Is it time to take on the super-rich?

Chuck Stone

Jonny7 wrote: »

Its a common problem that has transcended different systems down throughout the centuries, it's hardly inherent to democracy as such. The super-rich don't in fact "hate" democracy en masse, wee bit of a generalisation and over-simplification there.

Okay maybe hate is a little ott but the democratic way is certainly managed as a threat.

We are experiencing a pretty severe double dip recession, so, unlike the heady days of early 2007, the "super-rich" are most definitely the new bogeymen, much like they were during the recession in the early eighties.

I didn't start the thread. If you have a problem with the content then perhaps you should take it up with the OP.

So unless there is a revolution or zombie apocalypse, the "super-rich" are always going to be around, whether they are parasitically sucking money out the system, indulging in philanthropy, or actually offering to pay higher taxes - they aren't going to go away, we just happily forget the issue when times are good.

I bolded the part which is the problem imo - the rest of what you said is stating the obvious.

I mentioned Norway, because as soon as the pitchforks come out, its always US examples, as if their bipolar system is representative of the system in general (which it certainly is not).

What pitchforks? We're talking about the super rich here, as per the thread title, and the US is the place that has the most super-rich people (from memory) so it follows that the US will come up for debate in a thread with a title such as this.

cgarrad

21 trillion is less than a quarter of one year of worlds economic output.

"They" have amassed 25% of one years output in the last 100 (of true capitalism).

Chasing 0.0025% seems pointless, case of can't see the woods for the trees.

Social welfare, health and public sector waste is the real crime.

Duggys Housemate

cgarrad wrote: »

21 trillion is less than a quarter of one year of worlds economic output.

"They" have amassed 25% of one years output in the last 100 (of true capitalism).

Chasing 0.0025% seems pointless, case of can't see the woods for the trees.

Social welfare, health and public sector waste is the real crime.

The issue isn't just their wealth but their power.

also that is an extraordinary percentage given the worlds population.

Canvasser

cgarrad wrote: »

21 trillion is less than a quarter of one year of worlds economic output.

"They" have amassed 25% of one years output in the last 100 (of true capitalism).

Chasing 0.0025% seems pointless, case of can't see the woods for the trees.

Social welfare, health and public sector waste is the real crime.

Sure 21 trillion in offshore accounts is nothing. What is everyone moaning about? In fact we should just stand back and let the richest 0.0025% in the world accumulate even more wealth while half the world's population live on less than $2 a day. Yer nothing but begrudgers the lot of ye! The super rich deserve their trillions and worked hard to earn all that (or at least other people worked hard to earn all that for them). Why should they be forced to pay taxes like everyone else?

cgarrad

Canvasser wrote: »

Sure 21 trillion in offshore accounts is nothing. What is everyone moaning about? In fact we should just stand back and let the richest 0.0025% in the world accumulate even more wealth while half the world's population live on less than $2 a day. Yer nothing but begrudgers the lot of ye! The super rich deserve their trillions and worked hard to earn all that (or at least other people worked hard to earn all that for them). Why should they be forced to pay taxes like everyone else?

0.0025% is the amount of wealth they have amassed, not the percentage of people that hold it.

Duggys Housemate

cgarrad wrote: »

0.0025% is the amount of wealth they have amassed, not the percentage of people that hold it.

It's the amount of wealth they are not declaring.

Canvasser

cgarrad wrote: »

0.0025% is the amount of wealth they have amassed, not the percentage of people that hold it.

Perhaps you could tell me how much wealth the poorest 50% of the world's population own combined?

Duggys Housemate

The top 1% own far more than 0.025% of income. That would make them poor. On average in a perfectly equal society you would expect any 1% to own 1%.

Everybody fell for a statistical trick here, including me; cgarrad decided to divide the 25% of world economic output undeclared per year by the rich by 100 as he decided that that was the age of capitalism..

If he decided capitalism was 200 years old they would own 0.0125%. Of course the real figures are 25% per year. Undeclared. Probably they earn 50%. Declare half of that.

cgarrad

Read this online today:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for a beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.00

The sixth would pay $3.00

The seventh would pay $7.00

The eighth would pay $12.00

The ninth would pay $18.00

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.00

So that’s what they decided to do. The men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with arraignment, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

“Since you are all such good customers, he said, I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.00.

“Drinks for the ten men now cost just $80.00

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $ 20 windfall so that everyone would get there “fair share?” They realized that $ 20.00 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!

