Tax the rich

waster81 · 13-09-2012 6:47pm

ardmacha wrote: »

Taking ever more from those who work and giving it to those who don't work is not likely to lead to a successful economy. When income taxes go much beyond 50% various factors kick in to cause people to fail to earn taxable income, which is why they don't nowadays go much beyond this point.

High earners don't pay a tax rate of 50%, their effective rate is much lower

We wouldnt have to talk about increasing tax rates of high earners if they actually paid 50%

We need a wealth tax introduced

KyussBishop · 13-09-2012 6:51pm

Welease wrote:

You provided potential tax income.. thats all..

And.. here we go again.. are you going to provide any data sources to backup that claim? If not, then the claim is an opinion and has little value..

No, I've provided substantial arguments greatly narrowing the range of high-income earners that might be leaving, in addition to other arguments around potential tax income stats.

Most income earned beyond €100k will be disposable, simply as measured in relation to the cost of living; this is in contrast to discretionary income, that covers mortgages and other debt (that's not factored into disposable income).
This doesn't need to have any stats to back it up (other than, say, looking at the general cost of living); it would need more detailed stats, if I were making the same claim about discretionary income though.

Welease wrote:

No you have provided opinion again.. not data or proof that your claim exists in reality. You want everyone else to provide data that your opinions are false.. that's not how it works.

Welease wrote:

Again, do you have any data that supports a claim that only a small number of companies would leave?

The wage data above, showing the relatively small number of people affected (and thus the relatively small number of costs for companies, relative to leaving) show this well; this data does not show it conclusively (and we can not get data to show it conclusively unless the tax is actually increased and we get data from that), but it leaves arguments for why they would leave, severely lacking.

Welease wrote:

It's not sniping.. it's requesting that you either backup your claims so we can progress the discussion or your realise and understand it's just opinion and you have proven nothing..

I have spend the bulk to 20 years putting together plans for products and ventures. Each and everytime stakeholders will ask questions to determine what we do and don't know.. It is my job to answer those questions if I aim to be successful. It has never been acceptable for me to turn around and ask them to prove I am wrong.. I would be laughed out of the building.. It also applies in this case, it's not up for other to provide data to dispute your opinion.. it is your job (if you wish to engage them successfully) to prove your point to them. Once you provide that data, then discussion can begin in earnest..

(btw.. I am trying to avoid pointless arguement and discussion here which i why i have taken the time to respond... )

Sorry I did not mean to accuse you specifically of sniping, more that this has been the tone the thread has been going down; your posts have been reasonable for the most part.

While we still disagree somewhat on where the burden of proof stands, I think cracking out stats and developing the arguments in more detail will clarify that quick enough; it's my view that the heavy limits I put on the range of jobs above, combined with lack of sufficient reason to move compared to alternatives, puts sufficient burden of proof on needing to qualify/quantify arguments for moving.
You're right though that stats should be used where possible, to give the discussion better grounding.

KyussBishop · 13-09-2012 6:56pm

Welease wrote: »

Edit to give a specific example..

If i take your figures and level of data required..

Around 800K people earn more than the industial average wage (35K).. As people can easily live on less than the average wage, we can assume this is primarily disposable income.. therefore why not expand your plan and tax anything above 35K at 90%.. which essentially would wipe out the defecit.. and lets face it.. folks on those wages definately don't have a say in where jobs are created... We all in for that? I'm guessing No.. and my point is.. I have provided essentially the same level of data as you have yet the opinion will likely now differ. Why?

The greater the disposable income is compared to the base cost of living, on average the more of it will be discretionary and thus more fair to tax than wages closer to the cost of living.

Your point on how discretionary income is important to consider in relation to mortgages/debt etc. is valid issue to consider though, and is worth looking at in more detail if stats can be found on mortgages at that income level.

