Tax the rich

creedp

ShanePouch wrote: »

[ QUOTE=The Corinthian;80840726]Taxing obscene levels of income is a necessity in a World where the gap between rich and poor is widening.

The gap is not the issue. Even in years of plenty in Ireland, many invoked the gap between the rich and poor getting wider as a “bad” thing. If the rich are getting richer at a faster rate than the poor are getting “richer” then that’s a good thing, as everyone’s standard of living rises.

If a country decidesto tax the rich into leaving, the gap between the average rich person and the average poor person may well reduce, but no on can seriously claim that’s a benefit to anyone involved, nor a benefit to the overall economy.

QUOTE=The Corinthian;80840726]
To begin with there appears to be far too much emphasis on the 'super rich'. Far too often examples given are of those earning hundred of thousands of Euro, if not millions or billions and in reality the threshold for being considered 'rich' is often much lower than that.

Indeed, the 'super rich' are going to be able to avoid such taxes anyway. Residency is a bureaucratic concept for them; in reality they're out of the country much of the year anyway, so changing residency or even nationality isn't a big deal. And they've people on retainer, or staff, who's job is to decrease their tax bill, so they're going to be ahead of the curve no matter what.

[/QUOTE]

That’s a valuable point, and many of Irelands truly rich can afford good tax planning and advice which becomes more valuable the more tax they are liable to pay, and many will simply arrange their affairs to avoid paying it, even if this means they will move abroad for tax reasons. So Ireland Inc actually loses 100% of the tax they were previously paying, plus all the extra potential tax into the future.

Higher income taxes on “the rich” are more likely to be counterproductive, quite apart from reducing the incentive to work hard and make money.

It’s no coincidence one of the most successful countries in the world, the USA, has low taxes for the rich, and that many African countries are poor because taxes are so high that no one can afford to invest capital there and build factories etc.

Tax policy is more complicated than just “soak the rich”, and the ramifications for society go far beyond just they rich, many of whom will simply leave anyhow.[/QUOTE]


In summary, leave well off/well paid people alone.

The Corinthian

creedp wrote: »

In summary, leave well off/well paid people alone.

It's a summary; just not of what was written.

ShanePouch

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's a summary; just not of what was written.

If a poster cant even try to muster an argument, and misinterpret someone else's position, it's generally pointless to respond to them. I agree that creedp does not summarise what I have said, nor doe he summarise my position. :rolleyes:

Godge

ShanePouch wrote: »

Can you tell us some countries around the world who have done this who you admire, and what the ultimate outcome was for their tax take?

What if, as has happened elsewhere, the higher income taxes result in a lower tax take precisely because many of the higher paid leave the economy?

The higher paid are usually those responsible for employing others, by the way, and it's also known as the "brain drain".

Your proposals have not been thought through, and are merely copies of the old socialist policies of envy, where "the rich" are responsible for everything, and the must be made pay even it it means they are chased from the country, taking their riches with them which may include factories and businessess and investments in ireland.

There is one country who has tried this - Zimbabwe. They taxed the rich wealthy farmers, confiscated most of their land and created an equal society. They also put stringent taxes on business. The result was that everyone was equally impoverished and the country is now a basket-case.

Belfast

Depends on who you think the rich are.#
how high an income do you need to have to be classed as rich?

Godge

Belfast wrote: »

Depends on who you think the rich are.#
how high an income do you need to have to be classed as rich?

Simple answer, more than I earn, everyone else would say the same.

Markcheese

From where I stand the rich are usually on welfare or on pensions... But then I'm low on the ladder.... So tax everyone above me ....... Or not ....

The Tree of Liberty

Markcheese wrote: »

From where I stand the rich are usually on welfare or on pensions... But then I'm low on the ladder.... So tax everyone above me ....... Or not ....

That is most peoples definition of rich, anyone earning 10 or 20 grand more than they are. I honestly believe though that a lot of those saying people on €70 or €80K are rich are students who have yet to get there and don't realise than all it gives you after tax is a comfortable home, a slightly nicer car and a means not to struggle too much trying to educate your family.

KyussBishop

ShanePouch wrote: »

Can you tell us some countries around the world who have done this who you admire, and what the ultimate outcome was for their tax take?

What if, as has happened elsewhere, the higher income taxes result in a lower tax take precisely because many of the higher paid leave the economy?

The higher paid are usually those responsible for employing others, by the way, and it's also known as the "brain drain".

Your proposals have not been thought through, and are merely copies of the old socialist policies of envy, where "the rich" are responsible for everything, and the must be made pay even it it means they are chased from the country, taking their riches with them which may include factories and businessess and investments in ireland.

No that's your ridiculous projection of motives onto me, accusing me of begrudgery as the reason for wanting to tax 'the rich', when I specifically said it's about tackling high earners (not synonymous with rich) only as a wider sociological issue; I've spent a lot of time in circuler arguments over this topic lately in other threads, so I'm not about to engage with this when straight away your projecting that crap as my attitude to this, as it immediately limits my impression of honest discussion.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Taxing obscene levels of income is a necessity in a World where the gap between rich and poor is widening. However there is a price to this that seems to be largely overlooked here.

To begin with there appears to be far too much emphasis on the 'super rich'. Far too often examples given are of those earning hundred of thousands of Euro, if not millions or billions and in reality the threshold for being considered 'rich' is often much lower than that.

Indeed, the 'super rich' are going to be able to avoid such taxes anyway. Residency is a bureaucratic concept for them; in reality they're out of the country much of the year anyway, so changing residency or even nationality isn't a big deal. And they've people on retainer, or staff, who's job is to decrease their tax bill, so they're going to be ahead of the curve no matter what

This is not an excuse for not tackling the problem in the first place though; if it requires an international effort to properly clamp down on this, then that is what needs to be undertaken.

It may not be a realistic possibility right now, but discussion on the issue of international tax evasion has to be undertaken first, before the primary issue can be tackled.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Once you're on over €100k, you already begin to fall into this category in Ireland. They're the ones who tend to get hit by such taxes, rather than the 'super rich'. That's actually quite a few people, BTW, many of whom are entrepreneurs and professionals.

Last week an old friend of mine, an engineer who's on over €100k, decided to emigrate. Various factors were at play, but ultimately the tax he was paying on his income was such that he could no longer really keep up with mortgage payments. So he secured a job in Oman, where not only will he be able to pay for his mortgage back home, but also set up a new home. He's not alone.

That is a position lots of people in the country are in though (mostly average earners), and it is caused by the economic conditions not by taxes; it sounds like your friend went into too much debt to buy his house, much like a lot of other people.

