| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/one-simple-reason-and-two-easy-steps-to-show-why-obamas-soak-the-rich-tax-hikes-wont-work/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277610/who-wants-tax-millionaire-veronique-de-rugy# It's never worked in the past, pretending it will work now is just plain stupid. | ||
|
Deja Thoris
South Africa646 Posts
On September 20 2011 16:12 dontnerfterranagain wrote: And No, people dont care to accomplish things when the government gets a huge chunk of the profits, its also raises the risk alot higher on any business endeavor. this is what Ron Paul argues, and I agree with him on that. This is such rubbish. Noone thinks "Ooh, I want to start a good business but if I'm really successful taxes will be expensive!" It's a ridiculous line of thought. Theres a 1,000 things stopping people from trying to start a new business. Taxes are way down the list of worries. I just read up a bit on Ron Paul. He sounds like he should be in the looney bin rather than the White House. Desperate times call for desperate measures I guess. | ||
|
Brotkrumen
Germany193 Posts
On September 20 2011 16:00 fireballbren wrote: Almost 50% of households in this country do NOT pay an income tax whatsoever, is that fair? I really can't believe that people say this with a straight face. Federal income taxes let you deduct around 15000$ a year. Meaning, if you earn below that, you don't owe any taxes. These 50% of the country that aren't paying any income taxes are people that make less than 1250$ a month. In current exchange rates, that is around 900€, which is the salary of a hair dresser in Germany. Half of the US are hairdressers and you want to tax them? | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
| ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On September 20 2011 16:49 dogabutila wrote: It's never worked in the past, pretending it will work now is just plain stupid. Except that it does work in countries where the rich pay higher tax rates. Also, using material from the CATO Institute loses you a lot of credibility. It's an openly libertarian think tank. Not only is it incredibly biased but it's just flat out wrong half the time. I have to wonder if people realize just how ridiculous wealth distribution is in America. In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. Source These are serious problems. We live in a country of haves, have nots, and have everythings. One of the ways to help fix our debt and this gross inequality is higher taxation of the rich. It should be a little disheartening and discouraging for people that 84% of our nation's wealth is in the hands of 20% of the population. | ||
|
Serelitz
Netherlands2895 Posts
On September 20 2011 16:40 dogabutila wrote: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/do-the-rich-avoid-taxes/ http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/one-simple-reason-and-two-easy-steps-to-show-why-obamas-soak-the-rich-tax-hikes-wont-work/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277610/who-wants-tax-millionaire-veronique-de-rugy# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeXPibDuy6M&feature=youtu.be It's never worked in the past, pretending it will work now is just plain stupid. Watched the video, stopped after 1 minute. Higher living standards with such a ridiculous graph ('per capita consumption' or something like that). I mean seriously, especially in Scandinavia or (north)western Europe, I'd argue living standards are quite a bit higher than the USA's average, and not vice versa. Edit: Watched some more, high income taxes discourage income? REALLY? Because just like tobacco, income is something you'll just skip out on if it's taxed too much right? Seriously T_T | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On September 20 2011 17:12 Serelitz wrote: Watched the video, stopped after 1 minute. Higher living standards with such a ridiculous graph ('per capita consumption' or something like that). I mean seriously, especially in Scandinavia or (north)western Europe, I'd argue living standards are quite a bit higher than the USA's average, and not vice versa. Edit: Watched some more, high income taxes discourage income? REALLY? Because just like tobacco, income is something you'll just skip out on if it's taxed too much right? Seriously T_T You don't have to argue it. I think most people are willing to admit that a lot of western Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries, enjoy a higher standard of living. Be careful if people link you to stuff from CATO. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On September 20 2011 16:40 Deja Thoris wrote: This is such rubbish. Noone thinks "Ooh, I want to start a good business but if I'm really successful taxes will be expensive!" It's a ridiculous line of thought. Theres a 1,000 things stopping people from trying to start a new business. Taxes are way down the list of worries. I just read up a bit on Ron Paul. He sounds like he should be in the looney bin rather than the White House. Desperate times call for desperate measures I guess. To all those saying that rich people wouldn't stop investing when taxes are higher, this argument is actually a bit of demagoguery by Buffet. The answer is obviously that the same investments are made (with the exception of the minority of projects that have very slim profit margins that are pushed into the red by higher taxes). The real issue in today's globalized world is the location of taxation. A region that is highly taxed will have less businesses/wealthy individuals registered than those with lower taxes. This is part of what clever accountants do, they keep profits where they are taxed less. So, the past experience of countries (and also states in the US) is that increasing taxes will drive out some of the businesses and the overall tax revenue falls, rather than rises. This is especially true of firms like Buffet's that is not dependent on physical assets. I'd claim Buffet and any Buffet rule tax populism, as it will please people to hear that the rich are taxed heavily, but one shouldn't expect it to actually increase revenue. So, if you want your neighbour to be as miserable as you, support this plan. | ||
