At least £21tn in being hidden in global tax havens

Pottler

Boards.ie: "Rabble, Rabble, Tax, Rabble, theft, rabble, rabble".
Rich chappie with dosh in tax haven: "Riiight... Feck off Pleb."

Chucky the tree

joseph brand wrote: »

Eh what?
Americans pay very little tax (about 20% i think). The wealthy pay even less. Romney paid 14% tax and he's worth about 250 million.

The banks caused this mess, along with some very wealthy criminals. Still, I see miidle class and working class go toe to toe. The middle class in the US is under threat.

A high tax system in Ireland would not be wanted by the Irish people.

joseph brand

goose2005 wrote: »

badbeatcentral wrote: »

'hiding'? like it's under a rock on some beach in the caymans? The super rich protecting their wealth in a prudent legal manner seems pretty standard and to be expected, of course in a global recession money is going to flood to the tax havens.

If it's legal, it's usually because these are the same people who write the laws and can afford the best accountants and best lawyers. And a lot of offshore cash is illegal/semi-legal money from former USSR, Middle East, or other dictatorships where embezzling the government is easy.

DB21 wrote: »

And? Are people not supposed to have money? Would you have us live in a communist world? It works fine in theory, but in practice (USSR, China) it leads to dictatorships.

I don't think those are our only options. And even "in theory" communism's not so great.

bluewolf wrote: »

the world has just located a load of privately earned wealth that the rest of us can plunder. hurray! now we don't need to worry about fcuking up the country and giving the politicans high salaries and expenses because anyone who earns their money themselves can just be robbed. great plan.

LOL @ "earned". How much oil did Roman Abramovich pump himself? The vast majority of the super-rich get that way with connections, inheritance, corruption, monopolies, or outright theft.

Or Dennis o Brien. Just a hard working man. Not a scumbag. No brown envelopes. A humanitarian.

How did the royal family of invaders acquire their wealth? It wasn't through good business.

The Vatican also has a rather large Swiss bank account. F*ck the poor and the needy.

woodoo

Brynn Silly Bongo wrote: »

Fair play to them.

Are you on the dole or a student?

K-9

woodoo wrote: »

Are you on the dole or a student?

I thought that would be thrown at those saying this is a bad thing! AH has changed.

titan18

panda100 wrote: »

They should pay the same tax rates that are inflicted on all of us. Why on earth should there be one rule for the rich and another for us plebs? Its very unfair and unjust.

Aye, they should pay the same, not more.

Shryke wrote: »

You're talking about two complete opposites of the scale and ignoring everything in between, not least the notion that anyone with a lot of money must have worked very hard for it, not that there aren't those that do.
Most people don't choose to be on welfare and the majority of the population aren't on welfare. They work and they all contribute to society, that's what paying tax is. Its not just a dole fund.
The rich should be paying higher tax. They're still rich afterward, just a bit less rich, and that's all the damage that is done for the betterment of state funds, funds that go toward things like health, education, transport and infrastructure, you get the idea.

Most people don't choose to be on welfare, but unfortunately there are some who do. Likewise, whilst not all public servants are ****, some are. I dont really see why someone who has been successful and worked hard throughout his career in order to make the money, should have to pay more than someone else. Equal taxes I agree on, not more though

Thing is aswell that whilst the super rich will still probably get away if the taxes are raised, the people who arent super rich but earn a lot won't. For the super rich too, they probably use very little state services and the only thing they probably care about are the roads. It's not like they'd ever need public healthcare, schools, transport etc so why should they pay a larger percentage of their income for it.


Fwiw, I'm a student, and I dont really see why if I work hard when I'm working and start to earn a lot, that I should be taxed more for being successful.

Shryke

Titan the last part of your post is really terrible and I hope you're messing.

Son Of A Vidic

bluewolf wrote: »

the world has just located a load of privately earned wealth that the rest of us can plunder.