The Corinthian wrote: »

In other cases, they're just unlucky to be lucky. For example, one of my cousins in Italy wrote a successful mobile app. This is his hobby, as his day job is being a developer on a modest salary. However, under similar 'taxing the rich' laws, his income from the app is taxed at 50% because it is considered a second income, then on top of it additional taxes and charges are levied. Earning a net of 20% of the total revenue from his app, he eventually decided to open a company abroad to run his revenue through and now the Italian government gets nothing. He too will likely emigrate before long.

This is something you used to see in communist countries, as well as today in countries that place high taxes on higher earners. Norway and Sweden have serious problems convincing entrepreneurs to set up companies, and even if they do, to stay if those companies are successful. When the old DDR collapsed and reunified with West Germany, one major problem was that they had too few professionals - after all, why waste a few years earning nothing in university, when all you'll get is much the same salary as a factory worker who could start earning straight after school?

Few of these 'rich' are millionaires (if they are it's typically only on paper, such as the value of their company or house). They're well off, even 'rich', but like it or not society needs them; not only for their income tax, but also for the skills they possess and jobs they create. It may be a small number of people who'll leave as a result, but that small number is a much larger part of a small group to begin with and the economy does feel this brain drain before long - look at the medical profession; Irish graduates have been leaving in droves for greener pastures, long before the crisis, for better pay and opportunities, forcing us to import medical staff from abroad.

And it's a pretty difficult group to replace too; a factory worker is a lot easier to replace than an entrepreneur or engineer - if they weren't, factory workers would get paid more.

So taxing the 'rich' may be necessary at this stage. It may also be morally justified. But there's a price to pay when you do, and if you push things too far, they will vote with their feet and leave their country worse off for it.

I agree with you that you have to avoid the economic costs of too many leaving; the point of what I have been arguing though, is to balance those costs against the benefits (i.e. adjust the rate and start of the tax band, to meet such a balance).

What seems to be argued, is a general argument against any increase in taxation for high-earners, which ignores the potential for meeting such a balance.

There also must be wider considerations regarding an international effort against tax evasion (no matter how difficult that may be in the short term).


In short: The simple fact that people can evade or otherwise escape taxation, does not a-priori remove its utility as a means of reducing inequality.


EDIT: Also, another point worth remembering is that just closing income tax loopholes for starters, will net an increased level of tax, as there are a fair number of high-earners simply not paying their dues (paying less tax than the rest of society); that would, of course, come first over general income tax increases.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

This is not an excuse for not tackling the problem in the first place though

It wasn't an excuse for not tackling the problem in the first place. It was questioning if doing so by simply 'taxing the rich' is effective.

It may not be a realistic possibility right now, but discussion on the issue of international tax evasion has to be undertaken first, before the primary issue can be tackled.

The only way it would be possible would be to abolish all forms of money that cannot be tracked and then tracking every single transaction on the planet. If you don't do that, you'll always find a way around it. And if you do that, then you're well on your way to living in a distopia.

That is a position lots of people in the country are in though (mostly average earners), and it is caused by the economic conditions not by taxes; it sounds like your friend went into too much debt to buy his house, much like a lot of other people.

Absolutely. Doesn't change the fact that increased taxation made his position untenable and he, and his knowledge and tax revenue, left Ireland.

I agree with you that you have to avoid the economic costs of too many leaving; the point of what I have been arguing though, is to balance those costs against the benefits (i.e. adjust the rate and start of the tax band, to meet such a balance).

Completely agree, but that's all I've been saying. Taxing any group means that group is going to be less happy and more likely to move on - this is why serfdom was introduced in the middle ages, because peasantry did move around whenever the local lord got too greedy, and so serfdom 'locked' them to a particular fiefdom.

As middle class serfdom is not an option (although negative equity mortgages do come close) we have to be careful that the policies we implement don't ultimately kill the goose that lays the golden egg and encourage valuable human resources to go and find a better deal in another fiefdom... I mean country.

What seems to be argued, is a general argument against any increase in taxation for high-earners, which ignores the potential for meeting such a balance.

I would not argue against increase in taxation for high-earners, as I tend to have a more Keynesian than liberal view of society. However, stupid increases and over-inclusive definitions of who is 'rich' are not going to help anyone. Honestly, I don't think €100k a year is 'rich' any more - better off than most, but that's not the same thing as 'rich'.

There also must be wider considerations regarding an international effort against tax evasion (no matter how difficult that may be in the short term).

Not going to happen. And much of the reason is because the very nations that are banging the drum on such efforts facilitate most of this tax evasion.

When we think of where people hide their money, we often think of places like Switzerland and Lichtenstein - in reality, the vast bulk of this money is hidden in places such as Delaware, Isle of Man, Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, Luxembourg and even in 'plain sight' in London (where most of the Arab money is salted away).

EDIT: Also, another point worth remembering is that just closing income tax loopholes for starters, will net an increased level of tax, as there are a fair number of high-earners simply not paying their dues (paying less tax than the rest of society); that would, of course, come first over general income tax increases.

Maybe, but probably not. There is an army of tax consultants out there who are very inventive, hard working and, frankly, better at avoiding tax than tax officials are at enforcing it.

They're expensive though, which means that the 'middle class rich' often cannot afford them, which naturally means that they'll get hit a lot harder than those who can and end up paying nothing.

It reminds me of a historical anecdote I once read. When Italy was unified in the 19th century, there was a huge disparity in tax revenues between the north and south (no change there). The solution was to impose impossibly high taxes (80%+) nationally to compensate for this evasion. Except in the industrialized north people paid at source, meaning the couldn't avoid them and ended up being crippled by them. The whole policy was a disaster.

That would be my principle concern of such policies; if you're rich enough, it'll make no difference and if you're a member of the 'middle class rich' you'll get sufficiently penalized that you'd choose to move to greener pastures.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote:

The only way it would be possible would be to abolish all forms of money that cannot be tracked and then tracking every single transaction on the planet. If you don't do that, you'll always find a way around it. And if you do that, then you're well on your way to living in a distopia.

That's a false dilemma really; what is implied there is that people will engage in tax fraud (through untraceable money flows), and if you try to take that and use it for the ideological purpose of giving up on taxing high-earners, then that is ideologically consistent with eliminating all tax altogether, because it is merely possible to hide flows of money (I'm not saying you are stating that, it's just the argument you use applies there too).

If that method of evasion were as practical as it seems, then taxation itself and fiat currency in general would disappear due to being impractical.

The Corinthian wrote:

Completely agree, but that's all I've been saying. Taxing any group means that group is going to be less happy and more likely to move on - this is why serfdom was introduced in the middle ages, because peasantry did move around whenever the local lord got too greedy, and so serfdom 'locked' them to a particular fiefdom.

As middle class serfdom is not an option (although negative equity mortgages do come close) we have to be careful that the policies we implement don't ultimately kill the goose that lays the golden egg and encourage valuable human resources to go and find a better deal in another fiefdom... I mean country.

