is not fair and would want it still higher. It is clear that what drives the left has nothing to do with fairness, but rather, the satisfaction of raising the taxes on the rich for self-gratification and for votes, because some of the less wealthy think if someone else pays more, it is less likely they will have to.


    ie Envy and Jealousy - which seems to fit more than a few of the liberals here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 10:08 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said
    KissTheSky saidIf the middle class must pay their taxes, then so must the rich. It's not too difficult to understand, is it?


    Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand that the rich in the West almost consistently are taxed at a punitive level relative to the middle class - how is that so difficult for you to understand?

    Perhaps it surprises you still after the mountain of evidence that the pay far more of the US treasury than the rich in other countries both in percentage and absolute terms relative to any other level of income.

    Perhaps it is difficult for you to understand that in most cases the rich _do_ pay their taxes. How is that so difficult for you to understand?

    Whether it is wealth inequality, income inequality, or tax "fair share", there is never a solid justification given by the left as to why a particular level would be fair. As an example restated differently, the left has never stated with any basis what a fair tax rate is for the wealthy. If the wealthy were already paying what the left now wants them to pay, the left would be arguing it is not fair and would want it still higher. It is clear that what drives the left has nothing to do with fairness, but rather, the satisfaction of raising the taxes on the rich for self-gratification and for votes, because some of the less wealthy think if someone else pays more, it is less likely they will have to.


    ie Envy and Jealousy - which seems to fit more than a few of the liberals here.

    I've tried to have logical discussions with them to show that they would not be satisfied if the rate on the wealthy were raised. Specifically, if the tax rate today is X, then they assert it should really be X + Y. They would claim that if it were already X + Y that would be fair and they would not argue it should be raised again to X + Y + Z. But I don't believe it. I assert if it were X + Y, they would be making the same argument that it should be X + Y + Z. So my challenge is this:

    I have asked the liberals to justify very specifically that their argument going from X to X + Y would be completely invalid going from X + Y to X + Y + Z. In other words, provide a logically sound argument to argue against yourself in that situation. I doubt the left would be able or willing to construct such a counter-argument and that fundamentally there is no fair definition of what fair really is. It is based on political motivations, envy, and jealousy, fundamentally dishonest position that they hold.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 12:27 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    KissTheSky saidIf the middle class must pay their taxes, then so must the rich. It's not too difficult to understand, is it?


    Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand that the rich in the West almost consistently are taxed at a punitive level relative to the middle class - how is that so difficult for you to understand?

    Perhaps it surprises you still after the mountain of evidence that the pay far more of the US treasury than the rich in other countries both in percentage and absolute terms relative to any other level of income.

    Perhaps it is difficult for you to understand that in most cases the rich _do_ pay their taxes. How is that so difficult for you to understand?


    Really?

    0% for millionaires is a "punitive" level?

    Is 14% on $23 million a "punitive" level?

    How about 16% of $4 billion (John Paulson's rate)?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 12:32 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said
    KissTheSky saidIf the middle class must pay their taxes, then so must the rich. It's not too difficult to understand, is it?


    Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand that the rich in the West almost consistently are taxed at a punitive level relative to the middle class - how is that so difficult for you to understand?

    Perhaps it surprises you still after the mountain of evidence that the pay far more of the US treasury than the rich in other countries both in percentage and absolute terms relative to any other level of income.

    Perhaps it is difficult for you to understand that in most cases the rich _do_ pay their taxes. How is that so difficult for you to understand?

    Whether it is wealth inequality, income inequality, or tax "fair share", there is never a solid justification given by the left as to why a particular level would be fair. As an example restated differently, the left has never stated with any basis what a fair tax rate is for the wealthy. If the wealthy were already paying what the left now wants them to pay, the left would be arguing it is not fair and would want it still higher. It is clear that what drives the left has nothing to do with fairness, but rather, the satisfaction of raising the taxes on the rich for self-gratification and for votes, because some of the less wealthy think if someone else pays more, it is less likely they will have to.


    ie Envy and Jealousy - which seems to fit more than a few of the liberals here.

    I've tried to have logical discussions with them to show that they would not be satisfied if the rate on the wealthy were raised. Specifically, if the tax rate today is X, then they assert it should really be X + Y. They would claim that if it were already X + Y that would be fair and they would not argue it should be raised again to X + Y + Z. But I don't believe it. I assert if it were X + Y, they would be making the same argument that it should be X + Y + Z. So my challenge is this:

    I have asked the liberals to justify very specifically that their argument going from X to X + Y would be completely invalid going from X + Y to X + Y + Z. In other words, provide a logically sound argument to argue against yourself in that situation. I doubt the left would be able or willing to construct such a counter-argument and that fundamentally there is no fair definition of what fair really is. It is based on political motivations, envy, and jealousy, fundamentally dishonest position that they hold.