No not plunder, just merely get the correct and long overdue amount of tax that's owing on it. But since they decide to hide these funds in tax havens for duplicitous reasons. Then yes, if possibly, let's fleece the bástards.

Chucky the tree

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

No not plunder, just merely get the correct and long overdue amount of tax that's owing on it. But since they decide to hide these funds in tax havens for duplicitous reasons. Then yes, if possibly, let's fleece the bástards.

Countries should be allowed set there own tax rates, if people don't like it then tough.

sock puppet

squod wrote: »

Speculators create 0 jobs. Plenty of them are super rich.

I'd be interested to hear how speculation has absolutely no economic benefit.

goose2005

goose2005 wrote: »

The vast majority of the super-rich get that way with connections, inheritance, corruption, monopolies, or outright theft.

Sounds like politicians you're describing there

token101

bluewolf wrote: »

Sounds like politicians you're describing there

Sure half the Arab Sheikhs, Russian Oligarchs and the Chinese tycoons are politicians!

bnt

All you folks saying "tax it, tax it" are missing an important point: most countries do not have a wealth tax, and aren't likely to start one. They have an income tax, which taxes the amount of money earned that year but does not touch stored wealth. Tax on Capital Gains is the same: it's a tax on the gains, not on the capital itself.

There have been calls for a wealth tax on assets to be started in Ireland e.g. this piece late last year. A true wealth tax is politically controversial, to put it politely, and probably wouldn't get many votes here, in my opinion. France just increased theirs drastically, since they have a new Socialist government. Depending on who you talk to, it may already have cost France dearly.

Piste

How exactly are people not paying income tax and storing it abroad?

squod

sock puppet wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear how speculation has absolutely no economic benefit.

If that's what you believe then google it for yourself.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL

The super rich are paying a lower % of tax on thier income than the rest of us. That means we are subsidising them

I've pointed out that the super rich make money on shuffling paper around. The fortunes the bond holders are making on Eurozone loans aren't generating wealth for anyone else.

They aren't investing, that money will move very quickly if there is a better offer.

When individuals hold more wealth than 100,000,000 people in the richest nation on earth it's obscene.

They may be paying a lower % but in nominal terms, they pay over half the tax intake in Ireland, even with moving money abroad.

The fortunes of the bond holders? You realise the main holders of these bonds are pension funds and low risk mutual funds.. Ie. You and me. I really can't emphasise this enough.. People who have a pension are bond holders.
The returns don't come near to the hedge fund industry apart for some low risk investments to balance out the riskier ones.

I agree with the last point but it's very very rare.. Even the richest bankers in the world (fund managers etc.) aren't obscenely rich. They make alot if they're good at investing non-rich peoples money. There are obviously insanely rich people but that's capitalism.

I used do the accounts of hedge funds and saw all this on a daily basis.. The fund could be worth a billion dollars but that's 1,000s of people's investments in the fund.

squod wrote: »

Speculators create 0 jobs. Plenty of them are super rich.

Speculators invest other peoples money and take a %.. If they invest their own money, what's the problem? They got it from somewhere.
Speculation is pretty damn important to an economy if it's done in a regulated manner. They provide the capital to new businesses in the same way a bank does. And the money they use has usually been taxed in some way beforehand.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

They may be paying a lower % but in nominal terms, they pay over half the tax intake in Ireland, even with moving money abroad.

Rich is not super-rich

Don't lump all the top rate PAYE payers in with the super-rich. Yes the top 10% might pay half, but the top 0.1 % or even 1 % pay a disproportionately low share relative to their income.

During the 1978 top rate of tax (PRSI + PAYE + Levy's) was over 70% and over 70% of total tax receipts (excise + motor tax + VAT + corporation +CGT +PAYE+self employed) was from PAYE alone.

