Is it time to take on the super-rich?

Laminations

Valmont wrote: »

I'm assuming many of the 'super-rich' and their business interests would be international in nature. They would have residency in countries with low-tax rates or other laws favourable towards allowing them to keep as much of their money as possible. Surely any attempt to 'take on' the super rich would involve international police or tax agencies or cooperation between national revenue services -- what form could this operation take? How do you get around dozens of separate countries sovereign legal procedures?

Most importantly, on whose behalf will this crack-down be? I'm hearing plenty of talk about going after them and why, but for whom, specifically? How could the spoils be divvied out among many different countries? These issues seem insurmountable to me, and only a supra-national body with incredible power could possibly overcome them effectively. Of those you supporting an assault on the super-rich and their assets, how could it be done? Is it even practical? Where do you start?

So having failed so far to defend the super-rich on economic or ideological grounds you resort to the practicalities of it. At least you've moved off the question of why should we do it and onto how could we do it - a more constructive approach. While you are correct in pointing out it would be extremely difficult, that is not a good enough reason not to consider ways in which it could be done.

As for whose behalf this would be done? The citizens. General equity. To reduce the burden on working class (tax paying) individuals. Again it would be difficult to work out but for a race that has probed the far reaches of space, has identified the particle that gives all things matter and has uncovered much of the workings of the most complex known thing in the universe (the human brain) I think if we put our minds to it (if there was a will to do it) we'd find a way.

Very interesting thread Denerick. Some great contributions by Channel Zero and Duggys Housemate too.

Valmont

Laminations wrote: »

As for whose behalf this would be done? The citizens. General equity. To reduce the burden on working class (tax paying) individuals.

So you want an international effort to go after the 'super-rich' in the name of the citizens and general equity. I remain entirely unconvinced that this is little more than wildly generalised left-wing drum-banging.

Laminations

Valmont wrote: »

So you want an international effort to go after the 'super-rich' in the name of the citizens and general equity. I remain entirely unconvinced that this is little more than wildly generalised left-wing drum-banging.

Who is you? Just as I've been told by libertarians we don't all speak with one voice. Just because you disagree with my personal wishes to see more equity doesn't mean you've dispelled all argument to properly tax the super-rich.

By general equity I don't mean some communist idea of total equality of resources. I refer to it in the sense of fairness, in terms of contributing fair shares. You also ignored the next sentence, to reduce the burden on productive working classes

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

So you want an international effort to go after the 'super-rich' in the name of the citizens and general equity. I remain entirely unconvinced that this is little more than wildly generalised left-wing drum-banging.

1. Do you think it is a problem that vast, unimaginable wealth is lying idle in tax havens?

2. Don't you think the social and moral consequences of revolution outweigh the benefits of your ideal 'economic liberty'. Hayek argued that without full economic liberty we would resort to totalitarianism of a left or right hue. I disagree pasionatelly with this. In your ideal economic entity you would have full economic 'liberty', thus provoking mass unrest, thus leading to revolution, thus leading to chaos and tragedy.

3. 'Generalised left wing drum banging' aside, don't you think it is outrageous that an American billionaire can purchase a new fleet of yachts at his convenience whilst millions of children in the third world die of malnutrition? That is the long and short of it. Libertarianism will make the lives of most people an abject misery and those who defend it are defending an indefensible moral position.

Laminations

The full economic liberty espoused by some libertarians hinges on the state protecting property rights. It hinges on the hope that with minimal public services, a modestly paid police force will defend the miserly wealth of multi-billionaires.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

Hayek argued that without full economic liberty we would resort to totalitarianism of a left or right hue. I disagree pasionatelly with this.

Yet here you are arguing for the establishment of some supremely powerful pan-global tax authority.

Denerick wrote: »

'Generalised left wing drum banging' aside, don't you think it is outrageous that an American billionaire can purchase a new fleet of yachts at his convenience whilst millions of children in the third world die of malnutrition? That is the long and short of it. Libertarianism will make the lives of most people an abject misery and those who defend it are defending an indefensible moral position.

Which all rests on the assumption that the wealth in the world is of a fixed quantity -- I've asked you to support that assertion quite a few times now to no avail!