KyussBishop · 13-09-2012 7:06pm

Count Dooku wrote: »

number of 275K+ earners - 10,677
amount of tax paid - 1.738Bn
http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/statistical/2010/income-distribution-statistics.pdf
Number of tax exiles - 10,686
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lobbyists-tell-noonan-to-leave-tax-exiles-alone-3216981.html

You are taking a raw figure of tax exiles, without knowing their income, and attributing them all to a minimum €275k salary; you can't do that, because you have no idea what any of them earn.

Count Dooku · 13-09-2012 7:08pm

waster81 wrote: »

Well don't see Sean fitz, drumm etc hired by any banks do you

They are bankrupts, doesn't make any sense for them take any job
Others just fine

An Irishman has been named as one of the 50 best paid executives on Wall Street after he turned down the chance to run bailed-out AIB, where salaries are capped at €500,000 a year.

Donegal-born Liam McGee is CEO of Hartford Financial Services, one of the biggest insurance and wealth-management firms in the US.

Before he joined the US firm in 2009, Mr McGee was tipped as the front-runner to manage AIB, following the nationalisation of the bank.

However, it would have meant signing up for a maximum €500,000-a-year salary and Mr McGee took the job at Hartford instead.

In contrast, his starting salary at Hartford in the US was $1.1m (€880,000) in 2009, and has since risen to $1.4m (€1.1m).

Last year, his take-home pay hit $7.9m (€6.3m), after he landed bonuses of $6.5m (€5.2m).

It was enough to see him ranked as the 39th best paid US financial services executive, according to research by Bloomberg.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/meet-the-irish-banker-who-earned-63m-after-turning-down-aib-top-job-for-500000-3130615.html

Count Dooku · 13-09-2012 7:08pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

You are taking a raw figure of tax exiles, without knowing their income, and attributing them all to a minimum €275k salary; you can't do that, because you have no idea what any of them earn.

Doesn't make any sense to be tax exile on industrial average wage

Count Dooku · 13-09-2012 7:13pm

waster81 wrote: »

Point a,b,c don't prove that if we increase tax the rich will leave

it don't have to

waster81 wrote: »

e) those that leave will be replaced so income wont decrease by your 700 million

Do you mean country full of "Michael O'Leary"?

Count Dooku · 13-09-2012 7:17pm

waster81 wrote: »

High earners don't pay a tax rate of 50%, their effective rate is much lower

We wouldnt have to talk about increasing tax rates of high earners if they actually paid 50%

Mostly due various loopholes

Ireland has higher Effective Income Tax and Social Security Rates on USD100,000 of Gross Income than Sweden and Norway with less results from public services
http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/individual-income-tax-social-security-rate-survey-September-2011.pdf

KyussBishop · 13-09-2012 7:18pm

Count Dooku wrote: »

Doesn't make any sense to be tax exile on industrial average wage

That really doesn't qualify the claim though; really would need stats specifically on exiles income to know more.

Welease · 13-09-2012 7:19pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

No, I've provided substantial arguments greatly narrowing the range of high-income earners that might be leaving, in addition to other arguments around potential tax income stats.

Most income earned beyond €100k will be disposable, simply as measured in relation to the cost of living; this is in contrast to discretionary income, that covers mortgages and other debt (that's not factored into disposable income).
This doesn't need to have any stats to back it up (other than, say, looking at the general cost of living); it would need more detailed stats, if I were making the same claim about discretionary income though..

But as per my comment.. If the average wage is 35K, then by the same logic anything above could be considered disposable.. So why not tax all above of that? (f we dont need to consider discrectionary income for high earners then would it not also be relevant to lower income earners..)