Lots of examples of people paying ZERO tax.

http://www.finfacts.ie/biz10/irishtaxpayeselfemployedhighearners.htm

The Revenue has revealed that it estimates that tax breaks available to high earners are costing €8.3bn each year. The figures relate to 28 generous relief schemes provided by the Government including investments in hotels and holiday homes. However, the Revenue has not provided estimates of the cost of a further 33 tax breaks, including the exemption for stallion fees, donations to third level institutions and income from foreign trusts.

In October, it was revealed that 41 single and married people with incomes in excess of €500,000, paid no tax in 2001. Eleven of the 41 declared incomes of over €1m for tax purposes, and yet had a zero liability to tax.

On November 10, 2004, Frank Daly, Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners told an Oireachtas committee that up to 40 Irish individuals who claim to be domiciled abroad for tax purposes, are being monitored. Zero contributions are made to the cost of public services despite frequent visits here. Each is worth more than €50 million. Daly said that a further 250 individuals who are in the super-rich league are being monitored.

Speculators invest other peoples money and take a %.. If they invest their own money, what's the problem? They got it from somewhere.
Speculation is pretty damn important to an economy if it's done in a regulated manner. They provide the capital to new businesses in the same way a bank does. And the money they use has usually been taxed in some way beforehand.

again LOL

we are not talking about people who are rich in the conventional sense, I'm talking about people so rich they can manipulate the market. So they aren't even speculators in the true sense of the word.



and besides how much tax do currency speculators pay ?

they certainly don't pay DIRT (35%) or CGT (25%) that you or I would pay on the same transactions, otherwise the eurozone crisis would be sorted out by taxing the profits




Perhaps you've heard of the old scam where instead of getting taxed on a lump sum you make on an investment you deposit it in an offshore account and take a loan of your own money. The best bit is not that you pay no tax on the lump sum, it's that you are entitled to write the interest you pay your self off against tax.

That's fine and true but I'm trying to get across the fact that the 21tr is made up of perfectly normal stuff which the article ignores.

The average joe reads it and thinks 21tr has been stolen by super rich people and it's annoying.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

That's fine and true but I'm trying to get across the fact that the 21tr is made up of perfectly normal stuff which the article ignores.

The average joe reads it and thinks 21tr has been stolen by super rich people and it's annoying.

Perhaps you should read the article that the BBC site links to http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/The_Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_Presser_120722.pdf

The!number!of!the!global!superLrich!who!have!amassed!a!$21!
trillion! offshore! fortune!is!fewer! than! 10! million! people.! Of!
these,!less!than!100,000!people!worldwide!own!$9.8!trillion!of!
wealth!held!offshore.!
...
If!this! unreported! $21L32! trillion,! conservatively! estimated,!
earned!a!modest!rate!of!return!of!just!3%,!and!that!income!was!
taxed! at! just! 30%,! this! would! have! generated! income! tax!
revenues!of!between!$190L280!bn!
...
For! our! focus! subgroup! of! 139! mostly! lowLmiddle! income!
countries,! traditional! data! shows! aggregate! external!debts! of!
$4.1!tn!at!the!end!of!2010.!But!take!their!foreign!reserves!and!
unrecorded! offshore! private! wealth! into! account,!and!the!
picture! reverses:! they! had! aggregate! net! debts! of!minus!
US$10.1013.1!tn.!In!other!words,!these!countries!are!big!net!
creditors,!not!debtors.!Unfortunately,!their!assets!are!held!by!
a!few!wealthy!individuals,!while!their!debts!are!shouldered!by!
their!ordinary!people!through!their!governments.!!!

By not paying tax on the interest their capital has grown substantially
if you assume they are getting 6% ( Loans to EU governments) then the doubling time for their money is every 12 years.
In comparison over the same 12 years the value of the assets of most normal individuals and countries have reverted back to where they were 12 years ago.
OK it's a very crude example but it shows how the wealth is transferred by a steady and incidious one way flow of money - by attracting interest without paying tax.

Of course it now means the super-rich can purchase those discounted assets with the big pile of money they've saved up, lining up another round of wealth transfer.

