|
On August 17 2011 18:18 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich.
If the rich are as greedy as proponents of tax increases would have you believe, you'd think they'd want to preserve their income right? How do they do that? Raise prices on the goods and services that you and I purchase.
The government makes more money from increased tax revenue. The rich break even. The poor and middle class end up losing as they pay more to fill their cars with gas and their stomachs with food.
The fact of the matter is, the government could take 100% of the wealthiest people in the country's income, and it wouldn't be able to run the country for more than one year.
That's right, our spending levels are so unsustainable that taking EVERYTHING from rich people wouldn't be able to fund us for more than a year.
Mate, you are arguing that "the rich" are a cartel, that increases prices collectively in order to maintain profit margins for themselves. Do I really need to tell you how fucking ridiculous this is? Do you really think that if a 70% tax on capital gains and dividends is put in place, Woolworths and Coles are suddenly going to increase prices by 25%. Or BHP is going to increase the price of iron ore by 40%? Come on, mate.
|
USA continues Imperialism around the world spending trillions of dollars on wars raising the debt ceiling higher and higher. Make sure Dick Cheney and Halliburton get the memo. I think they should pay more taxes, more taxes that would go right back into their war machine...
|
On August 17 2011 20:28 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 18:18 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich.
If the rich are as greedy as proponents of tax increases would have you believe, you'd think they'd want to preserve their income right? How do they do that? Raise prices on the goods and services that you and I purchase.
The government makes more money from increased tax revenue. The rich break even. The poor and middle class end up losing as they pay more to fill their cars with gas and their stomachs with food.
The fact of the matter is, the government could take 100% of the wealthiest people in the country's income, and it wouldn't be able to run the country for more than one year.
That's right, our spending levels are so unsustainable that taking EVERYTHING from rich people wouldn't be able to fund us for more than a year. Mate, you are arguing that "the rich" are a cartel, that increases prices collectively in order to maintain profit margins for themselves. Do I really need to tell you how fucking ridiculous this is? Do you really think that if a 70% tax on capital gains and dividends is put in place, Woolworths and Coles are suddenly going to increase prices by 25%. Or BHP is going to increase the price of iron ore by 40%? Come on, mate.
No, you're putting words and numbers in my mouth.
I know not how specific people or corporations will act. I'm merely stating that if you increase the cost of doing business for these people, they're going to have to increase prices to maintain the same income level. And the increase in prices ultimately hurts the consumer.
Or do you believe the people being vilified as greedy and selfish will simply hand over the majority of their profits and not do anything to compensate for it? Who's being ridiculous here?
|
On August 17 2011 21:12 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 20:28 vetinari wrote:On August 17 2011 18:18 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich.
If the rich are as greedy as proponents of tax increases would have you believe, you'd think they'd want to preserve their income right? How do they do that? Raise prices on the goods and services that you and I purchase.
The government makes more money from increased tax revenue. The rich break even. The poor and middle class end up losing as they pay more to fill their cars with gas and their stomachs with food.
The fact of the matter is, the government could take 100% of the wealthiest people in the country's income, and it wouldn't be able to run the country for more than one year.
That's right, our spending levels are so unsustainable that taking EVERYTHING from rich people wouldn't be able to fund us for more than a year. Mate, you are arguing that "the rich" are a cartel, that increases prices collectively in order to maintain profit margins for themselves. Do I really need to tell you how fucking ridiculous this is? Do you really think that if a 70% tax on capital gains and dividends is put in place, Woolworths and Coles are suddenly going to increase prices by 25%. Or BHP is going to increase the price of iron ore by 40%? Come on, mate. No, you're putting words and numbers in my mouth. I know not how specific people or corporations will act. I'm merely stating that if you increase the cost of doing business for these people, they're going to have to increase prices to maintain the same income level. And the increase in prices ultimately hurts the consumer. Or do you believe the people being vilified as greedy and selfish will simply hand over the majority of their profits and not do anything to compensate for it? Who's being ridiculous here?
You theory is wrong in even the most basic level that a 15 year old economic student would understand. Tax increases are absorbed by both the supplier and consumer.
|
It's disheartening to read these 24 pages and realize how many of the comments made out of ignorance come from citizens of the country in discussion, and the majority of valid, and well thought out statements come from elsewhere.