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's pretty conclusive really, that most jobs in that bracket are managerial/executive, which straight away narrows down the range of jobs:
http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/SalarySurvey.aspx?SalarySurveyID=731&BannorID=a2f5bc73&BZoneID=82&ParentID=75&CID=160
http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/SalarySurvey.aspx?SalarySurveyID=712&BannorID=a2f5bc73&BZoneID=82&ParentID=75&CID=160
http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/SalarySurvey.aspx?SalarySurveyID=727&BannorID=a2f5bc73&BZoneID=82&ParentID=75&CID=160
http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/SalarySurvey.aspx?SalarySurveyID=737&BannorID=a2f5bc73&BZoneID=82&ParentID=75&CID=160
http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/SalarySurvey.aspx?SalarySurveyID=716&BannorID=a2f5bc73&BZoneID=82&ParentID=75&CID=160
http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/SalarySurvey.aspx?SalarySurveyID=729&BannorID=a2f5bc73&BZoneID=82&ParentID=75&CID=160
http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/SalarySurvey.aspx?SalarySurveyID=739&BannorID=a2f5bc73&BZoneID=82&ParentID=75&CID=160
http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/SalarySurvey.aspx?SalarySurveyID=724&BannorID=a2f5bc73&BZoneID=82&ParentID=75&CID=160
http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/SalarySurvey.aspx?SalarySurveyID=725&BannorID=a2f5bc73&BZoneID=82&ParentID=75&CID=160
http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/SalarySurvey.aspx?SalarySurveyID=733&BannorID=a2f5bc73&BZoneID=82&ParentID=75&CID=160
http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/SalarySurvey.aspx?SalarySurveyID=736&BannorID=a2f5bc73&BZoneID=82&ParentID=75&CID=160
http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/SalarySurvey.aspx?SalarySurveyID=723&BannorID=a2f5bc73&BZoneID=82&ParentID=75&CID=160

Push the bracket up to €150k there to constrain it more, and you have only the uppermost managers/execs; with a €150k starting point especially, that even narrows down the range of jobs in finance...

True.. but that does nothing to prove the claim that those people are unlikely to move countries and take jobs with them.. It just proves the guys emptying the bins don't earn 100K+ which we knew..

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's not just opinion, there are the stats to back it up; with such heavy constraints on positions likely to be affected, and the simple fact that companies can just pay these people more instead of moving (and that that likely costs less than moving), it really does leave the burden of proof in the hands of those trying to argue it will happen on a significant enough scale, to make the tax not worthwhile....

Again, you have provided no such statistical information.. You have provided proof that the highest paid are in executive/managerial positions.. Nothing else.. Noone has disputed this fact.. Everything from that point onwards is your opinion.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Any argument people propose to try and bolster the idea that mangers affected by this, are capable of arguing that the company could be moved, will immediately fail because that means these managers have the influence to just up their salaries instead.

Incorrect.. No 100K+ manager I know (and I know plenty) sets their own salary, but they can and do decide where resources are located.

KyussBishop wrote: »

The wage data above, showing the relatively small number of people affected (and thus the relatively small number of costs for companies, relative to leaving) show this well; this data does not show it conclusively (and we can not get data to show it conclusively unless the tax is actually increased and we get data from that), but it leaves arguments for why they would leave, severely lacking..

No.. it shows that high paid positions tend to be managerial/executive etc.. noone disputes this..
It shows that in % terms its less than overall employees..noone disputes this.
It does not show any costs for staying/leaving relative or otherwise, it does not demonstrate the likelyhood or business choosing to stay or go, and it does not determine the impact (high or low) of variances to your plan if business decided to relocate as you admit can happen.. These are the issues being raised which remain unaddressed.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sorry I did not mean to accuse you specifically of sniping, more that this has been the tone the thread has been going down; your posts have been reasonable for the most part.

While we still disagree somewhat on where the burden of proof stands, I think cracking out stats and developing the arguments in more detail will clarify that quick enough; it's my view that the heavy limits I put on the range of jobs above, combined with lack of sufficient reason to move compared to alternatives, puts sufficient burden of proof on needing to qualify/quantify arguments for moving.
You're right though that stats should be used where possible, to give the discussion better grounding.