Blowfish

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I've pointed out that the super rich make money on shuffling paper around. The fortunes the bond holders are making on Eurozone loans aren't generating wealth for anyone else.

You mean aside from the fact that money borrowed through bonds are used to fund government deficits and pay for public services?

Deleted User wrote: »

That's fine and true but I'm trying to get across the fact that the 21tr is made up of perfectly normal stuff which the article ignores.

The average joe reads it and thinks 21tr has been stolen by super rich people and it's annoying.

Indeed, plus it portrays it as if the 21tn is just sitting in random vaults somewhere doing nothing in particular, rather than being either loaned back out or invested elsewhere.

Scioch

Blowfish wrote: »

You mean aside from the fact that money borrowed through bonds are used to fund government deficits and pay for public services?

So perhaps the tax payer could get the same deal ? Instead of paying tax to support services just loan the money to the state.

Indeed, plus it portrays it as if the 21tn is just sitting in random vaults somewhere doing nothing in particular, rather than being either loaned back out or invested elsewhere.

No it clearly portrays it as 21tn being shifted out of reach to avoid being taxed on it. Tax which would make a "significant difference to the finances of many countries". Whether its loaned back or invested is irrelevant. I cant decide I dont want to pay tax and loan out my money and claim its all fine, I'm contributing. I wouldnt be contributing to anything other than my own financial interests. Meanwhile others have to pay for that service and the interest on the loans to cover the shortfall which is borrowed from me. Its absolutely ridiculous to claim thats contributing, its nothing but exploiting loopholes to profit from the forced contributions of others.

Blowfish

LordSmeg wrote: »

So perhaps the tax payer could get the same deal ? Instead of paying tax to support services just loan the money to the state.

Or, how about we stop states from borrowing in the first place? Reduce their outgoings and reduce tax on everyone. By what people are saying here, this would benefit the low/middle income earners the most.

Scioch

Blowfish wrote: »

Or, how about we stop states from borrowing in the first place? Reduce their outgoings and reduce tax on everyone. By what people are saying here, this would benefit the low/middle income earners the most.

So roll back the standard of living for the people dependant on public service to protect the wealth of the super rich ?

How about we stop people putting their private wealth beyond the reach of the revenue and force them to contribute in the same manner everyone else does ?

Chucky the tree

LordSmeg wrote: »

How about we stop people putting their private wealth beyond the reach of the revenue and force them to contribute in the same manner everyone else does ?

How?

Scioch

Chucky the tree wrote: »

How?

I'm not exactly sure, I'm not well versed on the workings of tax havens or how this can be tackled.

But it should be something to be seriously looked at. Certainly not written off as if those who put their money beyond reach are doing us a favour by loaning it back to us and everything is hunky dory. These people/fund/groups are effectively putting their money beyond where it can contribute and using it to siphon wealth out of society. Thats not contributing to society its exploiting society.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

no society is trying to exploit them by taking a horribly unfair amount of money from them for no good reason

they already pay far more in tax than everybody else, society has no right to demand more of them.

Scioch

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

no society is trying to exploit them by taking a horribly unfair amount of money from them for no good reason

they already pay far more in tax than everybody else, society has no right to demand more of them.

Society trying to exploit people by seeking a contribution in proportion to what you get out of it. Did ya ever hear such utter fcukin rubbish ?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

what do they get out of society?

i'd imagine they have private health insurance and probably send their children to private schools. they use public roads, they avail of the legal system but have the money to pay for their own counsel, they spend far more than the average person so spend far more in sales tax, their tax spend in terms of money also likely dwarfs the average person whatever nonsense you want to bleat about "proportionality". They put far more money in to society than they take out and that's before you get into the charity donations and various causes rich people are famous for with their charity dinners and bored trophy wives needing something to do.
You're just jealous that they have all this money and want them to suffer for it, it's pathetic.

Capt'n Midnight

LordSmeg wrote: »

So perhaps the tax payer could get the same deal ? Instead of paying tax to support services just loan the money to the state.