I realize this is a generalized statement, but if we use this thread as a study, the ratio of ignorant american's in this thread to educated ones will explain exactly why it was so easy to push the United States of America into a possible default situation. The sad part is it's the same ignorant people that live in the bottom 60%~ in wealth that would be affected the most.
Too many want to stick their head in the sand and ignore the problem, or spew bullshit until they convince themselves there is no problem.
|
On August 17 2011 21:12 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 20:28 vetinari wrote:On August 17 2011 18:18 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich.
If the rich are as greedy as proponents of tax increases would have you believe, you'd think they'd want to preserve their income right? How do they do that? Raise prices on the goods and services that you and I purchase.
The government makes more money from increased tax revenue. The rich break even. The poor and middle class end up losing as they pay more to fill their cars with gas and their stomachs with food.
The fact of the matter is, the government could take 100% of the wealthiest people in the country's income, and it wouldn't be able to run the country for more than one year.
That's right, our spending levels are so unsustainable that taking EVERYTHING from rich people wouldn't be able to fund us for more than a year. Mate, you are arguing that "the rich" are a cartel, that increases prices collectively in order to maintain profit margins for themselves. Do I really need to tell you how fucking ridiculous this is? Do you really think that if a 70% tax on capital gains and dividends is put in place, Woolworths and Coles are suddenly going to increase prices by 25%. Or BHP is going to increase the price of iron ore by 40%? Come on, mate. No, you're putting words and numbers in my mouth. I know not how specific people or corporations will act. I'm merely stating that if you increase the cost of doing business for these people, they're going to have to increase prices to maintain the same income level. And the increase in prices ultimately hurts the consumer. Or do you believe the people being vilified as greedy and selfish will simply hand over the majority of their profits and not do anything to compensate for it? Who's being ridiculous here?
His numbers might be fictional but his words are true. If a company increases it prices, there is absolutely no reason for its competition to do so, thus the company loses customers, since its customers will go to the competition that offers the same product at a lesser price. You assume that every company will increase its product prices, which basically equals to the statement: 'you are arguing that "the rich" are a cartel'.
As far as this statement is concerned: 'Do I really need to tell you how fucking ridiculous this is?', it has some merit, too, since everybody who's visited econ 101 would disagree with you (not to mention that it's entirely possible to reach the same conclusion even without visiting any economy classes...).
|
On August 17 2011 20:58 chronomancer wrote:
USA continues Imperialism around the world spending trillions of dollars on wars raising the debt ceiling higher and higher. Make sure Dick Cheney and Halliburton get the memo. I think they should pay more taxes, more taxes that would go right back into their war machine...
This is the most hippie statemet ever made on Team Liquid.... couldnt disagree more.
If you start taxing the rich more than everyone else, then far less people are going to strive to become rich. It takes away much of the incentive to ever earn more money which means less doctors, investors, and so on. There needs to be an even percentage across the board - and warren buffet needs to STFU about his stupid idea... I'm starting to think he has become senile.
|
On August 17 2011 21:31 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 21:12 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On August 17 2011 20:28 vetinari wrote:On August 17 2011 18:18 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich.
If the rich are as greedy as proponents of tax increases would have you believe, you'd think they'd want to preserve their income right? How do they do that? Raise prices on the goods and services that you and I purchase.
The government makes more money from increased tax revenue. The rich break even. The poor and middle class end up losing as they pay more to fill their cars with gas and their stomachs with food.
The fact of the matter is, the government could take 100% of the wealthiest people in the country's income, and it wouldn't be able to run the country for more than one year.
That's right, our spending levels are so unsustainable that taking EVERYTHING from rich people wouldn't be able to fund us for more than a year. Mate, you are arguing that "the rich" are a cartel, that increases prices collectively in order to maintain profit margins for themselves. Do I really need to tell you how fucking ridiculous this is? Do you really think that if a 70% tax on capital gains and dividends is put in place, Woolworths and Coles are suddenly going to increase prices by 25%. Or BHP is going to increase the price of iron ore by 40%? Come on, mate. No, you're putting words and numbers in my mouth. I know not how specific people or corporations will act. I'm merely stating that if you increase the cost of doing business for these people, they're going to have to increase prices to maintain the same income level. And the increase in prices ultimately hurts the consumer. Or do you believe the people being vilified as greedy and selfish will simply hand over the majority of their profits and not do anything to compensate for it? Who's being ridiculous here? His numbers might be fictional but his words are true. If a company increases it prices, there is absolutely no reason for its competition to do so, thus the company loses customers, since its customers will go to the competition that offers the same product at a lesser price. You assume that every company will increase its product prices, which basically equals to the statement: 'you are arguing that "the rich" are a cartel'. As far as this statement is concerned: 'Do I really need to tell you how fucking ridiculous this is?', it has some merit, too, since everybody who's visited econ 101 would disagree with you (not to mention that it's entirely possible to reach the same conclusion even without visiting any economy classes...).
Why is there no reason for its competition to do so when the tax affects them too? They can choose not to do so and take a loss, it's up to them, but they can't do it forever.
A tax puts upward pressure on prices because a tax increases the cost of doing business. Plain and simple. Why this is so difficult for you to understand, I do not know. I don't think you need to take economics to understand this. I feel like you're just ignoring this reality because it doesn't fit the conclusion that you've already drawn.
On August 17 2011 21:18 WAAA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 21:12 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On August 17 2011 20:28 vetinari wrote:On August 17 2011 18:18 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich.
If the rich are as greedy as proponents of tax increases would have you believe, you'd think they'd want to preserve their income right? How do they do that? Raise prices on the goods and services that you and I purchase.
The government makes more money from increased tax revenue. The rich break even. The poor and middle class end up losing as they pay more to fill their cars with gas and their stomachs with food.
The fact of the matter is, the government could take 100% of the wealthiest people in the country's income, and it wouldn't be able to run the country for more than one year.
That's right, our spending levels are so unsustainable that taking EVERYTHING from rich people wouldn't be able to fund us for more than a year. Mate, you are arguing that "the rich" are a cartel, that increases prices collectively in order to maintain profit margins for themselves. Do I really need to tell you how fucking ridiculous this is? Do you really think that if a 70% tax on capital gains and dividends is put in place, Woolworths and Coles are suddenly going to increase prices by 25%. Or BHP is going to increase the price of iron ore by 40%? Come on, mate. No, you're putting words and numbers in my mouth. I know not how specific people or corporations will act. I'm merely stating that if you increase the cost of doing business for these people, they're going to have to increase prices to maintain the same income level. And the increase in prices ultimately hurts the consumer. Or do you believe the people being vilified as greedy and selfish will simply hand over the majority of their profits and not do anything to compensate for it? Who's being ridiculous here? You theory is wrong in even the most basic level that a 15 year old economic student would understand. Tax increases are absorbed by both the supplier and consumer.
Ummm, reread my post, bro. I said there is no such thing on a tax on just the rich, because it comes down to the end consumer as well.
Geez, does everyone on TL love splitting hairs and arguing semantics?
|
Even if it ended up being PARTIALLY (even as much as half) absorbed by consumers, it would be a small overall increase.
And you know what, I'd be okay with that. Taxes are at the lowest levels in like 40 years while spending is near the highest (obviously it is going down after obama and the republican deal cuts).
The fastest way to reduce the government debt would be to slightly increase capital gains tax (by 5% or so), which would have a very small impact on the consumer, WHILE cutting spending. Even if it meant everyone lost 0.1% of their income, it would be worth it.
We'd actually get out of this fucking hole and it wouldn't have a BIG impact on the economy. Taxes aren't always bad.
|
On August 17 2011 21:42 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 20:58 chronomancer wrote:
USA continues Imperialism around the world spending trillions of dollars on wars raising the debt ceiling higher and higher. Make sure Dick Cheney and Halliburton get the memo. I think they should pay more taxes, more taxes that would go right back into their war machine... This is the most hippie statemet ever made on Team Liquid.... couldnt disagree more. If you start taxing the rich more than everyone else, then far less people are going to strive to become rich. It takes away much of the incentive to ever earn more money which means less doctors, investors, and so on. There needs to be an even percentage across the board - and warren buffet needs to STFU about his stupid idea... I'm starting to think he has become senile.