And thats I said this will go round in circles

You have provided data on types of jobs which earn high wages, and the numbers of people who earn high wages.. anything beyond that has been mere opinion with no data or facts to backup the claims.
If you can't provide data, then you really can't dispute counter claims either.. it's all opinion, and it's probably clear at this stage the differences in opinion..

Edit - Its worth noting in cost terms.. Replacing even 50K taken from a manager will cost the company 500K per year for each manager (with 90%/450K going straight to the government). That gets colossaly expensive very quickly, as is not as cheap as some would consider.

waster81 · 13-09-2012 7:20pm

Count Dooku wrote: »

They are bankrupts, doesn't make any sense for them take any job
Others just fine

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/meet-the-irish-banker-who-earned-63m-after-turning-down-aib-top-job-for-500000-3130615.html

we still got someone to become ceo of aib

waster81 · 13-09-2012 7:28pm

Count Dooku wrote: »

Mostly due various loopholes

Ireland has higher Effective Income Tax and Social Security Rates on USD100,000 of Gross Income than Sweden and Norway with less results from public services
http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/individual-income-tax-social-security-rate-survey-September-2011.pdf

and again your posting up graphs

all it does is show that those high earners aren't paying their 50% tax rate

If they did and we closed all their loopholes or ways they reduce their taxable income then we would raise more revenue and wouldnt have to introduce a higher rate

Count Dooku · 13-09-2012 7:31pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

That really doesn't qualify the claim though; really would need stats specifically on exiles income to know more.

Only after you provide reliable stats how many wealthy will stay here after increase top rate to 95%

waster81 · 13-09-2012 7:38pm

Count Dooku wrote: »

Only after you provide reliable stats how many wealthy will stay here after increase top rate to 95%

Post up your stats of how many will leave if we increase our tax rates

Count Dooku · 13-09-2012 7:52pm

waster81 wrote: »

Count Dooku wrote: »

Only after you provide reliable stats how many wealthy will stay here after increase top rate to 95%

Post up your stats of how many will leave if we increase our tax rates

I already posted a lot of graphs and stats, your turn now

waster81 · 13-09-2012 7:56pm

Count Dooku wrote: »

I already posted a lot of graphs and stats, your turn now

yeah sure we can all post up graphs none of them proved how many would leave if we increased the tax rate

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2012 8:15pm

waster81 wrote: »

yeah sure we can all post up graphs none of them proved how many would leave if we increased the tax rate

Well have you proved how many will stay, waster?

waster81 · 13-09-2012 8:18pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well have you proved how many will stay, waster?

the whole point is that people are saying if we increase rates people will be on the first plane out of the country

post up the graphs/facts whatever to prove this

Count Dooku · 13-09-2012 8:29pm

waster81 wrote: »

the whole point is that people are saying if we increase rates people will be on the first plane out of the country

post up the graphs/facts whatever to prove this

I already posted stats for Maryland, why Ireland should be different?

waster81 · 13-09-2012 8:30pm

Count Dooku wrote: »

I already posted stats for Maryland, why Ireland should be different?

Really are you been serious

Welease · 13-09-2012 8:31pm

Some rough numbers examples on costs, and the required funding to bridge the tax gap as suggested (head is fried today, so poke away at the numbers.. I'm sure some errors are there

)..

1 Dept/Small Company/Software Team

Current Costs
Executive - €160K
8 Employees - €50K per head
Total Wage bill per year - €560K

New tax Costs (90% rate over 100K)
Executive - €547 (Basic Executive - €117K & Additional Extra Cost to cover €43K shortfall - €430K (€387 in taxes to faciliate))
8 Employees - €50K per head
Total Wage bill per year - €947K

For the same wage costs (given we are already not considered a low cost wage zone).. The company could be moved elsewhere and at the same cost reconfigure to..

Executive - €160K
15 Employees - €50K per head
Total Wage Bill - €910K

Almost twice the number of employees at a saving on €37K.. PER YEAR.