And so:

The fifth man like the first four, now paid nothing ( 100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of 12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid 14 instead of 18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before! And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20“ declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right, shouted the seventh man. “why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in union. “ We didn’t I get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalist and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Jonny7

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The top 1% own far more than 0.025% of income. That would make them poor. On average in a perfectly equal society you would expect any 1% to own 1%.

Everybody fell for a statistical trick here, including me; cgarrad decided to divide the 25% of world economic output undeclared per year by the rich by 100 as he decided that that was the age of capitalism..

If he decided capitalism was 200 years old they would own 0.0125%. Of course the real figures are 25% per year. Undeclared. Probably they earn 50%. Declare half of that.

Yup odd stat. The top 1% will always own disproportionally more wealth, even under the strictest form of pure communism. The key is in the "top" part

Duck Soup

The tenth man made a load of widgets. But his nine friends had no money to buy them. Without his customers, the tenth man is bankrupt, not wealthy.

cgarrad

How is he bankrupt, surely he is just poor?

Canvasser

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yup odd stat. The top 1% will always own disproportionally more wealth, even under the strictest form of pure communism. The key is in the "top" part

I think the point is that the top 1% have about 45% of the world's wealth while the bottom 50% have about 5%.

Eliot Rosewater

Am I the only one who finds this focus on the super-rich possibly irrelevant? Surely the aim should be to ensure a basic minimum standard of living for everyone, rather than just keeping the "top" down? That achieved, is it really a problem if a select few go beyond this minimum by enormous amounts?

The argument might go that taxing the super-rich more rigorously will allow us to help the needier more. But I haven't seen much discussion of that here. In fact, no one has suggested how the extra revenue should be spent to tackle the social problems. Is taxing the super-rich being seen as a good in and of itself?

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

I disagree with the above comment, revolution is still possible in the current order. If the western world go three days without a solid meal you will see the collapse of the entire social contract.

That's a rather dramatic if. I'd be interested in hearing a description of the mechanism by which a mass famine would occur in the western world?

Because, pending such an "apocalypse", there will never be a large scale revolution of the kind you describe. People like Facebook and their iPhones too much. Any kind of revolution will risk the middle-class consumer lifestyle that most western people have become accustomed to.

Duggys Housemate

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yup odd stat. The top 1% will always own disproportionally more wealth, even under the strictest form of pure communism. The key is in the "top" part

No under the strictest form of pure communism they would take 1%, although that is impossible in practice.

Duggys Housemate

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Am I the only one who finds this focus on the super-rich possibly irrelevant? Surely the aim should be to ensure a basic minimum standard of living for everyone, rather than just keeping the "top" down? That achieved, is it really a problem if a select few go beyond this minimum by enormous amounts?

The argument might go that taxing the super-rich more rigorously will allow us to help the needier more. But I haven't seen much discussion of that here. In fact, no one has suggested how the extra revenue should be spent to tackle the social problems. Is taxing the super-rich being seen as a good in and of itself?

Of course taxing the super-rich would help re-distribute more money as more money would be collected. That said it is a good in itself, as too much capital in the hand of fewer people creates a power imbalance.

cgarrad

Instead of taking money from the wealthiest the solution is for the middle-working class to work harder to attain more wealth.

Why sponge off others when you can create yourself?

Duggys Housemate

cgarrad wrote: »

Instead of taking money from the wealthiest the solution is for the middle-working class to work harder to attain more wealth.

Why sponge off others when you can create yourself?

Are you saying the middle income workers - and entrepreneurs - are spongers?

We've moved into bat **** cuckoo land, now.

Duggys Housemate

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's a rather dramatic if. I'd be interested in hearing a description of the mechanism by which a mass famine would occur in the western world?

Because, pending such an "apocalypse", there will never be a large scale revolution of the kind you describe. People like Facebook and their iPhones too much. Any kind of revolution will risk the middle-class consumer lifestyle that most western people have become accustomed to.

It doesnt have to. I want the rich, particularly the idle rich, to be taxed more, in part, so those of us in the middle get taxed less. And spend more. This is, I understand, not what all the people who dont like the top 1 percent believe, some are anti-capitalist, some are just anti the super rich.

Jonny7

I know this one!.. they were going to St Ive's, not coming from!

creedp

Duck Soup wrote: »

The tenth man made a load of widgets. But his nine friends had no money to buy them. Without his customers, the tenth man is bankrupt, not wealthy.