Wow, it's obvious you didn't event read the article because you're arguing for the exact same thing as Warren Buffet. The fact is, right now the super rich pay less in effective taxes than others, all he's arguing for is to have a goal of the super rich paying the same percentage of taxes as others - the same thing you are arguing. I think you're the one who is senile.
|
On August 17 2011 21:52 dcemuser wrote:
Even if it ended up being PARTIALLY (even as much as half) absorbed by consumers, it would be a small overall increase.
And you know what, I'd be okay with that. Taxes are at the lowest levels in like 40 years while spending is near the highest (obviously it is going down after obama and the republican deal cuts).
The fastest way to reduce the government debt would be to slightly increase capital gains tax (by 5% or so), which would have a very small impact on the consumer, WHILE cutting spending. Even if it meant everyone lost 0.1% of their income, it would be worth it.
We'd actually get out of this fucking hole and it wouldn't have a BIG impact on the economy. Taxes aren't always bad.
I'd love to know what formula you're using that gets you this 5% or so figure. And how you figure people will lose about 0.1% of their income.
Because I suspect you're pulling it out of your ass.
|
On August 17 2011 21:43 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 21:31 ggrrg wrote:On August 17 2011 21:12 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On August 17 2011 20:28 vetinari wrote:On August 17 2011 18:18 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich.
If the rich are as greedy as proponents of tax increases would have you believe, you'd think they'd want to preserve their income right? How do they do that? Raise prices on the goods and services that you and I purchase.
The government makes more money from increased tax revenue. The rich break even. The poor and middle class end up losing as they pay more to fill their cars with gas and their stomachs with food.
The fact of the matter is, the government could take 100% of the wealthiest people in the country's income, and it wouldn't be able to run the country for more than one year.
That's right, our spending levels are so unsustainable that taking EVERYTHING from rich people wouldn't be able to fund us for more than a year. Mate, you are arguing that "the rich" are a cartel, that increases prices collectively in order to maintain profit margins for themselves. Do I really need to tell you how fucking ridiculous this is? Do you really think that if a 70% tax on capital gains and dividends is put in place, Woolworths and Coles are suddenly going to increase prices by 25%. Or BHP is going to increase the price of iron ore by 40%? Come on, mate. No, you're putting words and numbers in my mouth. I know not how specific people or corporations will act. I'm merely stating that if you increase the cost of doing business for these people, they're going to have to increase prices to maintain the same income level. And the increase in prices ultimately hurts the consumer. Or do you believe the people being vilified as greedy and selfish will simply hand over the majority of their profits and not do anything to compensate for it? Who's being ridiculous here? His numbers might be fictional but his words are true. If a company increases it prices, there is absolutely no reason for its competition to do so, thus the company loses customers, since its customers will go to the competition that offers the same product at a lesser price. You assume that every company will increase its product prices, which basically equals to the statement: 'you are arguing that "the rich" are a cartel'. As far as this statement is concerned: 'Do I really need to tell you how fucking ridiculous this is?', it has some merit, too, since everybody who's visited econ 101 would disagree with you (not to mention that it's entirely possible to reach the same conclusion even without visiting any economy classes...). Why is there no reason for its competition to do so when the tax affects them too? They can choose not to do so and take a loss, it's up to them, but they can't do it forever. A tax puts upward pressure on prices because a tax increases the cost of doing business. Plain and simple. Why this is so difficult for you to understand, I do not know. I don't think you need to take economics to understand this. I feel like you're just ignoring this reality because it doesn't fit the conclusion that you've already drawn.
It's funny, you seem to understand that the driving force between a lot of what we would describe as negative effects of capitalism (extremly low wages, abuse of environmet/people and so on) stem from the competition between different actors on the market (if the law doesnt forbid it and you dont cut the costs someone else will do it). Understanding this you should understand rrggrs line of argumentation - if you're the first one to rise your prices you're usually fucked in a competive environment (at least in theory).
You seem to assume that increasing taxes would automatically make the production itself unprofitable - in this case prices would actually have to rise across the board for all products to allow sustained production.
Though I doubt that would be the case for most corporations, meaning tax increases would just change the 'quality' of the status quo (hard for me to express in engish, but bare with me: ), meaning that all corporations/firms/whatever would take the same financial hit, but since production is still profitable there is no need to increase prices for the customer.