|
Brotkrumen
Germany193 Posts
On September 20 2011 16:40 dogabutila wrote:+ Show Spoiler + http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/do-the-rich-avoid-taxes/ http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/one-simple-reason-and-two-easy-steps-to-show-why-obamas-soak-the-rich-tax-hikes-wont-work/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277610/who-wants-tax-millionaire-veronique-de-rugy# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeXPibDuy6M&feature=youtu.be It's never worked in the past, pretending it will work now is just plain stupid. So much BS in one post... I'll refer to the video. The other links break down to the old argument which buffet already invaldated of "If rich people have to pay more taxes they will refuse to make a profit on investments!" Intro: Living standards are higher in the US than in the EU 15. Great. That's an average measure. If you have a handful of super-rich with enormously high living standards and the rest of the population living in misery, you will still get a high living standards indicator. That's the problem with averages. Then, the claim that unemployment is higher in Europe than in the US? Well, what is it these days, 8% in the US? 6% in Germany where taxation of GDP is 40%. Oops 1st: "If you tax economic activity, you get less of it, reducing wealth and jobs." No. Taxes are on profits. Case 1: You have a 10% income tax. you open up a business and make 100$. 10$ taxes and you are left with 90$ profit. Case 2: High taxes of 90%. You open up a business and make 100$. 90% of it gets taxed, 90$ and you are left with 10$. Now, rich people are supposed to forego the 10$ in profits because they are sad that they have to pay 90$ in taxes? No. As long as there is a profit to be made people will do it. As buffet has already pointed out. Nice how he conflates consumption taxes with income taxes. Yay propaganda. It is true though that the gov has no say in how you drink or smoke, it may ask you to pay the costs for your bad health though as they will end up paying for your new lung. 2nd, the laffer curve. Ignored by economists already for the reasons in the 2nd point. Great, he is restating the same stuff to get more points? People will hide money? So the reason to not plug current legal loop holes is that people will use illegal loop holes? Good argument there bro. Then, capital gains tax revenue increases when the rate gets lowered because people move their investment to lower taxed activites. The total tax revenue decreases. Also, nice cut after Obamas statement. I wonder what he said next. 3rd: There really isn't anything wrong with some getting richer faster than others. The problem is that the richer you are, the faster you accumulate wealth.The rest of the herd might not be able to catch up, especially if they do not accumulate wealth at all because their income only covers living expenses. 4th: Income taxes make the US less competitive. Yes, because the US competitive edge is their status as a tax haven... The US is driven by industrial production of high tech goods, services and technological innovation. This needs to be encouraged. Not "lower taxes because lol". 5th: slippery slope argument and correlation is causation... worst argument yet. followed by citing ayn rands novel... which is a good read because it beats a straw man to death for 400 pages (yes i read and enjoyed it). | ||
|
Brotkrumen
Germany193 Posts
On September 20 2011 17:30 Ghanburighan wrote: To all those saying that rich people wouldn't stop investing when taxes are higher, this argument is actually a bit of demagoguery by Buffet. The answer is obviously that the same investments are made (with the exception of the minority of projects that have very slim profit margins that are pushed into the red by higher taxes). The real issue in today's globalized world is the location of taxation. A region that is highly taxed will have less businesses/wealthy individuals registered than those with lower taxes. This is part of what clever accountants do, they keep profits where they are taxed less. So, the past experience of countries (and also states in the US) is that increasing taxes will drive out some of the businesses and the overall tax revenue falls, rather than rises. This is especially true of firms like Buffet's that is not dependent on physical assets. I'd claim Buffet and any Buffet rule tax populism, as it will please people to hear that the rich are taxed heavily, but one shouldn't expect it to actually increase revenue. So, if you want your neighbour to be as miserable as you, support this plan. This is kind of true, but limited to very few financial transactions. Income is taxed where the profit is made, not where the business is registered. Intel, a US firm pays taxes for all profits made in Germany. Same as Buffets Company. If they sell stock in China, they pay Chinese taxes on that sale. The whole argument breaks down to "if you increase income taxes, other activities somewhere else may be more profitable because there the income is taxed less." This really is a problem, but on most fronts nobody can compete with the US in the things it does. You can't run a research facility in Gambia as you can in the US even though income taxes there are lower. | ||