Yes I pretty much agree so; don't "kill the goose" for sure, just have the tax set at an appropriate level that balances the loss against the benefits.

The Corinthian wrote:

I would not argue against increase in taxation for high-earners, as I tend to have a more Keynesian than liberal view of society. However, stupid increases and over-inclusive definitions of who is 'rich' are not going to help anyone. Honestly, I don't think €100k a year is 'rich' any more - better off than most, but that's not the same thing as 'rich'.

€100k is a low starting point, which I've revised up a couple of times during the thread, and leave the starting point still completely open pretty much.

The Corinthian wrote:

Not going to happen. And much of the reason is because the very nations that are banging the drum on such efforts facilitate most of this tax evasion.

Well I'm looking to the long term really; it can be done, even if it isn't politically tenable right now or in the short term. The need for it can't be removed from discussion as impractical, because the first step before something will be done about it, is wide-scale discussion of it.

The Corinthian wrote:

When we think of where people hide their money, we often think of places like Switzerland and Lichtenstein - in reality, the vast bulk of this money is hidden in places such as Delaware, Isle of Man, Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, Luxembourg and even in 'plain sight' in London (where most of the Arab money is salted away).

Ya I've not read up on international tax evasion/havens in detail yet; it does seem a lot more varied than would initially be thought.

The Corinthian wrote:

Maybe, but probably not. There is an army of tax consultants out there who are very inventive, hard working and, frankly, better at avoiding tax than tax officials are at enforcing it.

They're expensive though, which means that the 'middle class rich' often cannot afford them, which naturally means that they'll get hit a lot harder than those who can and end up paying nothing.

It reminds me of a historical anecdote I once read. When Italy was unified in the 19th century, there was a huge disparity in tax revenues between the north and south (no change there). The solution was to impose impossibly high taxes (80%+) nationally to compensate for this evasion. Except in the industrialized north people paid at source, meaning the couldn't avoid them and ended up being crippled by them. The whole policy was a disaster.

That would be my principle concern of such policies; if you're rich enough, it'll make no difference and if you're a member of the 'middle class rich' you'll get sufficiently penalized that you'd choose to move to greener pastures.

True, though there are a finite number of loopholes that consultants use, that can all be plugged, so there would be no loopholes left eventually.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's a false dilemma really; what is implied there is that people will engage in tax fraud (through untraceable money flows), and if you try to take that and use it for the ideological purpose of giving up on taxing high-earners, then that is ideologically consistent with eliminating all tax altogether, because it is merely possible to hide flows of money (I'm not saying you are stating that, it's just the argument you use applies there too).

That wasn't what I was trying to say. All I was trying to say is that there is no way of avoiding clandestine payments (and thus tax fraud) without tracking all financial transactions. Otherwise all we can do is continually close off the means by which the worst such abuses are carried out.

€100k is a low starting point, which I've revised up a couple of times during the thread, and leave the starting point still completely open pretty much.

This is not to say that someone who's earning €100k should not be taxed at a higher rate than someone on €30k, only that putting them into the 'super rich' category is probably misguided.

True, though there are a finite number of loopholes that consultants use, that can all be plugged, so there would be no loopholes left eventually.

No, it's not finite; new ones form every day, just as old one's are closed off.

Presently it's actually quite easy. Just set up a company in a low tax jurisdiction, and have that company 'loan' your company €1bn in redeemable private bonds (i.e. money never actually changes hands). Then you can happily service the interest on that loan (a legal cost), which then pays the local tax rate. Why do you think Ireland has all these multinationals?

And if/when they close this option off in Ireland, a new one will present itself. Or an alternative - Ireland is not the only place in the World where you can cut down your tax bill, after all and ultimately those who exploit the loopholes are a lot faster at finding them than those employed to seek, legislate and enforce their closure.

Tax evasion/fraud will continue as long as there is either tax or gaps in the traceability of money. And in the latter case, I'm not entirely sure even that would solve the problem.

Edit: Another way that tax evasion/fraud will stop is when it becomes cheaper to pay tax than avoid doing so. But with rates like 75% being imposed in places like France, I can't see that happening any time soon.

KyussBishop

I agree with you generally there, except with the tax loopholes; I don't know how far your thoughts there go on cracking down on it, i.e. whether or not you view it as partially pointless/futile, but my view is that there is quite a lot that can be done that is just not done due to political inertia.

There'll always be tax evasion and loopholes, but I think that the vast bulk of it (as a percentage of all evaded tax income) can be reigned in with international co-operation, severely narrowing the range of loophole options.

K-9

KyussBishop wrote: »

I agree with you generally there, except with the tax loopholes; I don't know how far your thoughts there go on cracking down on it, i.e. whether or not you view it as partially pointless/futile, but my view is that there is quite a lot that can be done that is just not done due to political inertia.

There'll always be tax evasion and loopholes, but I think that the vast bulk of it (as a percentage of all evaded tax income) can be reigned in with international co-operation, severely narrowing the range of loophole options.

The best solution is bringing in a limit on tax breaks, something Ireland did a few years ago. The tax breaks basically stop after an income of 400k, tax breaks aren't allowed after that. No doubt there probably are loopholes and exceptions to the rule, but to me, that is the fairest way around it.Much preferable to the debate that went on in the UK last year over cutting the top tax rate.

It's one thing the Irish Revenue do get and have got for years, tax rates are pretty irrelevant, tax breaks is where its at.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

I agree with you generally there, except with the tax loopholes; I don't know how far your thoughts there go on cracking down on it, i.e. whether or not you view it as partially pointless/futile, but my view is that there is quite a lot that can be done that is just not done due to political inertia.

It is ultimately futile, but in the same way that washing the dishes is futile (they're just going to get dirty again). Has to be done, but you are never going to solve the problem in the long term.

All you can do is either make it cheaper to pay your tax (i.e. making it progressively more costly to evade) or impose distopic control over all financial transactions. The former is unlikely to ever make it unattractive for the 'super rich' to evade tax (although those salting away smaller amounts could get priced out of the market) and the latter is frankly undesirable for any democratic society.

All before you consider that this is an international problem, which means that it can be very difficult to impose your laws on other jurisdictions.

In short, all we will ever be able to do is keep evasion down to an 'acceptable' level, unless we deicide to go down the distopic path.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is ultimately futile, but in the same way that washing the dishes is futile (they're just going to get dirty again). Has to be done, but you are never going to solve the problem in the long term.

All you can do is either make it cheaper to pay your tax (i.e. making it progressively more costly to evade) or impose distopic control over all financial transactions. The former is unlikely to ever make it unattractive for the 'super rich' to evade tax (although those salting away smaller amounts could get priced out of the market) and the latter is frankly undesirable for any democratic society.