Did he make them himself of did he get some of all of his friends to help him? This story also proves that the curse of the drink affects all social classes equally ...

Duggys Housemate

The other problem is trying to justify any morality on taxation if the figures for the total tax take are - legally, after avoidance measures:

1) Earn 50,000 : 33%
2) Earn 500,000 : 20%
3) Earn 5,000,000 : 10%
4) Earn 500,000,000 : 0-1%

It would be like excusing mass murder for the rich and jailing the middle income and poor for life for littering.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

"Fallacy of tax the rich" thread merged into this one.

cgarrad

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The other problem is trying to justify any morality on taxation if the figures for the total tax take are - legally, after avoidance measures:

1) Earn 50,000 : 33%
2) Earn 500,000 : 20%
3) Earn 5,000,000 : 10%
4) Earn 500,000,000 : 0-1%

It would be like excusing mass murder for the rich and jailing the middle income and poor for life for littering.

Ireland’s top 0.5% of earners, the 11,714 people who earned more than €275,000 in a year, paid almost 18% of all income tax, over €2bn in total. Their average tax rate was 27.5%.

Almost 770,000 people earned less than €17,000. Understandably, given tax credits, these workers paid a tiny amount of tax, €20m in total. Their average tax rate was about 0.5%.

Tombo2001

cgarrad wrote: »

Ireland’s top 0.5% of earners, the 11,714 people who earned more than €275,000 in a year, paid almost 18% of all income tax, over €2bn in total. Their average tax rate was 27.5%.

Almost 770,000 people earned less than €17,000. Understandably, given tax credits, these workers paid a tiny amount of tax, €20m in total. Their average tax rate was about 0.5%.

Go away facts, stop ruining it for us!!!!

Duggys Housemate

cgarrad wrote: »

Ireland’s top 0.5% of earners, the 11,714 people who earned more than €275,000 in a year, paid almost 18% of all income tax, over €2bn in total. Their average tax rate was 27.5%.

Almost 770,000 people earned less than €17,000. Understandably, given tax credits, these workers paid a tiny amount of tax, €20m in total. Their average tax rate was about 0.5%.

So whats has that go to do with the statement from me you were quoting, or the general theme of this thread which is off-shore avoidance?

I fully believe that some PAYE taxpayers at around the €275,000 and more mark are paying their way, but as we know people much richer are going offshore. Those incomes are declared PAYE incomes, probably missing most of the earnings at the level, which dont have to be declared if abroad, and paying nothing.

This is, in fact, what you have been defending up until now. If one of your arguments, doesn't work, its ok, you have others.

Tombo2001

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

So whats has that go to do with the statement from me you were quoting, or the general theme of this thread which is off-shore avoidance?

I fully believe that some PAYE taxpayers at around the €275,000 and more mark are paying their way, but as we know people much richer are going offshore. And paying nothing. This is, in fact, what you have been defending up until now. If one of your arguments, doesn't work, its ok, you have others.

Thats a complete mis-representation.

He didnt say some PAYE workers at €275k......you said that.

He said Ireland's wealthiest people.....those 12'000 people who earn more than €275k........all the way up to whoever it is that has the highest income in the state.........pay an average of 28%.

That completely contradicts your argument that the richest people are paying between 0% and 1%.

Duggys Housemate

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Thats a complete mis-representation.

He didnt say some PAYE workers at €275k......you said that.

He said Ireland's wealthiest people.....those 12'000 people who earn more than €275k........all the way up to whoever it is that has the highest income in the state.........pay an average of 28%.

That completely contradicts your argument that the richest people are paying between 0% and 1%.

We are talking about the super-rich. Not small fries in the Irish PAYE sector. In reality Ireland may have few super-rich, however we know top businessmen offshore - therefore they are not going to appear in those stats - thats the point of this thread. The term does not mean high middle income. In my post I gave a list of what people might earn at different levels, starting with just about middle income, and increasing tenfold each level.

I always suspected that some people really didnt really get how rich the super-rich are.

Here' a fact. €275,000 a year is not super rich. In fact the rich could hire someone on €275,000 i.e. a footballer hiring an accountant, and that rich person could himself - along with tens of others on the same salary - get get hired by the super-rich i.e. A rich Russian or Arab who owns their club.