|
shell
Portugal2722 Posts
The man wants so save lives not finance death.. | ||
|
dontnerfterranagain
United States50 Posts
On September 20 2011 16:40 Deja Thoris wrote: This is such rubbish. Noone thinks "Ooh, I want to start a good business but if I'm really successful taxes will be expensive!" It's a ridiculous line of thought. Theres a 1,000 things stopping people from trying to start a new business. Taxes are way down the list of worries. I just read up a bit on Ron Paul. He sounds like he should be in the looney bin rather than the White House. Desperate times call for desperate measures I guess. What specific policy of pauls do you think is crazy, or are you just parroting what you are programmed to believe? there are alot of things in the way of starting a new business, most if not all of them are imposed by the government. You dont seem to understand that the less of your profit you get to keep, the smaller the margin of error you have in business. this is why so many businesses fail today, because the margin of error is already so razor thin, that if you dont rise up to a monopoly or duopoly within a relatively short period of time, your out. | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
On September 20 2011 17:37 Brotkrumen wrote: This is kind of true, but limited to very few financial transactions. Income is taxed where the profit is made, not where the business is registered. Intel, a US firm pays taxes for all profits made in Germany. Same as Buffets Company. If they sell stock in China, they pay Chinese taxes on that sale. The whole argument breaks down to "if you increase income taxes, other activities somewhere else may be more profitable because there the income is taxed less." This really is a problem, but on most fronts nobody can compete with the US in the things it does. You can't run a research facility in Gambia as you can in the US even though income taxes there are lower. In addition, you cannot avoid US income taxes by moving to a lower tax country. All US citizens and US corporations must pay tax on worldwide income to the IRS, with foreign tax paid being deductible. If you live in a low tax country, you must pay the difference between the amount you would pay if you lived in the US, and the amount you paid in the country of residence, to the IRS. If you do not pay, you can be extradited to the US, to face jail. If you do not pay in a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the US, all of your bank accounts with FATCA compliant banks(all of them, worldwide) (FATCA is a new US law) will be frozen and seized by the IRS. If you choose to renounce your citizenship for tax purposes (and if you have more than a million in assets, you are deemed to be renouncing citizenship for tax purposes), then you are banned from ever entering the US again. In addition, almost all of your assets will be seized by the government (90+%), plus some other sanctions that I don't remember. In conclusion: people don't leave the US for tax reasons. | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
On September 20 2011 17:31 Brotkrumen wrote: So much BS in one post... I'll refer to the video. The other links break down to the old argument which buffet already invaldated of "If rich people have to pay more taxes they will refuse to make a profit on investments!" Intro: Living standards are higher in the US than in the EU 15. Great. That's an average measure. If you have a handful of super-rich with enormously high living standards and the rest of the population living in misery, you will still get a high living standards indicator. That's the problem with averages. Then, the claim that unemployment is higher in Europe than in the US? Well, what is it these days, 8% in the US? 6% in Germany where taxation of GDP is 40%. Oops 1st: "If you tax economic activity, you get less of it, reducing wealth and jobs." No. Taxes are on profits. Case 1: You have a 10% income tax. you open up a business and make 100$. 10$ taxes and you are left with 90$ profit. Case 2: High taxes of 90%. You open up a business and make 100$. 90% of it gets taxed, 90$ and you are left with 10$. Now, rich people are supposed to forego the 10$ in profits because they are sad that they have to pay 90$ in taxes? No. As long as there is a profit to be made people will do it. As buffet has already pointed out. Nice how he conflates consumption taxes with income taxes. Yay propaganda. It is true though that the gov has no say in how you drink or smoke, it may ask you to pay the costs for your bad health though as they will end up paying for your new lung. 2nd, the laffer curve. Ignored by economists already for the reasons in the 2nd point. Great, he is restating the same stuff to get more points? People will hide money? So the reason to not plug current legal loop holes is that people will use illegal loop holes? Good argument there bro. Then, capital gains tax revenue increases when the rate gets lowered because people move their investment to lower taxed activites. The total tax revenue decreases. Also, nice cut after Obamas statement. I wonder what he said next. 3rd: There really isn't anything wrong with some getting richer faster than others. The problem is that the richer you are, the faster you accumulate wealth.The rest of the herd might not be able to catch up, especially if they do not accumulate wealth at all because their income only covers living expenses. 4th: Income taxes make the US less competitive. Yes, because the US competitive edge is their status as a tax haven... The US is driven by industrial production of high tech goods, services and technological innovation. This needs to be encouraged. Not "lower taxes because lol". 5th: slippery slope argument and correlation is causation... worst argument yet. followed by citing ayn rands novel... which is a good read because it beats a straw man to death for 400 pages (yes i read and enjoyed it). I believe that every dollar a business pays in taxes is a dollar that could have been spent on the further development of their business. Whether it be advances in research and technology, expanding to new regions or growing business in current regions. Allowing a business to keep more of its money gives business more flexibility to be competitive through higher wagers, better benefits, and lower prices. I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper. As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore. Everyone complains that they want a higher minimum wage and better benefits for their families, but they buy 98% of their household items from Wal-Mart who gets the vast majority of their goods from China. China who pays their workers pennies an hour and sells their products to Wal-Mart who then sells them to you the consumer for a price lower than ma-pop's grocery (check out the documentary: Wal-Mart: The High Price of Big Business). If you want higher wages and better benefits then you should support policies that allows business to provide them. As it stands, all the people shouting "gimme gimme gimme" have done nothing but encourage entitlement politics. News Flash: Nobody owes you a paycheck, a house to live in, or food to eat. | ||
|
dontnerfterranagain
United States50 Posts
On September 20 2011 17:42 shell wrote: Lol give money to the United States goverment? for what? for more wars? The man wants so save lives not finance death.. exactly dude, this is why we are fucked over here, People actually think its a good idea to give this government more money. the left wants to give these insane murders more money to make and drop more bombs?? I wish more americans understood this, its freaking sad! | ||
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
On September 20 2011 18:10 dontnerfterranagain wrote: exactly dude, this is why we are fucked over here, People actually think its a good idea to give this government more money. the left wants to give these insane murders more money to make and drop more bombs?? I wish more americans understood this, its freaking sad! Now be fair, it's the right that also dares not cut into the defence budget and actually because of them Democrats dare not cut it back because Republicans always accuse them of being soft on foreign policies and military matters. Now if you hide in Ron Paul's camp, it still leaves a good portion of the Right that while preaching spending cuts, will never touch military spending. In short neither side is willing to deal with Pax Americana. I mean you could call a plague on both houses, but such a partisan dig is nonsense when you consider which party went to war in the last decade. Even the great conservative thinker William Buckley thought the right had lost its way in aligning itself so heavily with Bush's war policies. Furthermore progressive tax= empire expansion is such a dodge. Canada currently has a progressive tax system has very little military power to project overseas. One does not equal the other. It's true yours disappears into the blackhole that is the military, but ours by and large goes into social programs. | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
exactly dude, this is why we are fucked over here, People actually think its a good idea to give this government more money. the left wants to give these insane murders more money to make and drop more bombs?? I wish more americans understood this, its freaking sad! Is this really how disillusioned people have become with the US government? By that logic we should hope that the recession continues so that the US will plunge into poverty. That way the government can't start more wars. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? A combination of cheap labor and increased industrialization in the second world. It had very little to do with taxes if that's what you're trying to imply. Although I guess if we lowered taxes and reduced minimum wage by a lot our manufacturing jobs would come back here. We won't have more manufacturing by reducing taxes. Hell we could eliminate taxes and we really wouldn't see a resurgence of manufacturing in the US. | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