All before you consider that this is an international problem, which means that it can be very difficult to impose your laws on other jurisdictions.

In short, all we will ever be able to do is keep evasion down to an 'acceptable' level, unless we deicide to go down the distopic path.

I don't see why it's not possible to 100% clamp down on income tax evasion for citizens; you just need to have proper transparency between tax havens and your own government.
That seems quite achievable with the right political pressure (especially if there is international collaboration), as the threat of sanctions has worked in opening up transparency in the past.

You may still have illegal tax evasion, but with sufficient penalties for being caught (i.e. prison), that can be deterred (and proper transparency with havens makes it harder to hide).

After that you have non-citizens, which is altogether less straight forward obviously.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

That seems quite achievable with the right political pressure (especially if there is international collaboration), as the threat of sanctions has worked in opening up transparency in the past.

I think you underestimate the complexity of the problem. To begin with, as I already pointed out:

The Corinthian wrote: »

When we think of where people hide their money, we often think of places like Switzerland and Lichtenstein - in reality, the vast bulk of this money is hidden in places such as Delaware, Isle of Man, Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, Luxembourg and even in 'plain sight' in London (where most of the Arab money is salted away).

Good luck putting pressure on the US or UK governments to stop their own sidelines in this area.

Stheno

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you underestimate the complexity of the problem. To begin with, as I already pointed out:

Good luck putting pressure on the US or UK governments to stop their own sidelines in this area.

I'd agree with this, countries known for being safe havens are not going to suddenly cooperate with governments for no reason

KyussBishop

There is no complexity to the situation though, the solution is simple (enforced transparency through threat of sanctions, and international co-operation on the matter), politics is the problem, and that is a blockade which is difficult to traverse not because of complexity but because of collusion between interested parties in politics (locally and internationally).

The solution to the politics roadblock long term, is increased public discourse and awareness of the issue and of the solutions, and public political pressure to act (same as any other political problem).

ShanePouch

KyussBishop wrote: »

There is no complexity to the situation though, the solution is simple (enforced transparency through threat of sanctions, and international co-operation on the matter),

Sanctions ( as opposed to the threat of sanctions) have worked so well in the past and international cooperation has also worked so well in the past!

I wish you well in your holiday from reality.

KyussBishop

It's curious how you selectively remove the second half of the very sentence you are responding to, the half which renders your reply a completely irrelevant rebuttal of something I already acknowledged.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's curious how you selectively remove the second half of the very sentence you are responding to, the half which renders your reply a completely irrelevant rebuttal of something I already acknowledged.

If he includes that caveat, it doesn't change things much; if anything your argument becomes even more naive.

For example, if money is being salted away in the US state of Delaware to evade tax, what "public political pressure" is likely to come to bare? Foreign "public political pressure", no doubt, but when represented by foreign media it is what the Bush administration used to cynically call the "no-votes media". Domestically, instead you would have little support for reforming an industry that only provides wealth and employment and indeed would likely get a nationalistic reaction opposing any kind of what would be seen as "hypocritical foreign bullying" - which incidentally is precisely where Swiss public opinion sits at present.

Ultimately, "public political pressure" is worthless without the power to impose it in other jurisdictions and at present there are few nations, principally the US, that are capable of this. And even then there are limits to this; the US would have difficulty excreting such influence on the UK, Germany or the EU in general. Same goes for Russia and China. As for anyone exerting similar pressure on the US, forget it.

And that's just the international diplomacy issue. Beyond that there's absolutely nothing 'simple' about the increasingly ingenious and complex ways that tax consultants facilitate tax evasion - how you can claim it's "not complex", despite earlier admitting a lack of knowledge in the area, is beyond me.

The issue of tax evasion is much like many other global problems, like poverty and war. Certainly if we all agreed to a common strategy and were able to enforce it, we could solve them all - after which, presumably, we would all sit around holding hands, roast a few marshmallows and sing Kumbaya together.

SaoriseBiker

OMD wrote: »

Good info. It may be slightly off topic but they say they would introduce a wealth tax of 1% on all assets in excess of 1 million euro excluding homes under 1.2 million, farms and working assets. They say this will raise €800 million a year. Where does this figure come from? It sounds massive. It means there is 80 billion in basically non-performing assets in ths country. Where are they getting this figure? if I have a home worth 2 million but loans of 2 million do I get taxed?

SF have all their economic proposals costed by the Dept of Finance.

Godge

KyussBishop wrote: »

There is no complexity to the situation though, the solution is simple (enforced transparency through threat of sanctions, and international co-operation on the matter), politics is the problem, and that is a blockade which is difficult to traverse not because of complexity but because of collusion between interested parties in politics (locally and internationally).

The solution to the politics roadblock long term, is increased public discourse and awareness of the issue and of the solutions, and public political pressure to act (same as any other political problem).

There is no way that this will work.

If you can save on paying 40% of your income in tax by moving it off-shore, that off-shore location or off-shore bank can afford to charge you 10% of your income in transaction charges giving it a sustainable revenue stream.

Take the examples of the Isle of Man or the Cayman Islands. Why would they give up that sustainable revenue stream when they have little else?

Godge

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

SF have all their economic proposals costed by the Dept of Finance.

Yes, but all the calculations are on a first-year basis. So you bring in the 1% tax and raise €800m. Year 2, half of the wealth, the mobile half, has been moved offshore so your revenue drops to €400m. As some of that wealth moved offshore was productive wealth, you see similar drops in income tax, corporation tax, VAT etc.

If I was able to watch from afar with a secure living, I would would love to see how SF would be able to bring in a second budget, that is, if their government hadn't fallen apart by then.

SaoriseBiker

Godge wrote: »

Yes, but all the calculations are on a first-year basis. So you bring in the 1% tax and raise €800m. Year 2, half of the wealth, the mobile half, has been moved offshore so your revenue drops to €400m. As some of that wealth moved offshore was productive wealth, you see similar drops in income tax, corporation tax, VAT etc.

If I was able to watch from afar with a secure living, I would would love to see how SF would be able to bring in a second budget, that is, if their government hadn't fallen apart by then.

That's just your opinion/guesstimate. Have you anything from some reliable source to back up your opinion/guesstimate ? I'd imagine that if your year 2 scenario was reliable, they'd just move their wealth off shore in year one when the changes were been passed through the Dail.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

If he includes that caveat, it doesn't change things much; if anything your argument becomes even more naive.

For example, if money is being salted away in the US state of Delaware to evade tax, what "public political pressure" is likely to come to bare? Foreign "public political pressure", no doubt, but when represented by foreign media it is what the Bush administration used to cynically call the "no-votes media". Domestically, instead you would have little support for reforming an industry that only provides wealth and employment and indeed would likely get a nationalistic reaction opposing any kind of what would be seen as "hypocritical foreign bullying" - which incidentally is precisely where Swiss public opinion sits at present.