Edit - Already seen that the numbers above don't allow for the difference in current rates vs extended rates (39%+ difference, so my numbers are well overcooked).. but someone else will have to do the figures.. My brain will take no more today..

The general point worth remember is.. the increased costs are in terms of multiple employee costs.. If you offered me the option of employing 3-4 more people or paying the extra tax, which would be better for the country?

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2012 8:34pm

waster81 wrote: »

the whole point is that people are saying if we increase rates people will be on the first plane out of the country

post up the graphs/facts whatever to prove this

There's a mountain of evidence here for a start. Enjoy.

I look forward to reading your evidence.

Count Dooku · 13-09-2012 8:39pm

waster81 wrote: »

we still got someone to become ceo of aib

Will work only for massively overpaid public sector or inefficient state owned companies

Count Dooku · 13-09-2012 8:46pm

waster81 wrote: »

Really are you been serious

Do you mean that in reality most of high earners are dreaming everyday how to pay high taxes?
Public sector workers should be excluded from equation because their pension depends mostly from gross pay, so high taxes wont affect and will preserve their pensions

waster81 · 13-09-2012 8:49pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There's a mountain of evidence here for a start. Enjoy.

I look forward to reading your evidence.

Just had a quick read and the majority doesnt prove that people will leave Ireland if they increase tax rate

For example it uses Ronaldo's transfer to Real Madrid to avoid the 50% tax rate - absolute rubbish and nonsense

They state rich people try and hide their income or reduce the amount that is taxable - simple close all their loopholes

There are lots of ifs,buts in our opinion, our estimates etc statements thrown in

for example

An even!more!drastic!decline
could easily occur!to!the!British!sector!under!the!right!circumstances.

Also those most likely to leave are between 25-34 this is not the age bracket that would be affected by an increase in tax

Only 7% of those over 55 were THINKING of leaving and the tax rate was only ONE of those key factors

So you should really have a read of it yourself before posting it up as concrete evidence of your argument

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2012 8:50pm

waster81 wrote: »

Just had a quick read and the majority doesnt prove that people will leave Ireland if they increase tax rate

For example it uses Ronaldo's transfer to Real Madrid to avoid the 50% tax rate - absolute rubbish and nonsense

They state rich people try and hide their income or reduce the amount that is taxable - simple close all their loopholes

There are lots of ifs,buts in our opinion, our estimates etc statements thrown in

for example

An even!more!drastic!decline
could easily occur!to!the!British!sector!under!the!right!circumstances.

Also those most likely to leave are between 25-34 this is not the age bracket that would be affected by an increase in tax

Only 7% of those over 55 were THINKING of leaving and the tax rate was only ONE of those key factors

So you should really have a read of it yourself before posting it up as concrete evidence of your argument

I disagree with your assessment. I'm impressed that you managed to read that 35 page document in 5 minutes flat.

And your evidence?

waster81 · 13-09-2012 8:51pm

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you mean that in reality most of high earners are dreaming everyday how to pay high taxes?
Public sector workers should be excluded from equation because their pension depends mostly from gross pay, so high taxes wont affect and will preserve their pensions

LOL jesus did you read the article you posted

And dont forget its a tad easier to move from state to state in the US than from country to country

waster81 · 13-09-2012 8:52pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I disagree with your assessment. I'm impressed that you managed to read that 35 page document in 5 minutes flat. And your evidence?

It wasnt my assessment I just quoted elements from the document you provided

Still waiting for your evidence there was none in that document

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2012 8:52pm

waster81 wrote: »

LOL jesus

Indeed.

christmas2012 · 13-09-2012 8:53pm

Point a,b,c don't prove that if we increase tax the rich will leave

We should have some sort of way to discourage the rich from leaving purely to evade tax,by making it harder on them to leave,ie a leaving tax..