You have a point though: a lot of companies don't really care for the customer, but rather for profit. The suppliers of electric energy in germany have repeatedly moved increased costs for them onto their customers, even though they have/had huge margins of profit anyway - they always increased prices together, making a change of the provider for the customers useless while increasing all of their wealth...
But that's basically acting as cartel and should be stopped by the government...
|
On August 17 2011 21:56 BuddhaMonk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 21:42 CaptainCrush wrote:On August 17 2011 20:58 chronomancer wrote:
USA continues Imperialism around the world spending trillions of dollars on wars raising the debt ceiling higher and higher. Make sure Dick Cheney and Halliburton get the memo. I think they should pay more taxes, more taxes that would go right back into their war machine... This is the most hippie statemet ever made on Team Liquid.... couldnt disagree more. If you start taxing the rich more than everyone else, then far less people are going to strive to become rich. It takes away much of the incentive to ever earn more money which means less doctors, investors, and so on. There needs to be an even percentage across the board - and warren buffet needs to STFU about his stupid idea... I'm starting to think he has become senile. Wow, it's obvious you didn't event read the article because you're arguing for the exact same thing as Warren Buffet. The fact is, right now the super rich pay less in effective taxes than others, all he's arguing for is to have a goal of the super rich paying the same percentage of taxes as others - the same thing you are arguing. I think you're the one who is senile.
That isn't a true representation of facts or what buffet is arguing about. Even a person whose income is 100% capital gains pays more of a share than the average american. The problem is that right now the highest percentage is being paid by the upper middle class (200k - 1mil income) and that there's a dropoff afterwards. An even rate across the board would mean less taxes for the rich relative to everyone else, so don't get the idea that he's in favor of a flat rate system when he isn't.
The problem is that there are no capital gains discount brackets and that overall income brackets end well before the dip in the curve starts.
|
After watching his interview on Charlie Rose; my respect for him as an investor further diminished. He kept repeating the same phrase that Alan Greenspan did in his interview "The US will never default due to the fact that we can always print money".
This is totally absurd with China holding over a trillion dollars in US securities.
The top 1% elite will never paid any taxes; the tax rule books were meant for the middle and upper middle classes.
|
|
|
On August 17 2011 21:42 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 20:58 chronomancer wrote:
USA continues Imperialism around the world spending trillions of dollars on wars raising the debt ceiling higher and higher. Make sure Dick Cheney and Halliburton get the memo. I think they should pay more taxes, more taxes that would go right back into their war machine... This is the most hippie statemet ever made on Team Liquid.... couldnt disagree more. If you start taxing the rich more than everyone else, then far less people are going to strive to become rich. It takes away much of the incentive to ever earn more money which means less doctors, investors, and so on. There needs to be an even percentage across the board - and warren buffet needs to STFU about his stupid idea... I'm starting to think he has become senile.
This is the most stupid argument ever presented. So people don't want to be rich, because then they have to pay taxes and because of these they become poor, is this you logic? You realize that it's about income tax. "INCOME".
|
On August 17 2011 22:23 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 21:42 CaptainCrush wrote:On August 17 2011 20:58 chronomancer wrote:
USA continues Imperialism around the world spending trillions of dollars on wars raising the debt ceiling higher and higher. Make sure Dick Cheney and Halliburton get the memo. I think they should pay more taxes, more taxes that would go right back into their war machine... This is the most hippie statemet ever made on Team Liquid.... couldnt disagree more. If you start taxing the rich more than everyone else, then far less people are going to strive to become rich. It takes away much of the incentive to ever earn more money which means less doctors, investors, and so on. There needs to be an even percentage across the board - and warren buffet needs to STFU about his stupid idea... I'm starting to think he has become senile. This is the most stupid argument ever presented. So people don't want to be rich, because then they have to pay taxes and because of these they become poor, is this you logic? You realize that it's about income tax. "INCOME".
