On July 11 2012 10:46 Lightwip wrote: If a thousand of the very rich move every year because they don't want to pay taxes, then good riddance.
Yeah good riddance...only it will mean less overall revenues for the government and they'll have to make up for it in someother way, possibly by raising taxes on everyone else.
Yeah, because if they leave because of taxes they were such valuable contributors to our tax revenue in the first place.
Even if a millionaire is using tax loopholes to reduce his payments, he's still paying a shitton of money. The wealthiest 10% pay something like 40-45% of our total taxes so it's a pretty damn big deal if they keep leaving.
If a few moneygrubbers leave but more revenue comes from the rest of the tax base, the net revenue increases, exen after you factor in the decline of GDP induced by higher taxes. So good riddance to those thousand moneygrubbers. I personally don't mind if they go live in some tax haven if they can't pay their fair share.
Please, continue to argue how it is not a problem for capital to flee a country.
Anyone who votes for Romney or Obama are voting for more corruption. Do you like corruption? No? Then vote for someone else, for the sake of humanity, thank you.
On July 11 2012 10:46 Lightwip wrote: If a thousand of the very rich move every year because they don't want to pay taxes, then good riddance.
Yeah good riddance...only it will mean less overall revenues for the government and they'll have to make up for it in someother way, possibly by raising taxes on everyone else.
Yeah, because if they leave because of taxes they were such valuable contributors to our tax revenue in the first place.
Even if a millionaire is using tax loopholes to reduce his payments, he's still paying a shitton of money. The wealthiest 10% pay something like 40-45% of our total taxes so it's a pretty damn big deal if they keep leaving.
If a few moneygrubbers leave but more revenue comes from the rest of the tax base, the net revenue increases, exen after you factor in the decline of GDP induced by higher taxes. So good riddance to those thousand moneygrubbers. I personally don't mind if they go live in some tax haven if they can't pay their fair share.
Please, continue to argue how it is not a problem for capital to flee a country.
My understanding is that he is saying he believes the net result will be increased revenue. People can leave, but if it still means more money, doesn't that make it a net benefit?
Yea, rich people go where the money is. And even if we increased taxes a lot, America would still be the best place to invest in simply because of the technological markets that we have. It's not like people are like "Gee! Taxes are high! I better stop making money now!" People put way too much importance on taxes for investment behavior.
On July 11 2012 20:48 DoubleReed wrote: Yea, rich people go where the money is. And even if we increased taxes a lot, America would still be the best place to invest in simply because of the technological markets that we have. It's not like people are like "Gee! Taxes are high! I better stop making money now!" People put way too much importance on taxes for investment behavior.
60% of Apples $100 Billion cash on hand is sitting overseas and there is no way in this world that they will bring in back here unless they get some kind of special exemption from Congress.
On July 11 2012 20:48 DoubleReed wrote: Yea, rich people go where the money is. And even if we increased taxes a lot, America would still be the best place to invest in simply because of the technological markets that we have. It's not like people are like "Gee! Taxes are high! I better stop making money now!" People put way too much importance on taxes for investment behavior.
Then you need to protect those technological markets, which takes enforcement of trademarks for the companies, patents for inventions and copyright for, well, "stuff". Better get the SOPA, ACTA, TPP etc. accepted to protect that advantage!
This message is copyrighted by someone anonymous, nobody or teamliquid.net . All parts of any of the material in this message may be reproduced by any mechanical, photographic, or electronic process without consent from the auther. It may also be stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or otherwise copied for private, public or commercial use, reposted, disclosed, or redistributed, if you avoid getting prior written permission from this messages auther etc.
In other words what you say is already a solid political stance. The question is how much you loose from higher taxes compared to what you gain. Loosing a few people is only a problem if you are so reliant on them that you cannot survive without them. If you cannot survive as a nation without them you will likely have far more significant problems with having them in the first place...
On July 11 2012 10:46 Lightwip wrote: If a thousand of the very rich move every year because they don't want to pay taxes, then good riddance.
Yeah good riddance...only it will mean less overall revenues for the government and they'll have to make up for it in someother way, possibly by raising taxes on everyone else.
Yeah, because if they leave because of taxes they were such valuable contributors to our tax revenue in the first place.
Even if a millionaire is using tax loopholes to reduce his payments, he's still paying a shitton of money. The wealthiest 10% pay something like 40-45% of our total taxes so it's a pretty damn big deal if they keep leaving.
If a few moneygrubbers leave but more revenue comes from the rest of the tax base, the net revenue increases, exen after you factor in the decline of GDP induced by higher taxes. So good riddance to those thousand moneygrubbers. I personally don't mind if they go live in some tax haven if they can't pay their fair share.
Please, continue to argue how it is not a problem for capital to flee a country.
My understanding is that he is saying he believes the net result will be increased revenue. People can leave, but if it still means more money, doesn't that make it a net benefit?
-10 +20 = +10, right?
That's the math if you're only accounting for tax revenues. The problem is that money leaving the system also negatively impacts private consumption and investment figures (ie money is also taken out of the private side of the economy).
On July 12 2012 00:05 DoubleReed wrote: Did you two disagree with me? I didn't say anything about trademarks or overseas accounts. Huh?
Tried to reinforce your point. The specific tax discussed earlier in the thread was the foreign tax and how it made rich americans depatriotize to avoid the double taxation. Rich people "leaving the country" as mentioned before are primarily foreign based people if I read the article correct.