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2012 8:53pm

waster81 wrote: »

Said quick read and those points popped out

So you didn't read the document I provided?

waster81 wrote: »

Still waiting for your evidence there was none in that document

I provided evidence, you didn't read it.

Now where is your evidence?

waster81 · 13-09-2012 8:58pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So you didn't read the document I provided?

I provided evidence, you didn't read it.

Now where is your evidence?

I demonstrated through an example that they quoted as EVIDENCE of people leaving the country because of tax rates

They provided Ronaldo leaving for Real Madrid as proof - If they can get such a basic element incorrect then all their other "arguments" can not be relied upon

Add to that that only 7% of over 55 are THINKING of leaving and that the tax rate is only one element of their reasoning

waster81 · 13-09-2012 8:58pm

And the other maryland article

Neil Bergsman, director of the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute, said while a number of people left the state between 2007 and 2010, others moved in. The net loss, he said, is “very small,” he said.

What’s more, he points out that the wealthy usually move because of a job change, life change or retirement rather than taxes.

“There is no evidence that tax structures are a significant determinant in their location choices,” Bergsman said.

waster81 · 13-09-2012 9:00pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So you didn't read the document I provided?

I provided evidence, you didn't read it.

Now where is your evidence?

Well you haven't read it otherwise you would have seen the points I quoted and you surely could realise that I had read it,

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2012 9:01pm

waster81 wrote: »

I demonstrated through an example that they quoted as EVIDENCE of people leaving the country because of tax rates

You picked out a couple of lines from a 35 page document that you disagreed with.

waster81 wrote: »

They provided Ronaldo leaving for Real Madrid as proof - If they can get such a basic element incorrect then all their other "arguments" can not be relied upon

Can you please provide proof that the tax differential was not a factor in Ronaldo's leaving of Man U?

waster81 wrote: »

Add to that that only 7% of over 55 are THINKING of leaving and that the tax rate is only one element of their reasoning

Yes. It may have escaped your notice that this is referring to a country with a 50% tax regime, not a 75% or 90% or whatever regime.

Where is your evidence? You keep demanding it from others and providing none yourself.

Count Dooku · 13-09-2012 9:04pm

waster81 wrote: »

And dont forget its a tad easier to move from state to state in the US than from country to country

Do you mean that it will cultural shock for somebody to move from Ireland to UK?

Count Dooku · 13-09-2012 9:06pm

waster81 wrote: »

And the other maryland article

Neil Bergsman, director of the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute, said while a number of people left the state between 2007 and 2010, others moved in. The net loss, he said, is “very small,” he said.

i.e. Maryland didn't gain anything because it was net loss

waster81 wrote: »

“There is no evidence that tax structures are a significant determinant in their location choices,” Bergsman said.

Did he show any other evidence why they left?

waster81 · 13-09-2012 9:08pm

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you mean that it will cultural shock for somebody to move from Ireland to UK?

Eh the states is a far larger country so there are more opportunities for employment, has the same currency etc.

By only quoting the UK you are narrowing your options to one other country

Trying to equate somebody moving from state to state with those from ireland to the uk - you would need to broaden your are try western europe - would you think its as easy to move from ireland to germany,spain france as it is for those moving from state to state

waster81 · 13-09-2012 9:10pm

Count Dooku wrote: »

i.e. Maryland didn't gain anything because it was net loss

Did he show any other evidence why they left?

It was "small" not the large figures you tried to throw around earlier on in relation to Ireland ran into hundreds of millions I think.

There are many reasons why people might leave surely you could think of a few!

waster81 · 13-09-2012 9:14pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You picked out a couple of lines from a 35 page document that you disagreed with.

Can you please provide proof that the tax differential was not a factor in Ronaldo's leaving of Man U?

Yes. It may have escaped your notice that this is referring to a country with a 50% tax regime, not a 75% or 90% or whatever regime.

Where is your evidence? You keep demanding it from others and providing none yourself.