Ultimately, "public political pressure" is worthless without the power to impose it in other jurisdictions and at present there are few nations, principally the US, that are capable of this. And even then there are limits to this; the US would have difficulty excreting such influence on the UK, Germany or the EU in general. Same goes for Russia and China. As for anyone exerting similar pressure on the US, forget it.

And that's just the international diplomacy issue. Beyond that there's absolutely nothing 'simple' about the increasingly ingenious and complex ways that tax consultants facilitate tax evasion - how you can claim it's "not complex", despite earlier admitting a lack of knowledge in the area, is beyond me.

The issue of tax evasion is much like many other global problems, like poverty and war. Certainly if we all agreed to a common strategy and were able to enforce it, we could solve them all - after which, presumably, we would all sit around holding hands, roast a few marshmallows and sing Kumbaya together.

You're just rubbishing the idea now, without engaging with the specific conditions I put forward in my argument; first off, the principal is enforcing transparency on banking institutions, so that personal income is more difficult to hide.
The threat of sanctions has successfully achieved an increase in transparency before in tax havens, on this count, so there is no reason at all to assume it can't be pushed further.

You seem intent on shutting down the idea or discussion of it, on the idea that it is 'naive' to think that it might be possible to combat it; I have pointed out that the actual solution itself is simple, and it is the politics that is the hard/messy bit, and you are trying to shut down discussion of it through ad-hominem, which is particularly dishonest.

It is a pretty disingenuous argument really, that just because getting political support for something is difficult that, it should not be talked about, that you are naive or 'unserious' if you talk about it' or that it should be considered impossible and deserves ridicule; that's a complete ad-hominem way to try and shut down discussion, and avoid discussing the actual issue.

Sappa

Any single earner with a wage over 120k should be taxed at 50% any couple earning over 200k tax them at 50%.

KyussBishop

Godge wrote: »

There is no way that this will work.

If you can save on paying 40% of your income in tax by moving it off-shore, that off-shore location or off-shore bank can afford to charge you 10% of your income in transaction charges giving it a sustainable revenue stream.

Take the examples of the Isle of Man or the Cayman Islands. Why would they give up that sustainable revenue stream when they have little else?

The threat of sanctions threatens their entire banking industry and economic status; the threat of sanctions on the Cayman islands has successfully made them provide greater transparency in the past.

I don't see how your argument can get around the effect of such sanctions, as it would probably lead to a capital flight from the country if it actually happened, and would no longer be competitive as a tax haven.

Nody

Godge wrote: »

Yes, but all the calculations are on a first-year basis. So you bring in the 1% tax and raise €800m. Year 2, half of the wealth, the mobile half, has been moved offshore so your revenue drops to €400m. As some of that wealth moved offshore was productive wealth, you see similar drops in income tax, corporation tax, VAT etc.

If I was able to watch from afar with a secure living, I would would love to see how SF would be able to bring in a second budget, that is, if their government hadn't fallen apart by then.

They would not get even 400m the first year because the assets would be moved to offshore companies, rebranded as farms or "split up" into 1.2m family homes. The simple hint of such tax coming in (and lets be honest the government leaks worse then a machine gunned bucket) would start the process of rebranding of assets.

KyussBishop wrote: »

The threat of sanctions threatens their entire banking industry and economic status; the threat of sanctions on the Cayman islands has successfully made them provide greater transparency in the past.

I don't see how your argument can get around the effect of such sanctions, as it would probably lead to a capital flight from the country if it actually happened, and would no longer be competitive as a tax haven.

When was the last time you saw successful sanctions vs. the US or UK for the money they hide? The simple fact is you can easily stay legal and reduce your tax greatly simply by playing with legal entities and internal loans with out being fancy about it.

KyussBishop

Nody wrote: »

When was the last time you saw successful sanctions vs. the US or UK for the money they hide? The simple fact is you can easily stay legal and reduce your tax greatly simply by playing with legal entities and internal loans with out being fancy about it.

Tax breaks are a different part of the issue, and are a problem that needs to be tackled domestically for the most part; I'm talking about making sure there is the information available to prevent illegal hiding of income, and ensuring there is enough transparency to make proper taxation of citizens no problem.

Non-citizens is a different, altogether more complicated problem though.

Nody

KyussBishop wrote: »

Tax breaks are a different part of the issue, and are a problem that needs to be tackled domestically for the most part; I'm talking about making sure there is the information available to prevent illegal hiding of income, and ensuring there is enough transparency to make proper taxation of citizens no problem.

Non-citizens is a different, altogether more complicated problem though.

You completly miss the point; any person paid relatively good money will charge it through a company as a consultant fee (or what ever swings the bells of the day) instead to hide the money for tax. This is common even with people in the UK government who've been caught doing it to avoid PRSI etc. They will then pay themselves a modest salary while circulating the real money out from taxing via legal entities in various low tax countries using internal loans, company issued credit cards (in said low tax countries) etc.

This is all legal and are not even using loop holes to perform anything illegal or complicated. This is stuff that can be set up by any half decent accountant level of complicated and we're not even getting fancy yet using such as immaterial rights recharges etc.

bellson

Taxing the wealthy means handing money over to the government to distribute and ultimately squander/hand over to Europe!

Holding back on over taxing(over taxing) the wealthy will keep entreprenuer's/risk takers and those with the drive to fulfill there ideas in the country,
this will benefit local economies and so on, taxing the wealthy will not solve the problem greatly

creedp

bellson wrote: »

Taxing the wealthy means handing money over to the government to distribute and ultimately squander/hand over to Europe!

Holding back on over taxing(over taxing) the wealthy will keep entreprenuer's/risk takers and those with the drive to fulfill there ideas in the country,
this will benefit local economies and so on, taxing the wealthy will not solve the problem greatly

New Govt Policy - tax exemption for the wealthy - problem solved ,recession and unemployment problem solved. Now how do we define wealthy - anyone earning over €50k??

bellson

creedp wrote: »

New Govt Policy - tax exemption for the wealthy - problem solved ,recession and unemployment problem solved. Now how do we define wealthy - anyone earning over €50k??

Tax exemption! Hardly......

The term wealthy is clearly all relative, 50k a year was not wealthy 5 years ago however today.....

Disposable income allows for the purchase of goods/services etc thats what it boils down to so should a person earning 25k have the same amount of disposable income as someone on 200k by over taxing that person, it would be a futile merry go around that would never end!