The term super-rich is really the top 0.01 to 0.1 percent. Worldwide. Their incomes, and the tax they pay is what is in discussion here. Not above average earnings in Ireland.

In the UK for instance, all foreigners earning most of the earnings offshore pay 30K. Thats it. If you earn 100M a year, thats not much of a percentage.

Tombo2001

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

We are talking about the super-rich. Not small fries in the Irish PAYE sector. In reality Ireland may have few super-rich. The term does not mean high middle income. In my post I gave a list of what people might earn at different levels, starting with just about middle income, and increasing tenfold each level.

I always suspected that some people really didnt really get how rich the super-rich are.

Here' a fact. €275,000 a year is not super rich. In fact the rich could hire someone on €275,000 i.e. a footballer hiring an accountant, and that rich person could himself - along with tens of others on the same salary - get get hired by the super-rich i.e. A rich Russian or Arab who owns their club.

The term super-rich is really the top 0.01 to 0.1 percent. Worldwide. Their incomes, and the tax they pay is what is in discussion here. Not above average earnings in Ireland.

In the UK for instance, all foreigners earning most of the earnings offshore pay 30K. Thats it. If you earn 100M a year, thats not much of a percentage.

Again the €275k figure........he said from €275k up. So that includes people like Michael O'Leary, Tony O'Reilly and so on. Super Rich. Are they not rich enough for you?

You said that people earning €500k a year pay 10% tax. That is not true in Ireland. Could you tell me what country it is true for?

The hypocrisy of this ....

Do you know anybody who works for Intel, HP, Pfizer, Bank of America in Ireland?

You are quite right that very wealthy people move overseas to reduce their tax bill.

The same way that companies do it.

You cant stop it unless you want to go over there to Switzerland and tell the local cantons to put up their tax rates. Good luck with that.

And while you're at it, tell anyone you know who works for an Irish multinational that they are out of a job because you cant have your cake and eat it.

Duggys Housemate

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Again the €275k figure........he said from €275k up. So that includes people like Michael O'Leary, Tony O'Reilly and so on. Super Rich. Are they not rich enough for you?

You said that people earning €500k a year pay 10% tax. That is not true in Ireland. Could you tell me what country it is true for?

The hypocrisy of this ....

Do you know anybody who works for Intel, HP, Pfizer, Bank of America in Ireland?

You are quite right that very wealthy people move overseas to reduce their tax bill.

The same way that companies do it.

You cant stop it unless you want to go over there to Switzerland and tell the local cantons to put up their tax rates. Good luck with that.

And while you're at it, tell anyone you know who works for an Irish multinational that they are out of a job because you cant have your cake and eat it.

But the point of this thread is two parts:

1) To argue that rich tax payers - like O'Leary - pay more money. That is, say, a sixty percent tax on his income about a certain amount say - 200K. I am sangine about that. We never discussed figures.
2) More importantly the super-rich who are domiciled nowhere, or use the UK as a base, as a huge number do. These guys are a lot richer than O'Leary, and they pay the 30K on the worldwide income while living in the UK. Which makes them tax exiles from home.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-16330000-question-will-proposed-tax-on-britains-superrich-really-force-them-to-leave-the-country-781519.html

Let me repeat. Is this moral:

1) Earn 50,000 : 33%
2) Earn 500,000 : 20%
3) Earn 5,000,000 : 10%
4) Earn 500,000,000 : 0-1%

Obviously, the higher you go the more you can pay less tax.

Duggys Housemate

Tombo2001 wrote: »

And while you're at it, tell anyone you know who works for an Irish multinational that they are out of a job because you cant have your cake and eat it.

This thread is not about Ireland. If the world taxed people on more than five million a year at 90% then we would get rid of the power of the super-rich, but Ireland cant do it. The earnings of the managers in multinationals is nowhere near that.

Tombo2001

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

But the point of this thread is two parts:

1) To argue that rich tax payers - like O'Leary - pay more money. That is, say, a sixty percent tax on his income about a certain amount say - 200K. I am sangine about that. We never discussed figures.
2) More importantly the super-rich who are domiciled nowhere, or use the UK as a base, as a huge number do. These guys are a lot richer than O'Leary, and they pay the 30K on the worldwide income while living in the UK. Which makes them tax exiles from home.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-16330000-question-will-proposed-tax-on-britains-superrich-really-force-them-to-leave-the-country-781519.html

Let me repeat. Is this moral:

1) Earn 50,000 : 33%
2) Earn 500,000 : 20%
3) Earn 5,000,000 : 10%
4) Earn 500,000,000 : 0-1%

Obviously, the higher you go the more you can pay less tax.

