Good riddance, let the robber barons loot other nations. Never let the fuckers or their products back into America. Black ball their asses. The income inequality in America is obscene and completely outside the bounds of all other industialized nations.
You really think I am someone on the left dont you?
I'm not going to defend bshole's tax plan, because I think it's a bit extreme, but I find this argument to be entirely uncompelling. Why should we care if some rich people decide they'd rather leave than pay to stay in the place that they're fond of calling "the best country on Earth"? What, all the silicon valley billionaires are going to take up residence in Ireland and then realize, shit, we don't have any of our engineers or market over here? The Texas oil magnates are going to leave when their wealth is tied to physical property they own in the United States? All the bankers leave and NO ONE steps up to replace them because we all know there's no money to be made in banking? Movie stars and athletes book it until they realize that their fame and fortune is derived solely from a culture willing to pay exorbitant salaries for entertainment and good luck finding that in a tax-free place like Somalia? A mass exodus of the rich won't happen, and even if it did, we've got hundreds of millions of people; surely SOMEONE is capable of filling those gaps. It's just silly to act like taxing the rich is going to result in them absconding with all the capital they control like Robert Irsay trucking the Colts out of Baltimore in the dead of the night. Especially because even if they leave, they're still going to need to sell their products to someone, and American consumers have all the money. It's a nonsensical argument.
Nope, I know you're one of the right side's bastard childs (among many) that we try to hide, but you guys keep on cropping up out of the woodwork.
No no no, I don't think you're on the left, I just know that you don't understand basic tax law and the logic of not trying to overburden the source of jobs. Once again I ask, how is that 70% tax on the rich in France doing?
Nope, I know you're one of the right side's bastard childs (among many) that we try to hide, but you guys keep on cropping up out of the woodwork.
No no no, I don't think you're on the left, I just know that you don't understand basic tax law and the logic of not trying to overburden the source of jobs. Once again I ask, how is that 70% tax on the rich in France doing?
You really don't understand globalization at all. Please recognize this and be more careful in the future.
I'm not going to defend bshole's tax plan, because I think it's a bit extreme, but I find this argument to be entirely uncompelling. Why should we care if some rich people decide they'd rather leave than pay to stay in the place that they're fond of calling "the best country on Earth"? What, all the silicon valley billionaires are going to take up residence in Ireland and then realize, shit, we don't have any of our engineers or market over here? The Texas oil magnates are going to leave when their wealth is tied to physical property they own in the United States? All the bankers leave and NO ONE steps up to replace them because we all know there's no money to be made in banking? Movie stars and athletes book it until they realize that their fame and fortune is derived solely from a culture willing to pay exorbitant salaries for entertainment and good luck finding that in a tax-free place like Somalia? A mass exodus of the rich won't happen, and even if it did, we've got hundreds of millions of people; surely SOMEONE is capable of filling those gaps. It's just silly to act like taxing the rich is going to result in them absconding with all the capital they control like Robert Irsay trucking the Colts out of Baltimore in the dead of the night. Especially because even if they leave, they're still going to need to sell their products to someone, and American consumers have all the money. It's a nonsensical argument.
If you think that globalization means the wealthy will flee their homeland to move to foreign countries thousands of miles away over an increase in their taxes (while still allowing them to maintain most of their accumulated wealth), you are insane. If they were threatened with losing everything, well then sure, who wouldn't flee? But an increase in the effective tax rate of top-earners leading to a mass exodus of wealth is paranoid delusional fantasy.
I've never understood the argument that taxes that are too high will cause people to leave. If that was true then the data should show that countries with the lowest tax rate should a ridiculous proportion of rich people living there, same with businesses. Hell, in our own country we should be able to see data that shows this.
Nope, I know you're one of the right side's bastard childs (among many) that we try to hide, but you guys keep on cropping up out of the woodwork.
No no no, I don't think you're on the left, I just know that you don't understand basic tax law and the logic of not trying to overburden the source of jobs. Once again I ask, how is that 70% tax on the rich in France doing?
Then why are there offshore accounts? Maybe the people dont move, but their money sure does. This is why when you raise taxes you dont get an equal bump in revenue. There comes a point where hiding money is cheaper than paying taxes. If you reduce taxes below that point, you get more tax revenue because its cheaper to just pay taxes.
The people do not move, their money does. See my previous comment for a better understanding.