I picked out lines that demonstrated the article couldn't be 100% relied upon - anything that comes from it is like fruit from the poisonous tree

Pick out the lines that actually indicate the people who left a country because of a large increase in tax and that people didn't replace them

Really won't even respond to the Ronaldo line - clearly you have no idea what went on re the transfer

Icepick · 13-09-2012 9:15pm

waster81 wrote: »

It was "small" not the large figures you tried to throw around earlier on in relation to Ireland ran into hundreds of millions I think.

There are many reasons why people might leave surely you could think of a few!

How is a loss good even if it is small? I thought the goal was to collect more, but it seems you just want to punish them.

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2012 9:16pm

waster81 wrote: »

I picked out lines that demonstrated the article couldn't be 100% relied upon - anything that comes from it is like fruit from the poisonous tree

You picked out some lines you disagreed with...with no evidence to show that those lines were wrong. Can you prove that high taxes were not a factor in Ronaldo leaving the UK?

waster81 wrote: »

Pick out the lines that actually indicate the people who left a country because of a large increase in tax and that people didn't replace them

I'm done pandering to your demands for evidence until you start providing some.

waster81 wrote: »

Really won't even respond to the Ronaldo line - clearly you have no idea what went on re the transfer

So you have no evidence to back up that argument either? Good idea to not respond so, I guess. You might look foolish.

waster81 · 13-09-2012 9:18pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You picked out some lines you disagreed with...with no evidence to show that those lines were wrong. Can you prove that high taxes were not a factor in Ronaldo leaving the UK?

I'm done pandering to your demands for evidence until you start providing some.

So you have no evidence to back up that argument either? Good idea to not respond so, I guess. You might look foolish.

You have provided nothing

You can't even provide a quote from your own "evidence"

The actual reference to Ronaldo

x
For example, star player Christiano
Ronaldo is said to have moved from Manchester United to Real Madrid in 2009 to avoid the announced
50% tax in the U.K

No mention of it being a "small" factor as you would have us believe

Count Dooku · 13-09-2012 9:19pm

waster81 wrote: »

It was "small" not the large figures you tried to throw around earlier on in relation to Ireland ran into hundreds of millions I think.

Ireland more depends from taxes from rich than Maryland.
Main problem here is that too many low paid earners pay very little of taxes

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr12265.pdf

Lorgach · 13-09-2012 9:22pm

Having a fair tax system in this country will never happen so you can argue the pros and cons of taxing the rich as much as you like ... in the end it'll make no difference.

waster81 · 13-09-2012 9:23pm

Icepick wrote: »

How is a loss good even if it is small? I thought the goal was to collect more, but it seems you just want to punish them.

There was no evidence produced that the increase in tax was the only reason these people left

quote where i said it was good

I want them to pay their share even if it was 50% id be happy with that the fact is they dont

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2012 9:23pm

waster81 wrote: »

No mention of it being a "small" factor as you would have us believe

Where did I say it was a "small" factor? Can you even provide evidence for that?

Oh yeah, I forgot - you don't do evidence, you just do bullsh!t claims.

waster81 · 13-09-2012 9:24pm

Count Dooku wrote: »

Ireland more depends from taxes from rich than Maryland.
Main problem here is that too many low paid earners pay very little of taxes

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr12265.pdf

Again another post that doesn't prove that if tax is increased the people will leave the country in droves

You do love your graphs though

waster81 · 13-09-2012 9:26pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Where did I say it was a "small" factor? Can you even provide evidence for that?

Oh yeah, I forgot - you don't do evidence, you just do bullsh!t claims.

Oh yeah attack the poster not the post really the lowest level of argument

You find any quotes from your article yet that prove what I asked

waster81 · 13-09-2012 9:27pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Where did I say it was a "small" factor? Can you even provide evidence for that?

Oh yeah, I forgot - you don't do evidence, you just do bullsh!t claims.

So you think it was a large significant factor - thats even worse

Tax the rich

Comments