If you take into account the DIRT the government would claw back it would be cheaper for them to offer us an interest rate of 10% Gross than get funds from the market.

Since the bondholders have not been burnt they are getting back a return that doesn't match their risk.



Perhaps what should have been done is to offer the bond holders a guarantee that their bonds would be paid but at a lower interest rate that reflects the guarantee this would have freed up additional funds. Of course the bondholders could reject the offer if they didn't want the guarantee.

The pension fund arguments don't hold water here, because if the state runs out of money services would have to be paid out of your pension.

Blowfish

LordSmeg wrote: »

Society trying to exploit people by seeking a contribution in proportion to what you get out of it. Did ya ever hear such utter fcukin rubbish ?

How is it in proportion to what you get out? The super rich don't use thousands of times the social resources that everyone else does, yet that's what people want them to pay.

Scioch

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

what do they get out of society?

i'd imagine they have private health insurance and probably send their children to private schools. they use public roads, they avail of the legal system but have the money to pay for their own counsel, they spend far more than the average person so spend far more in sales tax, their tax spend in terms of money also likely dwarfs the average person whatever nonsense you want to bleat about "proportionality". They put far more money in to society than they take out and that's before you get into the charity donations and various causes rich people are famous for with their charity dinners and bored trophy wives needing something to do.
You're just jealous that they have all this money and want them to suffer for it, it's pathetic.

What do they get out of society ? Your joking right ? Without society they have no wealth, they have no luxury, they have nobody to generate the wealth that keeps them in their positions. Without society they are the same as we are without society. The state props up and runs that society and in doing so protects their interests.

What more do they put in than they get out ? They live lives like the kings of old. They are the most privileged and well taken care of people to ever walk this earth. And a few charity dinners pays for that does it ? If Joe Soap is paying x% of his wealth to live at standard he lives at then how in the hell is it exploitation to ask someone else to pay x% of their wealth to live at a standard a million miles above him ??

Scioch

Blowfish wrote: »

How is it in proportion to what you get out? The super rich don't use thousands of times the social resources that everyone else does, yet that's what people want them to pay.

You pay for what society provides you. And society provides more than just resources for people. They get out a life of privilege and luxury, they should be paying the same proportion of their wealth as someone who doesnt. At the moment people who live at a lower standard have to pay more of their wealth to do that.

Edit. And the fact they dont use thousands of times the resources while having thousands of times the wealth actually means the wealth in their hands is less contributory to a society that is powered by consumption. So they are not contributing more to society at all, yet still dont pay the same % of what they have for its betterment. It really is a mass of people at the bottom existing to provide for those at the top. Who think they are entitled to it all simple because they have found a way to take it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i have no objection to people being taxed at the same rate regardless of how much money they make, i'm arguing against the rich being taxed at unfairly high rates just because they have the cheek to have money.

Capt'n Midnight

Blowfish wrote: »

You mean aside from the fact that money borrowed through bonds are used to fund government deficits and pay for public services?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-22/s-and-p-500-futures-euro-drop-on-growth-concern-corn-hits-record

Germany’s two-year note yield was below zero for the 12th consecutive day and Spain’s 10-year yields surged 22 basis points to 7.49 percent

7.49% over 10 years is 2.059 , double

Unless the bondholders for Spanish debt face a very real chance of loosing money they'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

For Germany it's a no brainer , lots of the super rich may be able to attract low interest rates.

Interest rates are so low now that storing oil in unused supertankers is nearly economic. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47949242/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/supertanker-sea-storage-looms-oil-prices-fall/
The word for today is contango
Just another example of how the super-rich don't have to worry about the market when they can manipulate it.

And in the past when speculators have tired to corner the market it's win for them if they win and losses for us when it goes pear-shaped. If you want to talk about pension funds and govt, borrowing remember they get hit both ways.

And they don't like people joining the club as the Quinn's and Lloyds names have shown.