He's technically right, but for all the wrong reasons. Countries with higher taxes on the wealthy can experience talent outflows of people who have easily transferrable credentials that allow them to earn decent amounts of money.
|
On August 17 2011 22:27 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 22:23 BlackFlag wrote:On August 17 2011 21:42 CaptainCrush wrote:On August 17 2011 20:58 chronomancer wrote:
USA continues Imperialism around the world spending trillions of dollars on wars raising the debt ceiling higher and higher. Make sure Dick Cheney and Halliburton get the memo. I think they should pay more taxes, more taxes that would go right back into their war machine... This is the most hippie statemet ever made on Team Liquid.... couldnt disagree more. If you start taxing the rich more than everyone else, then far less people are going to strive to become rich. It takes away much of the incentive to ever earn more money which means less doctors, investors, and so on. There needs to be an even percentage across the board - and warren buffet needs to STFU about his stupid idea... I'm starting to think he has become senile. This is the most stupid argument ever presented. So people don't want to be rich, because then they have to pay taxes and because of these they become poor, is this you logic? You realize that it's about income tax. "INCOME". He's technically right, but for all the wrong reasons. Countries with higher taxes on the wealthy can experience talent outflows of people who have easily transferrable credentials that allow them to earn decent amounts of money.
Could you please make an example of a country where this actually happened (and was/is damaging) these countries?
Last time i checked Scandinavia is still doing very ok, even aside from Norway which swims in Oil...
|
On August 17 2011 22:27 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 22:23 BlackFlag wrote:On August 17 2011 21:42 CaptainCrush wrote:On August 17 2011 20:58 chronomancer wrote:
USA continues Imperialism around the world spending trillions of dollars on wars raising the debt ceiling higher and higher. Make sure Dick Cheney and Halliburton get the memo. I think they should pay more taxes, more taxes that would go right back into their war machine... This is the most hippie statemet ever made on Team Liquid.... couldnt disagree more. If you start taxing the rich more than everyone else, then far less people are going to strive to become rich. It takes away much of the incentive to ever earn more money which means less doctors, investors, and so on. There needs to be an even percentage across the board - and warren buffet needs to STFU about his stupid idea... I'm starting to think he has become senile. This is the most stupid argument ever presented. So people don't want to be rich, because then they have to pay taxes and because of these they become poor, is this you logic? You realize that it's about income tax. "INCOME". He's technically right, but for all the wrong reasons. Countries with higher taxes on the wealthy can experience talent outflows of people who have easily transferrable credentials that allow them to earn decent amounts of money.
I hear that argument always, but if I look at the nordic states with high taxes, they don't have the problem of "fleeing capital", and they don't experience an outflow of talented and intellegient people who fear the high taxes.
(It's just an example, and I don't say that this can't happen.)
|
On August 17 2011 22:32 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 22:27 SharkSpider wrote:On August 17 2011 22:23 BlackFlag wrote:On August 17 2011 21:42 CaptainCrush wrote:On August 17 2011 20:58 chronomancer wrote:
USA continues Imperialism around the world spending trillions of dollars on wars raising the debt ceiling higher and higher. Make sure Dick Cheney and Halliburton get the memo. I think they should pay more taxes, more taxes that would go right back into their war machine... This is the most hippie statemet ever made on Team Liquid.... couldnt disagree more. If you start taxing the rich more than everyone else, then far less people are going to strive to become rich. It takes away much of the incentive to ever earn more money which means less doctors, investors, and so on. There needs to be an even percentage across the board - and warren buffet needs to STFU about his stupid idea... I'm starting to think he has become senile. This is the most stupid argument ever presented. So people don't want to be rich, because then they have to pay taxes and because of these they become poor, is this you logic? You realize that it's about income tax. "INCOME". He's technically right, but for all the wrong reasons. Countries with higher taxes on the wealthy can experience talent outflows of people who have easily transferrable credentials that allow them to earn decent amounts of money. I hear that argument always, but if I look at the nordic states with high taxes, they don't have the problem of "fleeing capital", and they don't experience an outflow of talented and intellegient people who fear the high taxes. (It's just an example, and I don't say that this can't happen.)
It's arguable as to whether or not it actually harms countries, because the required amount of savings in taxes would likely be fairly high for someone to move (especially to a country operating in a different language) but that said, Canada experiences quite a bit of it in general because most, if not all, Canadian credentials are valid in the US. I'm not sure where you'd find exact stats, but it's pretty well-accepted at universities that if you're among the best, you go south after you graduate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
