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.

[Danzig]

and then there's boehner ( )


http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...?lite=obinsite


Anyone thinking Republicans might be ready to accept extending the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 now, think again.

House Speaker John Boehner (R), the man at the center of negotiations with President Obama, today rejected Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole’s suggestion to pass an extension of tax cuts for 98 percent of people, declare victory, and go home.

[dellinger63]

The top 1% pay 30% of the income tax.

I'd say they're doing more than their fair share.

We have become so reliant on the Federal government for everything from viagra to abortions, common sense no longer exists.

Stop the spending (leaks) first, then start bailing out. Bailing a boat without first fixing the leaks does not work and neither does taxing now and cutting later. To the cliff we go! Sickening how spoiled, needy and weak we've become. Our poor our rich when compared to the rest of the world.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The top 1% pay 30% of the income tax.

I'd say they're doing more than their fair share.

We have become so reliant on the Federal government for everything from viagra to abortions, common sense no longer exists.

Stop the spending (leaks) first, then start bailing out. Bailing a boat without first fixing the leaks does not work and neither does taxing now and cutting later. To the cliff we go! Sickening how spoiled, needy and weak we've become. Our poor our rich when compared to the rest of the world.

the top 1%, as well as many of the rest of us, pay less in taxes now than ever. funny, it's a 'fair' share, but it's lower than it's been at any time in the last century for them.
dell, i'm sure they appreciate your concern for them.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the top 1%, as well as many of the rest of us, pay less in taxes now than ever. funny, it's a 'fair' share, but it's lower than it's been at any time in the last century for them.
dell, i'm sure they appreciate your concern for them.

But if you don't make it LOWER yet then they will not create jobs.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

But if you don't make it LOWER yet then they will not create jobs.

see, thing is, when the cuts went thru they were supposed to be temporary. it's a matter of putting them back where they were. will their taxes go back up? yep. shouldn't have been cut back a few years ago. it was absurd, and didn't create the jobs they said it would. it was a failure. end the bush 'temp' cuts!!!

[GenuineRisk]

What makes me bananas about how the media paints this fight over the tax rates is how it's depicted- with very, very rare exceptions, any news outlet I've seen has painted it as "middle class tax cuts." No, you f*cking morons, it's tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income. EVERYONE gets this tax cut. And for people who are fortunate enough to make more than $250,000 in income, their rates will go up only on the amount earned over $250,000.

I don't understand why the concept of progressive tax rates is so f*cking hard for six-figure media personalities to understand.

I guess the wealthy don't care about the first $250,000 of their income, because it's just not much money to them. Megan "Gastritis Broke My Calculator" McArdle, one of the dumbest people ever to get an Ivy education and a six-figure media job, wrote a really awful piece about how Wal Mart's business model is superior to Costco's because Wal Mart returns less of its profits in wages to workers. She explained that if Wal Mart lowered its profit margin to Costco's in order to give workers higher wages (as Costco does; it's apparently a pretty good place for people to work), that it would only amount to an extra $2850 per year for each Wal Mart worker, and really, that isn't very much money, so Wal Mart is better off continuing to pay their workers the crap they do.

Only a girl born to privilege could shrug and say "oh, $2850 isn't life changing." For a lot of people, many of whom work at Wal Mart, it is.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

What makes me bananas about how the media paints this fight over the tax rates is how it's depicted- with very, very rare exceptions, any news outlet I've seen has painted it as "middle class tax cuts." No, you f*cking morons, it's tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income. EVERYONE gets this tax cut. And for people who are fortunate enough to make more than $250,000 in income, their rates will go up only on the amount earned over $250,000.

I don't understand why the concept of progressive tax rates is so f*cking hard for six-figure media personalities to understand.

I guess the wealthy don't care about the first $250,000 of their income, because it's just not much money to them. Megan "Gastritis Broke My Calculator" McArdle, one of the dumbest people ever to get an Ivy education and a six-figure media job, wrote a really awful piece about how Wal Mart's business model is superior to Costco's because Wal Mart returns less of its profits in wages to workers. She explained that if Wal Mart lowered its profit margin to Costco's in order to give workers higher wages (as Costco does; it's apparently a pretty good place for people to work), that it would only amount to an extra $2850 per year for each Wal Mart worker, and really, that isn't very much money, so Wal Mart is better off continuing to pay their workers the crap they do.

Only a girl born to privilege could shrug and say "oh, $2850 isn't life changing." For a lot of people, many of whom work at Wal Mart, it is.

to illustrate:

2012 tax rates for a head of household:

• 10% on taxable income from $0 to $12,400, plus
• 15% on taxable income over $12,400 to $47,350, plus
• 25% on taxable income over $47,350 to $122,300, plus
• 28% on taxable income over $122,300 to $198,050, plus
• 33% on taxable income over $198,050 to $388,350, plus
• 35% on taxable income over $388,350.

assuming that no changes are made a mythical taxpayer with $300,000 in taxable income pays $78,271.

apply the prior top rate of 39.6% to the amount over $250,000 and that jumps to a sky high $81,571. The extra $3300 paid amounts to increasing their effective tax rate from 26.09% to 27.19%.

a whopping 1.1% increase.

[Danzig]

yeah, i get blank looks from people when i mention progressive tax rates. they say, but why should you pay more when you make more? they don't get that the higher rates only kick in amounts above each threshold.

also don't get what is so damned difficult to understand about temporary. they should put a sunset date on it at the outset, so it automatically changes back.
actually, it was the height on insanity to make that cut anyway. and now to keep it going....just as dumb. it was a mistake, so now let's compound it.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, i get blank looks from people when i mention progressive tax rates. they say, but why should you pay more when you make more? they don't get that the higher rates only kick in amounts above each threshold.

also don't get what is so damned difficult to understand about temporary. they should put a sunset date on it at the outset, so it automatically changes back.
actually, it was the height on insanity to make that cut anyway. and now to keep it going....just as dumb. it was a mistake, so now let's compound it.

Same people who piss and moan about entitlements feel that they are preptually entitlted to TEMPORARY tax cuts.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Same people who piss and moan about entitlements feel that they are preptually entitlted to TEMPORARY tax cuts.

yeah, let's fight two wars and not raise revenue to do so. let's bemoan the state of social security and then 'temporarily' reduce what's paid into it. stupid. and then when our backs are to the wall, let's try to make those without pay, and those with to keep theirs because they create jobs (when???)

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, let's fight two wars and not raise revenue to do so. let's bemoan the state of social security and then 'temporarily' reduce what's paid into it. stupid. and then when our backs are to the wall, let's try to make those without pay, and those with to keep theirs because they create jobs (when???)

You forgot continually borrow from Social Security and then bemoan it when there isn't enough money left to pay.