So in this pipedream scenario where the tax code is revised to tax mega-incomes at some absurdly high rate, we'd leave all the loopholes completely intact? I mean, that's actually more realistic, I guess, but if you're going to engage in the wild hypothetical of enormous tax increases on the wealthy, I think closing the loopholes can be part of that fever dream. So no more offshoring just to dodge taxes. Do you legitimately think that a large percentage of the hugely wealthy would renounce their citizenship and move out of the United States at that point?
Given the economic forces at work, that's why we have to keep making more- so that we'll have some ourselves.
I am not sure I understand your question.
If the cost of hiding your money from the government cost you a million $, and you made 4 million $ and the tax rate was 30% on your income, it would be cheaper to hide all of you income as you would pay 1.2 million $ on your income. Its never this simple grant you, but there comes a point where its cheaper to hide your wealth then it is to pay taxes. Hiding it could simply mean an offshore account, or it could mean investing your money in an offshore company. The very rich have many options.
That way, you can live in the US, and hide your money from taxes.
Well, my thinking is this; it's wildly unlikely that we're ever going to see tax rates like what bshole mentioned earlier in the thread (99% on incomes over 100 million, which is zero people, but whatever). So if you're already operating from that sort of "this will never, ever happen" point, why not expand that to include closing the loopholes about offshored money not being taxable? Closing the loopholes might actually be less unrealistic than enormous tax increases on the wealthy. If you got rid of laws that enabled rich people to move their money offshore to avoid paying taxes on it, do you think that they'd just buck up and pay the taxes, or do you think they'd leave the country as a means of tax avoidance?
Do you think in a world without corruption someone could get as wealthy as the top .1%, or do you think it can only happen by stealing?
I don't recall saying "stealing" nor did I put it in terms of corruption.
For the last 35 years we've advantaged the financial elite believing that it would advantage the rest of us as well. Obviously, it hasn't worked out that way. If we want more of the same, we can just keep doing more of the same. If not, we need to look at it differently, beginning with our most basic premises.
Call it what you will, adherence to Truthiness prevents that in all too many people.
So you think the inequality came from the misguided notion that if we have less taxes on the top it will trickle down.
So, what about the fact that the top half pays a far higher effective tax rate then the lower half? Is that what you mean by advantaging the top?
The right liked the idea of Bernie nipping at Hillary and were quiet because they knew in their minds no communist would ever get elected. Fast forward a few months and now we will see the hits on him come because to the rights surprise bernie has overcome a lot and has a lot of momentum behind him.
He appeals to a lot of people who dont have 50 years of evil communist propaganda steeped in their brains. He appeals to a lot of people who look at actual metrics of success for nations and realize that the way of 100% capitalism is just as bad as 100% socialism and that we need a blend of these things.
The right should worry about how they will govern their part of the political process while the rest of us figure out what needs to be done for the whole country. When the republicans want to be statesmen and negotiators and join the process again they and their ideas will be welcome.
Raising the rates or removing the loopholes does not matter. The "real" tax amount being over the cost of hiding your money will give you the incentive to hide your money.
I think what you are trying to say is that if we end the ability for people to hide their money, wont we thus increase revenue? The problem is that it assumes that the cost of doing so is lower than the tax revenue. Here is another example.
Say I take all my money, and buy foreign stocks in foreign markets through a company I control that is incorporated outside of the US. I then use that company and its profits to pay me 1 million $ a year, even though the company is making 20 million $ a year. How do you stop that? Do you then say any US citizen cannot run a company that buys foreign stocks? It gets far too complicated and there will always be ways around those laws.
Its a catch 22. If the world finds cheap ways to hide money, then what do you make the effective tax rate? If you keep taxes above the cost to hide money, then you lose out on taxes. I dont know the solution, but I can say that raising the tax burden will not increase tax revenue 1:1.
The top half doesn't actually pay a far higher tax rate than the bottom half when you take into account ALL taxes and not just federal income taxes.
And yet here I am hating communism and socialism. A 29yo who was born and raised in the conservative bastion known as the Bay Area of CA. It filled my mind with hate toward anything other then capitalism.
Unless you are saying that even I am too old to not be corrupted by the propaganda.
The top half doesn't actually pay a far higher tax rate than the bottom half when you take into account ALL taxes and not just federal income taxes.
Here's another way to look at tax burden by quintile. The top 20% makes a little more than half the money and pays about two-thirds of the federal taxes.