KyussBishop

Nody wrote: »

You completly miss the point; any person paid relatively good money will charge it through a company as a consultant fee (or what ever swings the bells of the day) instead to hide the money for tax. This is common even with people in the UK government who've been caught doing it to avoid PRSI etc. They will then pay themselves a modest salary while circulating the real money out from taxing via legal entities in various low tax countries using internal loans, company issued credit cards (in said low tax countries) etc.

This is all legal and are not even using loop holes to perform anything illegal or complicated. This is stuff that can be set up by any half decent accountant level of complicated and we're not even getting fancy yet using such as immaterial rights recharges etc.

The use of corporations to hide taxable income is a valid issue, and there are certainly legal ways to launder money in this fashion which take the edge off any personal tax, but this can be considered a separate problem in isolation, so long as the money is taxed appropriately when it reaches the person themselves (albeit with a significant tax reduction, if you look at the long term).

This still creates a constraint on income for the person, as the money stays tied up in the company whilst it is slowly siphoned out at a lower tax rate, but is still a problem (one to be treated in isolation).

Nody

KyussBishop wrote: »

The use of corporations to hide taxable income is a valid issue, and there are certainly legal ways to launder money in this fashion which take the edge off any personal tax, but this can be considered a separate problem in isolation, so long as the money is taxed appropriately when it reaches the person themselves (albeit with a significant tax reduction, if you look at the long term).

This still creates a constraint on income for the person, as the money stays tied up in the company whilst it is slowly siphoned out at a lower tax rate, but is still a problem (one to be treated in isolation).

This is the part you once again make a big mistake in your assumptions on how to use legal entities properly. First of all you need a house? No problem, have your company buy it for you. Want a car? The company buys it for you and "loans" it to you. Want to go out have a night out at the pub buying bubblies by the bucket? Pull out the company issued credit card. Want to buy that new painting of Rembrandt that would be perfect in the living room? Have the company "invest" and buy it and hang it in that company paid house. Need insurance? Well the company clearly needs to protect it's assets by buying it.

See where I'm going? Moving the money through a offshore legal entity makes it painfully easy to access all the money for everything you need it for. About the only thing you'd have problem with is getting it out in cash but even that's easily solved by transfers to a number account (company account obviously) and cashing it in.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

first off, the principal is enforcing transparency on banking institutions, so that personal income is more difficult to hide.

Actually I did address that, in my last post. How do you enforce transparency on foreign banking institutions?

The threat of sanctions has successfully achieved an increase in transparency before in tax havens, on this count, so there is no reason at all to assume it can't be pushed further.

And if the tax haven is the US, UK or other EU member state, how likely are you going to see sanctions? Again, this has already been addressed.

You seem intent on shutting down the idea or discussion of it, on the idea that it is 'naive' to think that it might be possible to combat it; I have pointed out that the actual solution itself is simple, and it is the politics that is the hard/messy bit, and you are trying to shut down discussion of it through ad-hominem, which is particularly dishonest.

Now you're exaggerating. If an argument is naive, you have to call a spade a spade and call it that; and that's all I did because I called your argument naive, not you. And unfortunately it is, because all it is, is a claim of how the problem can easily be solved when it can easily be demonstrated that what you suggest simply would not work in the World governed by Realpolitik, where, for example, something like UN sanctions against the Channel Islands would never get past the Security council (presuming they even get that far) because the UK would veto them.

Unless you can address the rebuttals that I and others have made above that directly address how what you're suggesting would never work, then I'm afraid I will consider your argument to be naive and make no apologies for it.

All before we consider how easy it is to evade tax even if you had transparency in the banking system. After all, how do you think the money leaves the tax jurisdiction its escaping in the first place?

KyussBishop

Nody wrote: »

This is the part you once again make a big mistake in your assumptions on how to use legal entities properly. First of all you need a house? No problem, have your company buy it for you. Want a car? The company buys it for you and "loans" it to you. Want to go out have a night out at the pub buying bubblies by the bucket? Pull out the company issued credit card. Want to buy that new painting of Rembrandt that would be perfect in the living room? Have the company "invest" and buy it and hang it in that company paid house. Need insurance? Well the company clearly needs to protect it's assets by buying it.

See where I'm going? Moving the money through a offshore legal entity makes it painfully easy to access all the money for everything you need it for. About the only thing you'd have problem with is getting it out in cash but even that's easily solved by transfers to a number account (company account obviously) and cashing it in.

Any half-decent tax authority would clamp down on those examples as expenses; such a tax authority won't just let a company provide free housing to someone like that, uncompensated.
If there was any effort to clamp down on even the most basic loopholes, there would be no way you could live like that expense-free in a house owned by a company.

All the examples of expenses you give, would set a person up for an audit, penalties, and possibly prison time when discovered.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now you're exaggerating. If an argument is naive, you have to call a spade a spade and call it that; and that's all I did because I called your argument naive, not you. And unfortunately it is, because all it is, is a claim of how the problem can easily be solved when it can easily be demonstrated that what you suggest simply would not work in the World governed by Realpolitik, where, for example, something like UN sanctions against the Channel Islands would never get past the Security council (presuming they even get that far) because the UK would veto them.

Unless you can address the rebuttals that I and others have made above that directly address how what you're suggesting would never work, then I'm afraid I will consider your argument to be naive and make no apologies for it.

All before we consider how easy it is to evade tax even if you had transparency in the banking system. After all, how do you think the money leaves the tax jurisdiction its escaping in the first place?

I never claimed it was easy; I said the solution is simple, not that implementing it is easy.

You don't have to go to the UN to get together sanctions (and for the large part, political pressure itself preceding a threat of sanctions can make progress), and you don't need unanimous international co-operation to get them either; it is not a realpolitik impossibility, because right now it is simply not even on the radar of public discussion for the most part, and that is a prerequisite before it can be tackled politically or internationally.

It's judging the potential for an international crackdown as an impossibility now and thus 'naive' or not worth discussing, when it is wider discussion that is a prerequisite to opening up the political avenue for making it a 'realpolitik' possibility in the future.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

I never claimed it was easy; I said the solution is simple, not that implementing it is easy.

I stand corrected. It's simple is the sense of eliminating war by getting every country on the planet to sign up to disarmament, you mean.

You don't have to go to the UN to get together sanctions (and for the large part, political pressure itself preceding a threat of sanctions can make progress), and you don't need unanimous international co-operation to get them either; it is not a realpolitik impossibility, because right now it is simply not even on the radar of public discussion for the most part, and that is a prerequisite before it can be tackled politically or internationally.

Then how would it work, because you're only speaking in vague generalities at present. For example, say we wanted to stop tax evaders being able to salt their money away in the US state of Delaware; how would you envisage the international community doing this?

It's judging the potential for an international crackdown as an impossibility now and thus 'naive' or not worth discussing, when it is wider discussion that is a prerequisite to opening up the political avenue for making it a 'realpolitik' possibility in the future.