On September 20 2011 18:39 overt wrote: Is this really how disillusioned people have become with the US government? By that logic we should hope that the recession continues so that the US will plunge into poverty. That way the government can't start more wars. A combination of cheap labor and increased industrialization in the second world. It had very little to do with taxes if that's what you're trying to imply. Although I guess if we lowered taxes and reduced minimum wage by a lot our manufacturing jobs would come back here. We won't have more manufacturing by reducing taxes. Hell we could eliminate taxes and we really wouldn't see a resurgence of manufacturing in the US. Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm right. We're both speculating. I think we'd both agree that there is a need for America to regain its manufacturing and production jobs. We need to be a country who produces more than it consumes. The 6 trillion dollar question is how do we do it? | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On September 20 2011 16:00 fireballbren wrote: The fact is last year the top 1% of this country paid about 35% of national income revenues and the top 5% paid nearly 60% of tax revenues. So the people saying the "rich" don't pay their fair share, please elaborate on what "fair" is. Is it 60% of income? Why stop there, why not 90%? Almost 50% of households in this country do NOT pay an income tax whatsoever, is that fair? That is absolutely fair. Whats unfair is that 50% do pay income taxes. | ||
|
Brotkrumen
Germany193 Posts
On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: I believe that every dollar a business pays in taxes is a dollar that could have been spent on the further development of their business. Whether it be advances in research and technology, expanding to new regions or growing business in current regions. Allowing a business to keep more of its money gives business more flexibility to be competitive through higher wagers, better benefits, and lower prices. True. My issue is with the "If income taxes are high, people will not invest anymore." argument. Now if we take your argument, we are arguing over efficiency of the investment into the public or private sector. This leads to your next point: On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: I am operating under the assumption that American men and women are competent enough to grow wealth and should be allowed to do so without burdensome taxes. My belief is that people who reject this idea do not share my faith in the American people and believe that it is only through government that our country and its people can prosper. With this you are arguing for equal market power, a level playing field. Consider a person dying of thirst in the desert. Along comes a water seller and demands every last penny and the first born for a bottle of water. He can, because he does not depend on the sale but the dying guy does. Same in a market with great income disparity and lots of poor people. A company knows that you need the job. This pushes down the price on your labor, increases consumer surplus (the company consumes your labor) and decreases producers surplus. The ideal, which laissez-faire people assume, is that the average actor has a choice, that if he does not like something, he has an alternative. But reality isn't like that. On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: As for the US being driven by industrial production, you are wrong. The vast majority of the US workforce is services related. I believe the number is close to 82%. Less than 9% make up technology and manufacturing/production. Where did all of our manufacturing jobs go? Why did they go? When was the last time you bought an electronic device and saw a "Made in the U.S.A" seal on it? Call Microsoft's customer service and tell me if an American takes your call. Most Americans don't even buy American made vehicles anymore. 22% of the US GDP is industrial production. 22% of 14.6 trillion is 3.2 trillion. Germanys GDP is 3.5 Trillion US$. Chinas, a country of 1.3 billion people, is 5.8 trillion. Seriously... On September 20 2011 18:08 Joedaddy wrote: Everyone complains that they want a higher minimum wage and better benefits for their families, but they buy 98% of their household items from Wal-Mart who gets the vast majority of their goods from China. China who pays their workers pennies an hour and sells their products to Wal-Mart who then sells them to you the consumer for a price lower than ma-pop's grocery (check out the documentary: Wal-Mart: The High Price of Big Business). If you want higher wages and better benefits then you should support policies that allows business to provide them. As it stands, all the people shouting "gimme gimme gimme" have done nothing but encourage entitlement politics. News Flash: Nobody owes you a paycheck, a house to live in, or food to eat. Not a paycheck. Everyone has a right to life (which includes health, food and shelter), liberty (which includes the ability to make rational choices freely without being pressured by life, as defined above, threatening circumstances) and pursuit of happiness (free speech, religion, action and education). RTFC. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Monday
The PondCast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
WardiTV European League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
WardiTV European League
FEL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