Also wanted to point to the dubious types making the same claims. Protecting technology is a religion for some politicians and killing SOPA and ACTA has made some of them rage since they believe in IPR is the only way to save the world from teh interwebz networks.
On July 11 2012 10:46 Lightwip wrote: If a thousand of the very rich move every year because they don't want to pay taxes, then good riddance.
Yeah good riddance...only it will mean less overall revenues for the government and they'll have to make up for it in someother way, possibly by raising taxes on everyone else.
Yeah, because if they leave because of taxes they were such valuable contributors to our tax revenue in the first place.
Even if a millionaire is using tax loopholes to reduce his payments, he's still paying a shitton of money. The wealthiest 10% pay something like 40-45% of our total taxes so it's a pretty damn big deal if they keep leaving.
If a few moneygrubbers leave but more revenue comes from the rest of the tax base, the net revenue increases, exen after you factor in the decline of GDP induced by higher taxes. So good riddance to those thousand moneygrubbers. I personally don't mind if they go live in some tax haven if they can't pay their fair share.
Please, continue to argue how it is not a problem for capital to flee a country.
My understanding is that he is saying he believes the net result will be increased revenue. People can leave, but if it still means more money, doesn't that make it a net benefit?
-10 +20 = +10, right?
That's the math if you're only accounting for tax revenues. The problem is that money leaving the system also negatively impacts private consumption and investment figures (ie money is also taken out of the private side of the economy).
But will raising top tax rates significantly lower economic growth? In the postwar U.S., higher top tax rates tend to go with higher economic growth—not lower. Indeed, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP annual growth per capita (to adjust for population growth) averaged 1.68% between 1980 and 2010 when top tax rates were relatively low, while growth averaged 2.23% between 1950 and 1980 when top tax rates were at or above 70%.
Neither does international evidence support a case for lower growth from higher top taxes. There is no clear correlation between economic growth since the 1970s and top tax-rate cuts across Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.
According to our analysis of current tax rates and their elasticity, the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50%-70% (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes). Thus we conclude that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases at least until we reach the 50% rate that held during the first Reagan administration, and possibly until the 70% rate of the 1970s. To reduce tax avoidance opportunities, tax rates on capital gains and dividends should increase along with the basic rate. Closing loopholes and stepping up enforcement would further limit tax avoidance and evasion.
On July 11 2012 20:48 DoubleReed wrote: Yea, rich people go where the money is. And even if we increased taxes a lot, America would still be the best place to invest in simply because of the technological markets that we have. It's not like people are like "Gee! Taxes are high! I better stop making money now!" People put way too much importance on taxes for investment behavior.
For an investment to be made the expected after tax cash flows need to be high enough to justify the investment and the level of risk involved. So as you raise taxes there will be projects on the margin that never get started.
That's not to say that investors won't still invest - the difference will be how the money gets invested - into existing "safe" projects that don't help the economy much rather than into new ventures that create new jobs.
We have that problem in the economy now, but it is because of risk rather than taxes. Raising taxes would just make the situation worse, unless it was engineered to remove a lot of the uncertainty along with the tax hike.
Hilarious quote from same speech: ""I submit to you this, if you want a president who will make things better in the African-American community, you're looking at him."
What kills me about this is that Obama, to his credit, was engaged in the African-American community as a non-profit organizer and leader before even entering politics.
Meanwhile, I'm almost positive Romney didn't start thinking about the African-American community until last week, when he saw that this speech was scheduled.
Higher taxes tend to decrease GDP, and this is definitely a fact (though under about 50%, they do increase revenue). At the same time, they help protect against reckless speculation as in the current recession, which means a more consistent growth. Also, the rich that leave the country will still invest in the US because it's a great place to do business. We'll get more out of them because at least they'll pay in tariffs.
On July 12 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote: We're not even talking about the effects of higher tax rates. We are talking about the effects of capital flight.
Also, the rich that leave the country will still invest in the US because it's a great place to do business. We'll get more out of them because at least they'll pay in tariffs.
The reason why Romney will never play the Jeremiah Wright card is that it would make religion fair game. If people actually knew how daffy Mormonism was, Romney would lose.
The reason why Romney will never play the Jeremiah Wright card is that it would make religion fair game. If people actually knew how daffy Mormonism was, Romney would lose.
Absolutely, a religious conversation is not one Romney wants to have this election. Regardless of how defensible one thinks Mormonism may be (personally I think it belongs in the same category as scientiology) the belligerence of the religious right is blind once it has God in it's mind.
Almost every Mormon I know is unsettling in one way or another. They pay a tithe of 10% income. I would agree with that Romney shouldn't mention religion. Really, Romney is getting pigeonholed into being only anti-Obama because he can't use a lot of his own strengths against Obama (ex: Massachusetts healthcare). The Bain attacks are really solid as well.
The reason why Romney will never play the Jeremiah Wright card is that it would make religion fair game. If people actually knew how daffy Mormonism was, Romney would lose.
Absolutely, a religious conversation is not one Romney wants to have this election. Regardless of how defensible one thinks Mormonism may be (personally I think it belongs in the same category as scientiology) the belligerence of the religious right is blind once it has God in it's mind.
How is Mormonism anymore loony than the usual Christianity? Serious question. Having read Wikipedia, it sounds like just another one of the countless sects of Christianity.
EPT
