No they don't Don they are just better at bribery to get loop holes so they have to pay less taxes. Allan
On 5 aug. 2011, at 14:40, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > The rich generally do end up paying for everything, archy. However, they are > admittedly much better at avoiding taxes these days then they were in the > past. Congress generally takes pretty good care of them. Interesting how so > many end up joining their ranks, eh? On a paltry 174,000/year budget at that. > What concerns me is the labeling of who is considered rich. $250,000 a year > is rich?!!! Are we talking 2007 buying power or 2012 buying power? I'd > hesitate to call a family of four on this income rich by the time all this QE > shit gets done devaluing our dollar. I agree taxes need going up for the rich > but lets be a bit more realistic on what rich is. I also think entitlements > need reigning in. It's gotten waaay out of hand and getting worse. Too many > folks on the dole that are perfectly capable of earning a living but choose > not to BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO. Irritates the crap out of me. However, on > the positive side, I do stay regular... > > dj > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:41 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > In the last thirty years in the UK we have seen a massive shift in > wealth to the richest in society – in 1982 the bottom 50% of the UK > population held 14% of the liquid wealth (cash), now they hold less > than 1%. The top 20% of households’ income is 16 times the income of > the bottom 20%. The real purchasing power of the bottom 50% of society > has fallen to the levels of the 1920s. > > At the same time there has been a shift in the taxation burden from > the better off and rich to the less well off in society through an > increase in regressive taxes where there is little discrimination > based on your ability to pay. Such regressive taxes are VAT, national > insurance, council tax and excise duties. The top rate of tax has been > slashed in 30 years from 83% to 40%, capitals gains tax has been > reduced to and corporation tax halved. This has, as well as the burden > being put on less well-off, also seen a big decline in the tax > collected as proportion of the total wealth produced annually in > society – gross domestic product (GDP) – the ratio has fallen from 45% > in 1982 to 37% 2010. The rich have increasingly paid themselves in > other ways than through a salary to avoid paying tax. They have > awarded themselves shares and special bonuses in things like insurance > policies. The UK’s richest 1000 people had in 2009 an accumulated £335 > billion pounds in mainly property and shares, none of which is taxed > unless they sell these assets and only on any profit they have made if > the price of these assets has gone up. > > And now after all this feathering of their own nest at our expense > they are asking us to take real pay cuts, loss of jobs, cuts in public > services, tax rises and cuts in our pensions to pay for an economic > crisis caused by a giant credit bubble they created and benefited > from. In 2010 our bailed-out banks paid £7 billion in bonuses but > only £5 billion in taxes. > > I don't have the same figures for the US and you have spent > proportionately less bailing out your banks. You have been doing a > lot of quantitative easing like us - this really just means giving > banks money as it isn't getting into the general economy. The rich > should be paying for all this. > > On Aug 3, 4:27 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm sure we should tax the rich very heavily on a global basis. We > > had a top rate of income tax at 19 shillings and sixpence in the pound > > once (20 shillings in the pound). My guess is we've been conned over > > the years into believing capitalism was what was going on rather than > > banking oligarchy. Somehow we swallowed the story that we need the > > rich and what they do. I think most of us don't want big government, > > but have forgotten that concentrated, accumulated wealth becomes that. > > The rich should now be taxed on wealth - but to do this we have to do > > something about capital flight, tax havens (over half are British) and > > the ludicrous and parasitic financial services. > > It strikes me that all the threats (and actions) of the rich > > concerning capital flight are treason. I no longer believe western > > (neo classical) economics work but even within this it's obvious we > > need to tax and spend. I can't fault Orn's view. > > > > On Aug 2, 9:25 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sadly, the innate drive for the Good implied by the US Constitution’s > > > Preamble [1] … to “promote the general welfare”… has been twisted, > > > distorted and reinterpreted using the basest of drives. Other > > > countries also address this notion of general welfare. [2] Back to the > > > USA, the notion of general welfare is mentioned a second time in the > > > Constitution, referring directly to taxation. [3] > > > > > As mentioned in the article above: “Of all the limitations upon the > > > power to tax and spend, the General Welfare Clause appears to have > > > achieved notoriety as one of the most contentious.” [3] > > > > > For the current mantra of protecting the ‘haves’ from the ‘have nots’ > > > by reducing or eliminating taxes from the former and continuing to > > > impose and increase them on the latter…’no new taxes’ and ‘do not tax > > > the job creators’, an examination without using the impassioned > > > rhetoric and hyperbole will find a few facts. > > > > > During the zenith of US economic might, after the 2nd World War…the > > > late 1940s, 1950s and into the 19 60s, a period when unemployment was > > > less than today [4] and taxation percentages of the wealthy was at its > > > highest [5], it could be clearly inferred that taxing the wealthy at a > > > higher rate actually helps. > > > > > Actually Allan, I think that 35% is way too low. An anecdotal aside, > > > something I’ve said more than once here over the years, my father was > > > in the 91% tax bracket back then and didn’t complain and we lived > > > quite well thank you very much! > > > > > As for what I can only guess was tongue in cheek commentary by rigsy > > > chiding liberals about not giving away their money, many of the > > > wealthy actually DO give away their money. Bill Gates and Warren > > > Buffett come to mind. [ 6] > > > > > Quoting Buffett: > > > “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, > > > that’s making war, and we’re winning.” [7] > > > Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 > > > million) in total federal taxes (due to their being from dividends & > > > capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making > > > much less money. “How can this be fair?” Buffet asked, regarding how > > > little he pays in taxes compared to his employees. “How can this be > > > right?” [7] > > > He also is for the inheritance tax, renamed for misdirection reasons > > > by a few as the ‘death tax’. [7] > > > > > As a last commentary, corporations by law cost more to run since a > > > profit must be always the goal. In general, it is much cheaper to have > > > things like insurance, the military, hospitals, roads, schools etc. > > > run by the public sector. There are no bloated CEOs nor are there > > > countless stock holders demanding dividends and actually trying to > > > make a living and survive by sucking off the tits of those who support > > > corporations, whether the tax payers (when corporate welfare is > > > enacted as law…as has become more and more common here) or the public > > > in general when legalized corporatism isn’t required. > > > > > [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution > > > [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause > > > [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause > > > [4]http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp > > > [5]http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/us-tax-rates-1916-2010/ > > > [6]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/04/us-billionaires-half...... > > > [7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Taxes > > > > > On Aug 2, 8:03 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hmm, so how would you fund public goods? Voluntarily? > > > > > > On Aug 2, 3:09 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Who would invest under your system? > > > > > > > What about the government reducing its expenditures by 35%? > > > > > > > Nothing's to stop wealthy Liberals/Democrats from sending their excess > > > > > wealth to their government(s)-federal, state, local. Why don't > > > > > they? :-) > > > > > > > Immigrants send money to their relatives also. I thought the world was > > > > > flat, at last! > > > > > > > Why would people turn their labor/income over to a bloated/ > > > > > spendthrift/ incompetant government like robots/slaves? > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2:31 am, allan deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Being american,, I think taxes are necessary but taxes need to be > > > > > > dependent > > > > > > income.. the greater the income the greater the taxes.. and > > > > > > removal of all > > > > > > tax exemptions especially on capital gains..... > > > > > > > > I am beginning to think that a petition needs to be circulated > > > > > > placing > > > > > > a mandatory 35% on income over $250,000.oo with no exemptions. > > > > > > > > That would go a long way to helping the relive the national debt.. > > > > > > > > I also think all nation should have a 35% tax on money leaving a > > > > > > nation.. > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > ( > > > > > > ) > > > > > > I_D Allan > > > > > > > > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken > > > > > > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - >