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

Yet here you are arguing for the establishment of some supremely powerful pan-global tax authority.

'Supremely powerful?'

Eventually I'd like to see a global government. They managed it in Star Trek and eventually drifted into a multi planetery federation

I'd start at the regional level first. The EU could do more to crack down on tax evasion if it really wanted to, as could the Americans, but there isn't the political will there. As China and India rise, they too will be forced to meet their international obligations, one of which is to clamp down on trans national tax evasion. A boycott and shaming campaign organised by all the advanced states in Europe, the Americas and Asia would quickly destroy most of the security these quasi criminal tax havens enjoy. An earnest and proper campaign. But as I said, there isn't the political will for it.

And by the way; was that really your rebuttal? Government's are a fact of life, NOBODY wants to live in a 'Libertarian ideal'. To most people it would be a form of hell. If you'd recognise that you'd quickly understand why so many people are openly hostile your ideology.

Which all rests on the assumption that the wealth in the world is of a fixed quantity -- I've asked you to support that assertion quite a few times now to no avail!

I'm not sure what you're getting at. We shouldn't tax people so much that further work destroys the incentive to work. But Its morally abhorrent that a contender for the US Presidency paid only 15% of his income in tax last year.

I pay more than for Christ's sake.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

joseph brand wrote: »

The US has privatised prisons. They're a joke, and not a funny one. Judges get more money (brown envelopes), the more convictions, and the longer the sentence. Truly disgusting, scary stuff. Money breeds sociopaths.

A Judge in the US was convicted in the Kids for cash scandal.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, here's a table showing the top tax bracket and the national deficit for the US. It's hard to argue with facts, me thinks.

Increasing the tax rate on the rich will not force them out on the street. Worse case scenario, they buy a mid-range yacht. And they say the Syrians have it tough. :rolleyes:

Again with the lists of "bad things" from select countries. Extreme examples exist in almost any country. Go check out the "super-rich" in China - they get people to serve prison sentences for them.

Increasing the tax rate on the rich is a good idea as long as it brings in relatively more revenue (long term as well as short term) and doesn't drive wealth, job creation and investment out of the country.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's impossible to debate coherently about an issue that economists, advisors, experts, etc have been going over in much more depth for decades - we're not going to come up with some cut-and-dried solution on an internet forum

We're in a recession; the usual pitchforks will come out for the rich.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hmmmm. Correlation does not equal causation.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen famously observed that no substantial famine has ever occurred in a liberal democracy. Millions of children in the Third World die of malnutrition not because of the yacht-purchasing habits of Western billionaires, but because they live under tin-pot socialist governments whose Dear Leaders use their economies as personal ATMs while people starve. Again, the root cause comes down to lack of economic freedom.

Maybe that's also to do with the social liberalism or the democratic nature of liberal democracies and less to do with low regulation liberal capitalism? Maybe no famines have occurred because of strong state subsidies (especially when crops fail), state agencies controlling and combating diseases and things like foot and mouth? State spending into research that has borne fruit in modern agricultural practices and technology. Maybe it's to do with strong state support systems and welfare nets?

Can you point to the many cases in which increasing economic freedom has plunged the majority of the population into "abject misery"?

Correlation does not equal causation. There could be numerous mediating or moderating variables at play.

Perhaps as a country and an elite coterie in a country get richer they push for more economic libertty so they can ring fence their wealth and get even richer? Maybe countries that have good state infrastructure and supports, where people are democratically free to exercise their will, can then afford economic liberty rather than your picture of economic liberty being the driver of health and happiness. Perhaps in those tin pot dictator countries economic liberty would mean a flight of capital and collapse of the country. Therefore stability and democracy would be the precursor and driver of economic liberty.

My point is, you have little evidence for your belief in the markets as God, but that's how dogmatic religions usually go.

Can you give an example of where increasing economic liberty alone has caused a decrease in misery?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Channel Zero

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This line of reasoning reminds me of Vincent Browns' recent article on Denis O'Brien

In that letter I recalled a conversation with him some years previously during which we discussed his avoidance of £50 million capital gains tax by his change of domicile to Portugal and he defended his action by claiming that the Irish government would have misused the £50 million.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0808/1224321714191.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You can't or at least shouldn't set yourself above the institutions of the state, or else you get situations like Peter Darragh Quinn deciding he doesn't want to go to jail because he doesn't agree with it.

The tax collecting powers of the state must be respected, and loopholes should be closed.im sure Dennis O'Brien used state funded services? He flies in and out of here using state supported airports, he travels on state built roads, watches state funded television and attended a state funded tribunal.

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So nothing else changed in Hong Kong during this 'policy'?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

fly_agaric

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Perhaps the rich people's mattress stash is flitting about hither and yon, chasing up bubbles and forever seeking the best return? The money is far from "idle", but that is not always a good thing either (hot money - is that the correct term??)

It would be better properly taxed imo.

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's not illegal, it's a loophole

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not being a devotee of Cowperthwaites or Smiths or any other magic beans peddler, I'm not as versed in the history of 1940s and 50s Hong Kong but from a quick reading of Wikipedia there were many factors at play in the rise in Hong Kongs fortunes- migrants escaping persecution, investment from the British and the protection of British law, lack of manufacturing competition in region, and establishment of a special economic zone by China of bordering Shenzhen.

Throughout the British colonial era, Hong Kong was industrialized and improved in all aspects from its economy to its health care system. Many health facilities were built for its citizens

And funny how true this statement is from Cowperthwaites entry

Commentators have credited his management of the Hong Kong economy as a leading example of how small government encourage growth. However his starting of a large public housing programme which made the Hong Kong Government the world’s biggest landlord and the setting up of the Hong Kong Jockey Club as the region's monopoly in gambling business are rarely mentioned.

The construction of Shek Kip Mei Estate in 1953 followed a massive slum fire, and marked the beginning of the public housing estate programme designed to cope with the huge influx of immigrants

I'd imagine that'd decrease misery ay? Designed? Such a dirty statist intervention.

thecommietommy

Laminations wrote: »

You can't or at least shouldn't set yourself above the institutions of the state, or else you get situations like Peter Darragh Quinn deciding he doesn't want to go to jail because he doesn't agree with it.

The tax collecting powers of the state must be respected, and loopholes should be closed.im sure Dennis O'Brien used state funded services? He flies in and out of here using state supported airports, he travels on state built roads, watches state funded television and attended a state funded tribunal.

Exactly and the same Denis O’Brien did a deal with the former Anglo Irish Bank to purchase a company called Siteserv for €45 million. This sale saw €110 million of taxpayers’ money being simply written off by the bank in a manner which raises further serious questions about the links between this controversial businessman and politicians.

But then he's big friends with Enda and Gilmore, Fianna Fail nua.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0316/breaking10.html

Icepick

Laminations wrote: »

Hmmmm. Correlation does not equal causation.
...
Correlation does not equal causation.

it's actually MAY not imply for a reason

Icepick

thecommietommy wrote: »

Exactly and the same Denis O’Brien did a deal with the former Anglo Irish Bank to purchase a company called Siteserv for €45 million. This sale saw €110 million of taxpayers’ money being simply written off by the bank in a manner which raises further serious questions about the links between this controversial businessman and politicians.

But then he's big friends with Enda and Gilmore, Fianna Fail nua.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0316/breaking10.html

So government interference is actually bad, eh?

Canvasser

Icepick wrote: »

So government interference is actually bad, eh?

When it's a FF or FG government then it usually is

Cheerful Spring

The super rich own everything, so the only way you can change something is by a revolution. People their living standards today aren't as bad as centuries ago. People will just take it today unfortunately and not speak up. Only when is so bad nobody can even afford to eat will the super rich be at risk of losing everything.

2% of our population own everything and the other 98% fight for the scraps. If that isn't a messed up world i don't know what is.

Cheerful Spring

halkar wrote: »

You need to look at the other side of the coin also. Most of those super rich provides jobs. People working in these jobs pays taxes too. Rich also pays a lot of taxes while maintaining their super rich life. Average Joe buys Toyota corrolla where super rich buys Bugatti. How many toyotos you have to sell to get the same tax on a bugatti? List can grow with properties, vat receipts etc etc. In short rich contributes to society too.

Super rich are super rich because they don't care about jobs. If they cared jobs wouldn't be moving from one country to the next. The care about making money thats why their super rich. They also avoid taxes the majority of the super rich. Just look at Romney ( a wealthy billionaire businessman) who is unable to produce 5 years of tax returns. This going to be a major issue coming election debate time.

Icepick

Canvasser wrote: »

When it's a FF or FG government then it usually is

classic cause & effect confusion

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

2% of our population own everything and the other 98% fight for the scraps. If that isn't a messed up world i don't know what is.

You are again spreading the silly idea that wealth is limited and can only be shared and not increased.

Denerick

Icepick wrote: »

You are again spreading the silly idea that wealth is limited and can only be shared and not increased.

I'm sick of these supposed 'gotcha' argument. Few people (Except maybe the odd Marxist here or there) would suggest that wealth is 'limited', as you mean it. Rather the prevailing economic orthodoxy of today is that increasing the size of the pie but doling out reduced portions to most people will still mean that most people will get more pie. This is simply untrue. You can increase the size of the pie and increase the size of the portions concurrently. All it takes is humane policy making on an international scale along with proper national regulation of business and general exploitation that often gets confused with entrepreneurship. You're going to have to try harder to make us sympathise with the poor plutocrat who has to deal with ungrateful peasants.

Channel Zero

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's impossible to debate coherently about an issue that economists, advisors, experts, etc have been going over in much more depth for decades - we're not going to come up with some cut-and-dried solution on an internet forum

If someone walked into a school classroom of 8 year old children and sat down and explained to them in simple language about this issue, then asked them for solutions; between them they'd be able to work out what to do in minutes.
It's not rocket science.

Anyway will leave these here in case anyone saw just part 1 of the interview with the lead author of the report.

Part 2: link
Part 3: link

Icepick

Denerick wrote: »

I'm sick of these supposed 'gotcha' argument. Few people (Except maybe the odd Marxist here or there) would suggest that wealth is 'limited', as you mean it. Rather the prevailing economic orthodoxy of today is that increasing the size of the pie but doling out reduced portions to most people will still mean that most people will get more pie. This is simply untrue. You can increase the size of the pie and increase the size of the portions concurrently. All it takes is humane policy making on an international scale along with proper national regulation of business and general exploitation that often gets confused with entrepreneurship. You're going to have to try harder to make us sympathise with the poor plutocrat who has to deal with ungrateful peasants.

Who decides who deserves what share of the pie?

Good loser

Denerick wrote: »

I'm sick of these supposed 'gotcha' argument. Few people (Except maybe the odd Marxist here or there) would suggest that wealth is 'limited', as you mean it. Rather the prevailing economic orthodoxy of today is that increasing the size of the pie but doling out reduced portions to most people will still mean that most people will get more pie. This is simply untrue. You can increase the size of the pie and increase the size of the portions concurrently. All it takes is humane policy making on an international scale along with proper national regulation of business and general exploitation that often gets confused with entrepreneurship. You're going to have to try harder to make us sympathise with the poor plutocrat who has to deal with ungrateful peasants.

The problem is a lot less simple than you make out.

Money/wealth can be easily transferred across international boundaries.

Generally countries are free, independent entities that decide and control their individual tax policies. It is in each country's interest to have as many 'super-rich' as possible living within its territory; if they don't get a lot off them at least they will get a little. It is much easier for small countries to have benign tax policies for the super rich as these policies will have less beggar-my-neighbour visibility; large countries are less nimble and more ponderous in introducing changes.

As for Ireland 'taking on the super-rich' (non defined); that's a joke. Half our super rich dissappeared in the last five years. The other half are tax exiles and would become full exiles if chased hard enough. Realistically it is only possible for the large countries to chase the super rich as they have political muscle and economic leverage. Such as the Germans who paid bribes to get the names of tax dodgers in Switzerland; the US for years are pressing the Swiss authorities for help with cornering their super rich. Must remember many of the s rich are drug criminals or dictators/presidents (ex and current) who won't readily part with their loot.

As I said in an earlier post 'I wouldn't be arsed'.