We'll park the O'Leary example as he is PAYE small fry.......

On the subject of high earners.

Is it moral? No.

But lots of things arent moral. Is it any less moral that you and I spend more on a night out in Dublin than most Indians earn in six months? No thats not moral either.....but we somehow manage to live with the unjustness of it, unless you want to tell me you give all your earnings to charity.

The more relevant question is: what can you do about it. I dont think much.

Nobody is domiciled nowhere. Everyone is domiciled somewhere. And there a wealth of domiciles where people can go and pay zero tax (forgive the pun).

And I'd also like you say what your stance would be on Multinationals who are in Ireland for tax reasons.

Duggys Housemate

Tombo2001 wrote: »

We'll park the O'Leary example as he is PAYE small fry.......

On the subject of high earners.

Is it moral? No.

But lots of things arent moral. Is it any less moral that you and I spend more on a night out in Dublin than most Indians earn in six months? No thats not moral either.....but we somehow manage to live with the unjustness of it, unless you want to tell me you give all your earnings to charity.

The more relevant question is: what can you do about it. I dont think much.

And I'd also like you say what your stance would be on Multinationals who are in Ireland for tax reasons.

I never go out in Dublin :-)

Actually I don't care about corporate tax. Personal taxation is more important as it creates clear divisions in how people live. In the UK -where I do live for now - London has, because of the 30K tax for non-domiciled earnings- allowed the super-rich, and the rich i.e bankers to buy up huge swathes of the property. This means that housing is unaffordable to normal workers.

Ken Livingstone had a piece in the Guardian recently where he said people on £70K complained about not getting on the housing ladder. That's true. And house prices have increased during a recession - one which is now a double dip. Unlike Ireland, this is not a boom led bubble, but a structural market driven increase which wont reverse in a recession, because the recession is already here. It will keep most people out of the market for ever.

Jonny7

Here's an interesting one

Hollande wants to tax top earners up to 75%
http://www.theworld.org/2012/07/french-president-hollandes-plan-to-tax-rich-touches-nerve/

Obviously there's not much chance of this making it through, but if it did - would the government pull in more tax than it does under its current system.. or less tax due to all the high earners getting "ze ****" out of France.

Chuck Stone

On topic as regards the super-rich shaping the world how they see fit.

US Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, revealed for the first time in Senate testimony Tuesday that at least twenty-three billionaire families have contributed a minimum of $250,000 each so far in this year’s campaigns.

(1. of 25) Sheldon Adelson, owner of the Las Vegas Sands Casino, is worth nearly $25 billion, making him the 14th wealthiest person in the world and the 7th richest person in America ... Forbes recently reported that Adelson is willing to spend a “limitless” amount of money or more than $100 million to help defeat President Obama in November.

commondreams.org

It would be interesting if we could get a break down of what the purpose of the contributions are - I doubt much or any of it is about turkeys voting for Christmas.

Tombo2001

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I never go out in Dublin :-)

Actually I don't care about corporate tax. Personal taxation is more important as it creates clear divisions in how people live. .

Not true, you cant avoid paying the tax on a huge income without having the huge income in the first place. So tax avoidance excarbates the problem, not causes it.

As regards the former "I dont care about corporate tax"......I dont see how you can take a position on one and not on the other, as the same argument applies to both.

Ireland has made vast amounts by offerring tax breaks to multinationals. Do you think this should be reversed?

cgarrad

Off shore is non domicile with regard to income tax. If you don't live here why should you pay tax. Doubt any one here would pay a tax demand from Spain due to them being on holiday there?

golden lane

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I never go out in Dublin :-)

Actually I don't care about corporate tax. Personal taxation is more important as it creates clear divisions in how people live. In the UK -where I do live for now - London has, because of the 30K tax for non-domiciled earnings- allowed the super-rich, and the rich i.e bankers to buy up huge swathes of the property. This means that housing is unaffordable to normal workers.