Yet, what you would require is a World where national or, in the case of many developing nations, personal interests would be sacrificed voluntarily for the greater international good.

Of course, this may occur in the, perhaps distant, future, but science-fiction aside, history has taught us that it won't. Nations pursue selfish national interests. Individuals pursue selfish personal interests. Idealists are the exception rather than the rule to this and you'll not get consensus from exceptions alone.

This is why I find your argument naive; it's requires a scenario so astronomically unlikely and in direct opposition to human nature that it is little more than an idealistic dream.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

I stand corrected. It's simple is the sense of eliminating war by getting every country on the planet to sign up to disarmament, you mean.

That's a pretty straightforward dishonest analogy and false dichotomy, which is plain to see; there is pretty much little hope of honest discussion on the topic from you, if resorting to ridiculous comparisons like that.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then how would it work, because you're only speaking in vague generalities at present. For example, say we wanted to stop tax evaders being able to salt their money away in the US state of Delaware; how would you envisage the international community doing this?

You're presenting a plainly transparent straw man here, positing a nonexistant situation (in the context of my arguments) for me to rebut, and using that to try and make the idea of tackling tax avoidance seem impractical (even with a country where we have the relevant tax treaties, with a general agreement of providing the necessary transparency).

Moreso, I don't have to answer every tiny little political problem that can be thrown up (none of them which seem to be directed at my actual arguments, just selectively ignoring them to try and dishonestly smear my point of view), as it is safe to generalize that as requiring a solution through political pressure, both domestically and internationally (the US after all, does pay general agreement to the principle of clamping down on tax evasion in foreign policy).

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet, what you would require is a World where national or, in the case of many developing nations, personal interests would be sacrificed voluntarily for the greater international good.

Of course, this may occur in the, perhaps distant, future, but science-fiction aside, history has taught us that it won't. Nations pursue selfish national interests. Individuals pursue selfish personal interests. Idealists are the exception rather than the rule to this and you'll not get consensus from exceptions alone.

This is why I find your argument naive; it's requires a scenario so astronomically unlikely and in direct opposition to human nature that it is little more than an idealistic dream.

Again the stupid false dichotomy of distopian tracking of money vs complete freedom to evade tax, with a lot of handwavy insinuations that my general point of view is impractical, without any substance backing it.

You are intent on avoiding dealing with actual arguments I make, and instead on trying to smear my point of view as 'naive', 'idealistic' or impractical due to 'realpolitik' etc..

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

Moreso, I don't have to answer every tiny little political problem that can be thrown up (none of them which seem to be directed at my actual arguments, just selectively ignoring them to try and dishonestly smear my point of view), as it is safe to generalize that as requiring a solution through political pressure, both domestically and internationally (the US after all, does pay general agreement to the principle of clamping down on tax evasion in foreign policy).

I'm not asking you to answer every "tiny little political problem"; I presented a very pertinent example which you've simply refused to touch. I get more than a little pissed when someone bizarrely accuses me of a "straightforward dishonest analogy and false dichotomy" (after your earlier accusation of an ad hominem that fell flat) and then refuses to respond to any challenge to his argument that may drag it out of the generalities it's been couched in.

And before you suggest that it is not pertinent, I suggest you check out the Financial Secrecy Index; you'll find the US (principally for Delaware) is ranked fifth on the index - higher than the Bahamas, the Isle of Man and even Liechtenstein.

Again the stupid false dichotomy of distopian tracking of money vs complete freedom to evade tax, with a lot of handwavy insinuations that my general point of view is impractical, without any substance backing it.

You'll forgive me if use less eloquent language than yourself, but this is utter bullshìt. To begin with I never suggested that we should have complete freedom to evade tax, I specifically pointed out that:

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is ultimately futile, but in the same way that washing the dishes is futile (they're just going to get dirty again). Has to be done, but you are never going to solve the problem in the long term.

So your accusation is false.

Secondly, you are at this stage avoiding to back up your abstract position with any substance whatsoever, so accusing me of arguing without any substance is laughable.

I have posed very real examples of where your vague aspirations would fall down and asked you to explain how your proposed model (if it is even that) would tackle them.

You've sidestepped this and instead chosen to continue debating in vagaries. Now, you can either address the example I gave or I'll just put you down to being a humanities undergrad who still thinks that using obfuscatory language erroneously impresses people, and leave you to the thread.

You may consider the last paragraph to be an ad hominem if you like, but for me, it's just an admission that I've got better things to be doing than wasting my time with such a discussion.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not asking you to answer every "tiny little political problem"; I presented a very pertinent example which you've simply refused to touch. I get more than a little pissed when someone bizarrely accuses me of a "straightforward dishonest analogy and false dichotomy" (after your earlier accusation of an ad hominem that fell flat) and then refuses to respond to any challenge to his argument that may drag it out of the generalities it's been couched in.

And before you suggest that it is not pertinent, I suggest you check out the Financial Secrecy Index; you'll find the US (principally for Delaware) is ranked fifth on the index - higher than the Bahamas, the Isle of Man and even Liechtenstein.

Delaware is not pertinent, I am talking about income tax in exclusivity (meaning personal money in bank accounts), and Delaware is a corporate tax haven, it does not provide personal banking secrecy.

I've made extremely clear the type and specific element of tax avoidance I'm talking about (regarding income actually put in the hands of a person), and you are conflating it with corporate tax evasion.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'll forgive me if use less eloquent language than yourself, but this is utter bullshìt. To begin with I never suggested that we should have complete freedom to evade tax, I specifically pointed out that:

So your accusation is false.

No, taking the actual quote I was replying to:

The Corinthian wrote:

Yet, what you would require is a World where national or, in the case of many developing nations, personal interests would be sacrificed voluntarily for the greater international good.

Of course, this may occur in the, perhaps distant, future, but science-fiction aside, history has taught us that it won't. Nations pursue selfish national interests. Individuals pursue selfish personal interests. Idealists are the exception rather than the rule to this and you'll not get consensus from exceptions alone.

That is a false dichotomy, that you have to infringe on national or personal sovereignty or just leave the tax havens alone.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Secondly, you are at this stage avoiding to back up your abstract position with any substance whatsoever, so accusing me of arguing without any substance is laughable.

I have posed very real examples of where your vague aspirations would fall down and asked you to explain how your proposed model (if it is even that) would tackle them.

I'm not debating in 'vagueries', I'm not arguing on points you bring up that are not relevant to the type of tax evasion I'm talking about; you're trying to make a specific type of tax evasion clampdown (evading income tax not corporate tax) seem impractical, by using completely different forms of tax evasion (corporate tax) as examples.

Going a number of posts back, the whole starting idea is enforcing transparency of personal income; you have not given examples relevant to that, you are trying to brush away the idea of tackling that as 'impractical' with completely disconnected examples.