    The self-delusion here is really striking. We've actually been over what is fair and you've been given numbers, percentages and reasons why.

    That you think of taxation as punitive is part of your particular psychopathy. The majority of us understand that paying taxes if cost of living in a society where communal needs are taken care of by the state.

    You're the ones who believe you're being punished whereas the rest of us believe you're being asked to be good citizens by helping to support he very infrastructure that allows your success.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 3:07 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said
    KissTheSky saidIf the middle class must pay their taxes, then so must the rich. It's not too difficult to understand, is it?


    Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand that the rich in the West almost consistently are taxed at a punitive level relative to the middle class - how is that so difficult for you to understand?

    Perhaps it surprises you still after the mountain of evidence that the pay far more of the US treasury than the rich in other countries both in percentage and absolute terms relative to any other level of income.

    Perhaps it is difficult for you to understand that in most cases the rich _do_ pay their taxes. How is that so difficult for you to understand?

    Whether it is wealth inequality, income inequality, or tax "fair share", there is never a solid justification given by the left as to why a particular level would be fair. As an example restated differently, the left has never stated with any basis what a fair tax rate is for the wealthy. If the wealthy were already paying what the left now wants them to pay, the left would be arguing it is not fair and would want it still higher. It is clear that what drives the left has nothing to do with fairness, but rather, the satisfaction of raising the taxes on the rich for self-gratification and for votes, because some of the less wealthy think if someone else pays more, it is less likely they will have to.


    ie Envy and Jealousy - which seems to fit more than a few of the liberals here.

    I've tried to have logical discussions with them to show that they would not be satisfied if the rate on the wealthy were raised. Specifically, if the tax rate today is X, then they assert it should really be X + Y. They would claim that if it were already X + Y that would be fair and they would not argue it should be raised again to X + Y + Z. But I don't believe it. I assert if it were X + Y, they would be making the same argument that it should be X + Y + Z. So my challenge is this:

    I have asked the liberals to justify very specifically that their argument going from X to X + Y would be completely invalid going from X + Y to X + Y + Z. In other words, provide a logically sound argument to argue against yourself in that situation. I doubt the left would be able or willing to construct such a counter-argument and that fundamentally there is no fair definition of what fair really is. It is based on political motivations, envy, and jealousy, fundamentally dishonest position that they hold.


    The self-delusion here is really striking. We've actually been over what is fair and you've been given numbers, percentages and reasons why.

    That you think of taxation as punitive is part of your particular psychopathy. The majority of us understand that paying taxes if cost of living in a society where communal needs are taken care of by the state.

    You're the ones who believe you're being punished whereas the rest of us believe you're being asked to be good citizens by helping to support he very infrastructure that allows your success.

    I think you previously suggested a tax rate up to 70% would be fair. Your extremism is well known. The question above was intended for those who may not be as extreme, but still wanting to increase taxes on the wealthy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 3:26 PM GMT
    Socal, your extremism and riddler's match Christian's rather well. What I find interesting is that an extreme example of tax policy failure was presented, then held up as an example of why taxes are bad (how extreme, no middle ground) and then you guys get all antsy when you get a dose of opposite and equal extreme comments.

    What did you expect?



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 3:40 PM GMT
    meninlove said Socal, your extremism and riddler's match Christian's rather well. What I find interesting is that an extreme example of tax policy failure was presented, then held up as an example of why taxes are bad (how extreme, no middle ground) and then you guys get all antsy when you get a dose of opposite and equal extreme comments.

    What did you expect?

    Not extreme at all. I have stated support to a safety net with government involvement but I don't agree with the government takeover of parts of the economy.

    But my main point here pertains to the arbitrariness of what is considered fair, and the attitude of many on the far left - class warfare, envy, jealously. If you think that is extreme, you would probably be surprised that you would likely consider a significant portion of our population to be extreme.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2012 3:48 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    meninlove said Socal, your extremism and riddler's match Christian's rather well. What I find interesting is that an extreme example of tax policy failure was presented, then held up as an example of why taxes are bad (how extreme, no middle ground) and then you guys get all antsy when you get a dose of opposite and equal extreme comments.

    What did you expect?

    Not extreme at all. I have stated support to a safety net with government involvement but I don't agree with the government takeover of parts of the economy.

    But my main point here pertains to the arbitrariness of what is considered fair, and the attitude of many on the far left - class warfare, envy, jealously. If you think that is extreme, you would probably be surprised that you would likely consider a significant portion of our population to be extreme.



    Oh, you're quite right; I consider a large portion of your population on both sides of the political divide pretty extreme. It's one of the reasons your country is in trouble.

    Riddlers in Canada are not common. They tend to try dismantle what makes Canada Canada, but give up and focus other *coughs* countries or go to them. No loss.