Ken Livingstone had a piece in the Guardian recently where he said people on £70K complained about not getting on the housing ladder. That's true. And house prices have increased during a recession - one which is now a double dip. Unlike Ireland, this is not a boom led bubble, but a structural market driven increase which wont reverse in a recession, because the recession is already here. It will keep most people out of the market for ever.

did ken mention his tax dodges .......legal yes.....but morally wrong for a man who continuesly goes on about a fair society......

yes, he wants it (or so he says) so long as other people pay for it...

he is a genius at spending other people money...while saving his own..

Duggys Housemate

cgarrad wrote: »

Off shore is non domicile with regard to income tax. If you don't live here why should you pay tax. Doubt any one here would pay a tax demand from Spain due to them being on holiday there?

it depends on how long I was on holiday there. Fact is, of course that the rich - born in a country, living there, having their kids schooled there etc. can by judicious planning of their bedtime arrangements pay tax somewhere else. Nobody is denying this is legal, it is however wrong.

Duggys Housemate

golden lane wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I never go out in Dublin :-)

Actually I don't care about corporate tax. Personal taxation is more important as it creates clear divisions in how people live. In the UK -where I do live for now - London has, because of the 30K tax for non-domiciled earnings- allowed the super-rich, and the rich i.e bankers to buy up huge swathes of the property. This means that housing is unaffordable to normal workers.

Ken Livingstone had a piece in the Guardian recently where he said people on £70K complained about not getting on the housing ladder. That's true. And house prices have increased during a recession - one which is now a double dip. Unlike Ireland, this is not a boom led bubble, but a structural market driven increase which wont reverse in a recession, because the recession is already here. It will keep most people out of the market for ever.

did ken mention his tax dodges .......legal yes.....but morally wrong for a man who continuesly goes on about a fair society......

yes, he wants it (or so he says) so long as other people pay for it...

he is a genius at spending other people money...while saving his own..

Ken didn't tax dodge. He paid into a company and pays when he receives the income as dividends, or PAYE. Like the vast majority of the self employed.


But even if he had it would be small beans compared to super-rich i.e billionaires. In the link I linked to Smurfitt complained about a 30k tax on his worldwide income - which means he thinks that too much , so he was paying less. His wealth is 500m. Assuming a ridiculously low return of 1% on that he earns 5M a year, and considers a tax of 30k too much. That is 0.6%.

An intelligent alien would ask himself why middle income tax payers who clearly pay more because of this, would support such a system since it makes no economic sense to them. Then he would work out, as chuck has been mentioning, that capital is not just about buying flash cars and yachts but power and influence in newspapers; it's about creating opinions. No surprise then, to the intelligent alien, that a well known Irish businessman who is domiciled abroad owns organs of influence in Ireland.

golden lane

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Ken didn't tax dodge. He paid into a company and pays when he receives the income as dividends, or PAYE. Like the vast majority of the self employed.


But even if he had it would be small beans compared to super-rich i.e billionaires. In the link I linked to Smurfitt complained about a 30k tax on his worldwide income - which means he thinks that too much , so he was paying less. His wealth is 500m. Assuming a ridiculously low return of 1% on that he earns 5M a year, and considers a tax of 30k too much. That is 0.6%.

An intelligent alien would ask himself why middle income tax payers who clearly pay more because of this, would support such a system since it makes no economic sense to them. Then he would work out, as chuck has been mentioning, that capital is not just about buying flash cars and yachts but power and influence in newspapers; it's about creating opinions. No surprise then, to the intelligent alien, that a well known Irish businessman who is domiciled abroad owns organs of influence in Ireland.

poor ken.....just like anybody else......yes, a tax dodger who at the same time moans about everybody else.....

at least the rest have the decency to keep quiet about what other people do.....his righteousness is sickening....

.

Duggys Housemate

golden lane wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Ken didn't tax dodge. He paid into a company and pays when he receives the income as dividends, or PAYE. Like the vast majority of the self employed.


But even if he had it would be small beans compared to super-rich i.e billionaires. In the link I linked to Smurfitt complained about a 30k tax on his worldwide income - which means he thinks that too much , so he was paying less. His wealth is 500m. Assuming a ridiculously low return of 1% on that he earns 5M a year, and considers a tax of 30k too much. That is 0.6%.

An intelligent alien would ask himself why middle income tax payers who clearly pay more because of this, would support such a system since it makes no economic sense to them. Then he would work out, as chuck has been mentioning, that capital is not just about buying flash cars and yachts but power and influence in newspapers; it's about creating opinions. No surprise then, to the intelligent alien, that a well known Irish businessman who is domiciled abroad owns organs of influence in Ireland.

poor ken.....just like anybody else......yes, a tax dodger who at the same time moans about everybody else.....

at least the rest have the decency to keep quiet about what other people do.....his righteousness is sickening....