You don't address the actual arguments I make, you are simply trying to ridicule the position without engaging in it (only engaging with arguments that don't apply to the specific tax avoidance I'm talking about).

The Corinthian wrote:

You've sidestepped this and instead chosen to continue debating in vagaries. Now, you can either address the example I gave or I'll just put you down to being a humanities undergrad who still thinks that using obfuscatory language erroneously impresses people, and leave you to the thread.

You may consider the last paragraph to be an ad hominem if you like, but for me, it's just an admission that I've got better things to be doing than wasting my time with such a discussion.

Yes that's a nice bit of projection there; I'm happy to end the discussion here seeing as you're intent on not discussing my arguments, but on bringing up completely irrelevant examples to try and ridicule.

PeadarCo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Secondly, you are at this stage avoiding to back up your abstract position with any substance whatsoever, so accusing me of arguing without any substance is laughable.

I have posed very real examples of where your vague aspirations would fall down and asked you to explain how your proposed model (if it is even that) would tackle them.

You've sidestepped this and instead chosen to continue debating in vagaries. Now, you can either address the example I gave or I'll just put you down to being a humanities undergrad who still thinks that using obfuscatory language erroneously impresses people, and leave you to the thread.

To be fair KyussBishop one of the issues with this whole debate is that anyone who states higher tax's reduce corruption etc provides no evidence for it bar their own reasoning. Its very hard to have a proper debate about tax when people work on the basis its like this because I say so. Theories are only valid if tested in the real world. I would assume higher taxes would increase the probability of tax evasion because they would increase the reward. Example look at the importance of Ireland corporation tax rate. If it was excessively high companies would just move to avoid tax. While corporation tax is not the exact same as personal tax many people out there can move just as easily.

The Bishop!

PeadarCo wrote: »

To be fair KyussBishop one of the issues with this whole debate is that anyone who states higher tax's reduce corruption etc provides no evidence for it bar their own reasoning. Its very hard to have a proper debate about tax when people work on the basis its like this because I say so. Theories are only valid if tested in the real world. I would assume higher taxes would increase the probability of tax evasion because they would increase the reward. Example look at the importance of Ireland corporation tax rate. If it was excessively high companies would just move to avoid tax. While corporation tax is not the exact same as personal tax many people out there can move just as easily.

Here's an interesting report. Some evidence if you will relating to the theory in the OP.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3556

Qualitymark

Economic report today http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0926/breaking2.html

Up to 30,000 jobs could be lost through government cuts in the Budget, an economic think-tank has warned.

Researchers claim plans to take €3.5 billion from the economy in December by cutting key services and income protection for low earners could have dire consequences.

The Nevin Economic Research Institute (Neri) said the state could instead shore up €1 billion by increasing taxes on high earners and wealth groups.

Welease

Qualitymark wrote: »

Economic report today http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0926/breaking2.html

Worth pointing out..

"The think-tank, which was set up in March and is funded by trade unions, suggested maintaining 2012 spending levels, reversing capital spending cuts and introducing a wealth tax."

I could have guessed the outcome of this report before they put pen to paper..

Memnoch

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not asking you to answer every "tiny little political problem";

I think what us 'idealists,' find frustrating about this kind of debate is that it creates a false dichotomy and burden upon those making what is essentially a moral argument.

When you make this argument, what I HEAR is... 'we can't do anything about tax havens, it's practically impossible considering realpolitic.' So what's the alternative? That we continue to propagate the every man for himself attitude? That we don't try to better ourselves as a people or society? Is that the solution? To simply continue on this spiral of competing with each other to lower tax rates and other incentives that allow the supremely wealthy to get even wealthier. It seems to me that this kind of argument has been planted and propagandised by the elite who are benifiting hugely from the status quo.

I think you have to take it one step at a time. The first step is to decide what we want, what we think is right/just/fair. THEN we can go about figuring out how to do it.

My own opinion would be that we should join a federated Europe, making us a stronger democracy. Europe as a whole has a hell of a lot of purchasing and consumer power and we can use this to pressurise corporations and indeed individuals.

Increase corporate and income tax rates across the board in Europe. Make these tax rates graded so entrepreneurs and small business can still get breaks but tax large corps like Shell etc at 50% of their profits. If all of Europe is in it then corporations can't really go anywhere can they? Not if they want to take advantage of the consumers we have here? They'd still make profit, just those profits wouldn't be as obscene.

In the end, I'd much rather have a discourse about what we can try to do to improve things and challenge a clearly broken, partisan, unfair and inherently exploitative system than simply continue on the endless spiral of fighting against other countries and people for greater percentages of a dwindling economic pie.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

Delaware is not pertinent, I am talking about income tax in exclusivity (meaning personal money in bank accounts), and Delaware is a corporate tax haven, it does not provide personal banking secrecy.

I thought we were discussing tax evasion here, rather than banking secrecy which is only one small part of it? You do know that you can easily evade tax without the need of banking secrecy? If not, I'm not entirely sure what you intend to accomplish here if you don't even know what you're talking about.

That is a false dichotomy, that you have to infringe on national or personal sovereignty or just leave the tax havens alone.

Except I don't actually say that there. There's absolutely nothing there about leaving the tax havens alone and the only time I mention anything about that in this thread I say the opposite. So, I'm afraid you're either reading into what I wrote what you want to see, or you're being dishonest.

I'm not debating in 'vagueries', I'm not arguing on points you bring up that are not relevant to the type of tax evasion I'm talking about; you're trying to make a specific type of tax evasion clampdown (evading income tax not corporate tax) seem impractical, by using completely different forms of tax evasion (corporate tax) as examples.

Except this is often used as a means of evading income tax. I know someone with a company registered in Dublin who's doing precisely this.

I think it clear that beyond freshman philosophy/English hyperbole, there's not much you're bringing to the discussion, if for no other reason than you don't seem to understand how tax evasion actually works, even on a basic level. So, I'll leave you to it.

Memnoch wrote: »

I think what us 'idealists,' find frustrating about this kind of debate is that it creates a false dichotomy and burden upon those making what is essentially a moral argument.

When you make this argument, what I HEAR is... 'we can't do anything about tax havens, it's practically impossible considering realpolitic.'

Except, I've never said that. I specifically said that while such measures will ultimately never solve the problem, they still have to be done.

It's much like many other social ills around today, such as war and poverty. Just because they may ultimately be beyond solving, does not mean that we should not address them or attempt to solve them. What I have questioned is vague and idealistic 'solutions' that seem to be based more on aspiration than any actual understanding of the problem they seek to solve.

In the end, you're not going to be able to take 'a step at a time' if you've no idea what direction you're even going in, in the first place.