UK example of why high tax rates on the rich don't work

[joeydb]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-tax-rate.html

"Almost two-thirds of the country’s million-pound earners disappeared from Britain after the introduction of the 50p top rate of tax, figures have disclosed."

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-tax-rate.html

"Almost two-thirds of the country’s million-pound earners disappeared from Britain after the introduction of the 50p top rate of tax, figures have disclosed."

So where did they go?

[GenuineRisk]

I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.
_
A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism. On the available evidence, I suspect that it is Lord Ashcroft’s idea of being a mug

-Author JK Rowling in the London Times.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

So where did they go?

Very good question. I would love to see some kind of table on that. Presumably all would have less than 50% tax rate, but how much of a "discount" they really got by moving and paying taxes to their new country instead - that would be interesting.

[Danzig]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us...-80s.html?_r=0


i am amazed at the people who consistently defend the rich, especially the very rich, and think they have it so bad tax wise.
no, they don't.

everyone, especially the top income earners, are paying less in taxes. and as those burdens have decreased on 'job creators', can someone explain to me why the supposed job creation that would occur hasn't? the top rates have declined steadily. so why hasn't employment increased steadily as a result?

[cal828]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us...-80s.html?_r=0


i am amazed at the people who consistently defend the rich, especially the very rich, and think they have it so bad tax wise.
no, they don't.

everyone, especially the top income earners, are paying less in taxes. and as those burdens have decreased on 'job creators', can someone explain to me why the supposed job creation that would occur hasn't? the top rates have declined steadily. so why hasn't employment increased steadily as a result?

And lo a great silence fell up on the earth. I think the answer is the great corporations giveth and they taketh away.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us...-80s.html?_r=0


i am amazed at the people who consistently defend the rich, especially the very rich, and think they have it so bad tax wise.
no, they don't.

everyone, especially the top income earners, are paying less in taxes. and as those burdens have decreased on 'job creators', can someone explain to me why the supposed job creation that would occur hasn't? the top rates have declined steadily. so why hasn't employment increased steadily as a result?

Shuuuuush.... We are just supposed to believe this. Not question it. Even though 40 years of history backs up the fact that lowering the taxes on the ultra rich does nothing to stimulate job growth.

If you do question it, you'll get the "We will need to lay people off if you raise my taxes" line.

Talk about living off handouts and entitlements. They are the most egregious.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us...-80s.html?_r=0


i am amazed at the people who consistently defend the rich, especially the very rich, and think they have it so bad tax wise.
no, they don't.

everyone, especially the top income earners, are paying less in taxes. and as those burdens have decreased on 'job creators', can someone explain to me why the supposed job creation that would occur hasn't? the top rates have declined steadily. so why hasn't employment increased steadily as a result?

Ah but they are creating jobs. In the fine print it states Jobs Created not necassarily in the United States.

[Danzig]

and no movement as yet on stopping the automatic tax/spending changes.

obama says we must increase revenue and decrease spending. but apparently repubs are against the increases, democrats are against the decreases. lol doesn't leave much room for 'compromise' does it?


http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...ng-matter?lite

that's on the white house offer to avert the pending 'disaster'.


After Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s individual meetings yesterday with congressional leaders in the so-called “fiscal cliff” negotiations, Republicans leaked to reporters what the Obama White House is offering: 1) $1.6 trillion in tax increases and revenues, 2) a permanent end to Congress’ control of the debt limit(i don't care for this suggestion), 3) additional stimulus of at least $50 billion, and 4) $400 billion in savings in Medicare and other programs to be worked out next year. Republican aides dismissed the offer as “unbalanced” and “unreasonable,” NBC’s Luke Russert notes. A House GOP aide adds to First Read that the $1.6 trillion is TWICE the revenue that President Obama campaigned on (by not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy); that the debt-limit demand is a “pipe dream”; and that the revenue in the offer ($1.6 trillion) is four times greater than the spending cuts ($400 billion). The Weekly Standard even reports that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (not a fan of his!) “burst into laughter” after Geithner offered the plan.