.

Once again. He didn't tax dodge. You believe he did because a billionaire owned newspaper told you. In any case Ken is off topic, I mentioned him on passing because he was complaining about house prices in London.

Eliot Rosewater

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Of course taxing the super-rich would help re-distribute more money as more money would be collected. That said it is a good in itself, as too much capital in the hand of fewer people creates a power imbalance.

I think you need to do a bit more work than that, though. I'm not convinced that merely taxing the super-rich and giving it to people in lower-income brackets is, under any system, a good thing. The main risk is that instead of empowering people (which I think is what desiring a minimum standard of living should be about) you create dependence and a system whereby a lot of people have no immediate incentive to create their own source of income. And it's definitely not the case that our current use of tax money is an efficient and successful means of fighting low-income based dis-empowerment. I'd like to hear more about sensible and honest solutions to the problem of children from lower-income families generally ending up a lot worse than their middle-income peers. The habit of selling the "tax the rich" mantra as a solution to social problems is to me naive and counter-productive.

By the way, this is not to say I'm against taxing the super-rich. In fact, a system whereby the marginal rate of tax is at least non-decreasing as a function of income is probably most "fair". But that argument isn't being used much here, which adds to my suspicions that people primarily want "taxes for taxes' sake".

EDIT: on the subject of money creating power (undoubtedly true) - other than influencing the political system, what other "abuses" do you think are accessible through money? Because the political one can be solved by giving the political system less money; in particular, it is not necessarily to cap peoples' income to stop that problem. So I wonder what other problems would also admit a non-capping solution.

Duggys Housemate

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Of course taxing the super-rich would help re-distribute more money as more money would be collected. That said it is a good in itself, as too much capital in the hand of fewer people creates a power imbalance.

I think you need to do a bit more work than that, though. I'm not convinced that merely taxing the super-rich and giving it to people in lower-income brackets is, under any system, a good thing. The main risk is that instead of empowering people (which I think is what desiring a minimum standard of living should be about) you create dependence and a system whereby a lot of people have no immediate incentive to create their own source of income. And it's definitely not the case that our current use of tax money is an efficient and successful means of fighting low-income based dis-empowerment. I'd like to hear more about sensible and honest solutions to the problem of children from lower-income families generally ending up a lot worse than their middle-income peers. The habit of selling the "tax the rich" mantra as a solution to social problems is to me naive and counter-productive.

By the way, this is not to say I'm against taxing the super-rich. In fact, a system whereby the marginal rate of tax is at least non-decreasing as a function of income is probably most "fair". But that argument isn't being used much here, which adds to my suspicions that people merely want "taxes for taxes' sake".

You are continuing to invent straw men. I am representing my class interests, if I pay 33% on my income everybody above me should pay that - in theory - which might mean I and they have to pay 25%. This is unrelated to any other thing about the poor, or social welfare . otherwise the tax system is 33% from me, 0.3% from a billionaire. it is the legitimacy of that system which is in question.

Also the power they have to influence and control democracy. That's what we mentioned so far. The poor are not relevant.

golden lane

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Once again. He didn't tax dodge. You believe he did because a billionaire owned newspaper told you. In any case Ken is off topic, I mentioned him on passing because he was complaining about house prices in London.

he was on telly...i don't read newspapers...anyway, yes ken is relevent, to the uk anyway.....he hates people with money and would tax them to oblivion if he could.....people like him should be hidden...forever..

Chuck Stone

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm not convinced that merely taxing the super-rich and giving it to people in lower-income brackets is, under any system, a good thing. .

Who said it was?

American infrastructure has suffered from lack of funding in recent decades and could do with being refurbished - they've also talked about building high-speed rail infrastructure (the US being one of the few highly developed economies not to have it). How about using redistributive taxes to rebuild it?

Taxes spent in that manner would provide jobs to middle and lower income earners and boost local businesses, make trains in Detroit and rails in steel mills, you can't make concrete in China and ship it to Ohio (at least, I don't think you can).

A Primal Nut

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Not true, you cant avoid paying the tax on a huge income without having the huge income in the first place. So tax avoidance excarbates the problem, not causes it.