Blowfish

LordSmeg wrote: »

It doesnt make sense to me to force someone with less to give more of what they have, it should be equal. And if you earn enough to live a life of luxury then fair play, well done. But trying to protect it at the expense of the living standard of those below you is contemptible to say the least.]

So why not just not take the 100 in the first place? Or take less so you aren't taking money from those that need it?

Scioch

Blowfish wrote: »

So why not just not take the 100 in the first place? Or take less so you aren't taking money from those that need it?

To take none your talking about demolishing the state entirely right ? Cant pay for anything in regards to the state if you dont tax people.

If you take less you are still taking more from one person than you are from the other.

As things exists now taxes have to be paid, people have to contribute to the running of that state to protect society as a whole. Services are needed, regulation is needed, peoples rights have to be protected.

So I see no need to dismantle the entire system to protect inequality. Inequality is the problem.

Piste

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

i have no objection to people being taxed at the same rate regardless of how much money they make, i'm arguing against the rich being taxed at unfairly high rates just because they have the cheek to have money.

Isn't that exactly what we do with having a higher and lower tax band though?

Scioch

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

i have no objection to people being taxed at the same rate regardless of how much money they make, i'm arguing against the rich being taxed at unfairly high rates just because they have the cheek to have money.

I've confused things here by saying income. I meant proportion of wealth, sorry.

In regards to average Joe who has his money in the BOI he's taxed on his private wealth right ? In regards to the people in question they have avoided that. So they dont pay the same amount of their wealth as average Joe Schmoe does.

golden lane

why is the governments not taxing these people ( ie. leaving loopholes)...if the money is made in ireland, then the irish government should tax it......never mind where the people wish to live....

money that is part of a countries economy....should be taxed in that economy....

when the have paid their due taxes....they can have as much as they like....nobody elses business.....

Capt'n Midnight

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

i have no objection to people being taxed at the same rate regardless of how much money they make, i'm arguing against the rich being taxed at unfairly high rates just because they have the cheek to have money.

What are you talking about ?

This is not about the employee who is on a marginal rate of over 52% by the time you include all deductions. Few if any could be called really rich.

To be blunt 52% is not an unfairly high rate because that's what the vast majority of us would be expected to pay when we hit a fraction ( ~ €36,000 pa ) of their income.

This is about the guys who can claim back VAT on purchases, invest in tax write offs, use offshore accounts, claim non-residency, who can use brown envelopes to get the right decision, who get massive stock options and tax efficient perks and bonuses.

It's stuff like joe soap has to pay BIK on a company car, but if the Directors have a car pool they don't ( by a strange coincidence each director can take the same car each time ) but on a more massive scale.



Unless you can show that a significant number of the people on Ireland's rich list pay anything like 50% of their income in tax then you'll have to accept that they are being subsidised by the PAYE sector.



The super-rich can accumulate wealth because they pay lower tax rates than the average worker.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1119/1224307822609.html Just 10 out of 5,800 Irish citizens who are domiciled here but declared as non residents paid the 'tax exile levy'

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/residence.html to be non-resident you need to average 225 days abroad each year - half of which could be weekends in Newry. Add in normal rich holidays in summer and winter and you are most of the way there. Or spend the winter working in Oz.

Or if you figure out a way of getting income every second year (cf. loans to self) then you just need to spend 182 days abroad every second year.

Ellis Dee

Diego Maradona wrote: »

What's a trillion?

It's a one with three fiddy noughts after it.:):):)

Capt'n Midnight

Michael O'Leary ranting about paying over 50% tax on his €1.1m a year http://www.independent.ie/national-news/oleary-ill-quit-ireland-if-they-raise-income-tax-2853865.html

http://www.therichest.org/nation/sunday-times-richest-people-in-ireland/
on the rich list he's worth £355m (€455) so he'd have to have been saving all his nett pay since 1169 OR it's been acquired in a more tax efficient way.