As regards the former "I dont care about corporate tax"......I dont see how you can take a position on one and not on the other, as the same argument applies to both.

Ireland has made vast amounts by offerring tax breaks to multinationals. Do you think this should be reversed?

Multinationals employ people, rich individuals don't.

KyussBishop

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

I think you need to do a bit more work than that, though. I'm not convinced that merely taxing the super-rich and giving it to people in lower-income brackets is, under any system, a good thing. The main risk is that instead of empowering people (which I think is what desiring a minimum standard of living should be about) you create dependence and a system whereby a lot of people have no immediate incentive to create their own source of income. And it's definitely not the case that our current use of tax money is an efficient and successful means of fighting low-income based dis-empowerment. I'd like to hear more about sensible and honest solutions to the problem of children from lower-income families generally ending up a lot worse than their middle-income peers. The habit of selling the "tax the rich" mantra as a solution to social problems is to me naive and counter-productive.

By the way, this is not to say I'm against taxing the super-rich. In fact, a system whereby the marginal rate of tax is at least non-decreasing as a function of income is probably most "fair". But that argument isn't being used much here, which adds to my suspicions that people primarily want "taxes for taxes' sake".

EDIT: on the subject of money creating power (undoubtedly true) - other than influencing the political system, what other "abuses" do you think are accessible through money? Because the political one can be solved by giving the political system less money; in particular, it is not necessarily to cap peoples' income to stop that problem. So I wonder what other problems would also admit a non-capping solution.

One of the major problems (which others have pointed out earlier), is that even by the standards of our current system, with the tax brackets in the configuration that they are, the wealthy are able to use their means to avoid paying their share of the taxes, and this is legalized through 'technicalities' i.e. loopholes.

These earners are not living up to their side of the social contract, and it doesn't matter if they disagree with that contract or the current systems of government, it is what we have now and it should be followed.

None of that is about lesser earners becoming dependent, or disincentivising work (lets remember also, that in todays world it's highest earners who provide the least return to society, in proportion to their earnings), it is about following the rules and social agreements already set down.


As I touched on above, many of the heaviest earners, gain their income far out of proportion to what they provide to society, and (particularly in finance) often on the back of fraud, as well as 'legalized' fraud and other unethical means (partly brought about through monetary control over politics); I don't know if I agree with a wage cap, but I do think that using it to curb the worst excesses of this will help reduce income stratification in the current broken system, even if I may not support the same measures in a less corrupt political/financial/etc. system.

Whatever ideal political system I or anyone else would desire, the transition has to start within the current broken system, and to do that the power and inequality brought about through excessive wealth needs to be seriously curtailed, otherwise whatever political system we end up with will primarily be shaped by their interests.

Denerick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's a rather dramatic if. I'd be interested in hearing a description of the mechanism by which a mass famine would occur in the western world?

Oh, I've no doubt that its dramatic, and quite unlikely to boot. But impossible? No. Did Hadrian forsee the collapse of his empire within three centuries? Or George III the loss of his colonies? Revolution is always possible, precisely because it is so improbable. Absurd, even.

A famine could occur if we continue to see irregular weather events (Such as the great American drought, evoking memories of the dust bowl of the 30s), combined with an economic collapse, such as a particularly nasty Euro implosion (IE, the euro ceases trading overnight, every western bank goes into a tailspin, the US is no longer able to pay its debt, China's economic 'miracle' implodes - in reality a cruel facade that will ultimately have its reckoning - plus a major global pandemic of the hollywood variety... If some or all of these events were to occur simultaneously I'm confident that the leisure and political stability we've become accustomed to will quickly seem a distant memory.

But in reality a famine in the historical sense is very unlikely. Its more likely that a combination of factors make the widespread distribution of food nigh on impossible, leading to several food shortages in major urban areas, sparking mass unrest, thus leading to revolution.

Or perhaps I've read too many dystopian novels.

Because, pending such an "apocalypse", there will never be a large scale revolution of the kind you describe. People like Facebook and their iPhones too much. Any kind of revolution will risk the middle-class consumer lifestyle that most western people have become accustomed to.

I'd like to point out that the idea of revolution terrifies me. I'm a geeky, gentle spirited middle class kid (Though I suppose someone is their mid 20s is technically classified as an adult these days) with a distaste for political extremism of any hue. I cried when I saw Hotel Rwanda. I'd be the first to get lined up in a death camp should a violent revolution break out!