Invested in a savings account here at 3% the DIRT from €455 would be over €4m a year.

Diapason

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

on the rich list he's worth £355m (€455) so he'd have to have been saving all his nett pay since 1169 OR it's been acquired in a more tax efficient way.

I'm no fan of O'Leary nor his ranting, but this isn't necessarily true. He could have made capital purchases out of after-tax earnings, and they could have accumulated in value significantly. If so, I'm sure he'll pay capital gains in full on their disposal.

(I'm sure this is what's happened. Definitely.)

Blowfish

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Michael O'Leary ranting about paying over 50% tax on his €1.1m a year http://www.independent.ie/national-news/oleary-ill-quit-ireland-if-they-raise-income-tax-2853865.html

http://www.therichest.org/nation/sunday-times-richest-people-in-ireland/
on the rich list he's worth £355m (€455) so he'd have to have been saving all his nett pay since 1169 OR it's been acquired in a more tax efficient way.

Indeed. He owned stock in Ryanair. His 'tax efficient' way of increasing his wealth was by building Ryanair from being virtually worthless to being one of the biggest airlines in Europe, which now has a market cap of 8.2Billion. The vast, vast majority of his €455 million is made up of assets, not income.

This is exactly why touting the 21Tn figure is nonsense.

Capt'n Midnight

Diapason wrote: »

He could have made capital purchases out of after-tax earnings, and they could have accumulated in value significantly. If so, I'm sure he'll pay capital gains in full on their disposal.

Like I said it's done in a more tax efficient way.

Remember that you can write off losses against income tax, so there is less downside for someone at higher rates of tax to gamble on the markets than for someone on minimum wage. Unless I'm mistaken that means a guaranteed return of at least 42% of what you invest.

Johnny Cage

squod wrote: »

Speculators create 0 jobs. Plenty of them are super rich.

This is completely wrong, Speculators are vital to an economy. Speculators on commodity futures allow producers and manufacturers to hedge against risk thus protecting their businesses which protects jobs.

Speculators investing in equity or debt allows company's to grow which creates jobs and provides new goods and services to consumers. They invest in businesses and hope to get a return. They make money if the business grows and becomes successful. These businesses provide jobs that were created due to business expansion from investment by the speculator.

The problem is when cronies use their political influence and get the state to make the taxpayers pay for there losses. Because the state has so much power it's very profitable for cronies to buy politicians and get them to enact legislation and regulations to benefit them.

If the state didn't have the power which can be bought by cronies, corporations would actually have to spend their time improving their goods and services instead of lobbying.

And all you socialists want is for the state to have more power:rolleyes:

titan18

Shryke wrote: »

Titan the last part of your post is really terrible and I hope you're messing.

?

Shryke

titan18 wrote: »

Shryke wrote: »

Titan the last part of your post is really terrible and I hope you're messing.

?

You don't think the super wealthy should contribute to society except to pay road tax. That's what you said. I can't believe you even have to ask for gods sake.
I'm writing this off as a piss take. You got me.

squod

Johnny Cage wrote: »

And all you socialists want is for the state to have more power:rolleyes:

All you what now? Since when am I a socialist?

Johnny Cage wrote: »

This is completely wrong, Speculators are vital to an economy. Speculators on commodity futures allow producers and manufacturers to hedge against risk thus protecting their businesses which protects jobs.

Speculators investing in equity or debt allows company's to grow which creates jobs and provides new goods and services to consumers. They invest in businesses and hope to get a return. They make money if the business grows and becomes successful. These businesses provide jobs that were created due to business expansion from investment by the speculator.

How many companies were destroyed by long term investors?:rolleyes:

Johnny Cage

squod wrote: »

All you what now? Since when am I a socialist?

I don't know if you are a socialist, Are you? That was directed at all the people who are advocating socialist policies in this thread.

How many companies were destroyed by long term investors?:rolleyes:

Please explain how long term investors destroy companies?