Moody's May Cut US Rating on Tax Package

[B_nyvin]

The brutal truth is that any decision that any politician now takes will hurt the poorest. It is not possible to get out of the hole by hitting the rich or the middle - rebalancing an economy has to start with rebalancing the money of the poorest. And rebalancing means reducing. In the UK we are told to expect 5% inflation, level wages, job and benefit cuts. This hurts everyone, and of course it hurts the poor hardest. There is no alternative once an economy is in the mess the UK's is in. Of course better is not to get in that mess in the first place.

the top 10% of the wealthiest own 79% of the wealth...and yet we have to focus on that bottom 21%...cause that's what matters....makes total sense, not.

 

[Jason]

Uncomfortable truth no politician will tell you: you cannot tax the rich.

They have the option of being domiciled overseas and therefore paying no tax. This may cause them some inconvenience but will certainly happen if tax levels on the rich are perceived by the rich as being too high. Additionally they can buy the best tax avoidance advice, eg their money will be held in some corporate structure that is registered on the moon and pays low tax. The compromise is that nations can manage some modest taxation on the rich (at a level the rich believe appropriate).

10% of the wealthiest own 79% of the wealth - I assume this is a US figure. Certainly it is plausible. And yes you must concentrate on taxing the remaining 21%.

This remaining 21% is the middle and the poor. The middle are (broadly) wealth producers. In the US and the UK (and many other countries) the middle are bearing pretty high levels of tax anyway. They aren't going to join the rich as domiciled overseas, but they are potentially going to stop working. This might mean work less hard, earn less, pay less tax. Or it might mean retire early. Yes you can tax the middle, but after a point it becomes counter productive as there are less of them to tax.

You can tax the poor. They are unlikely to be able to emigrate or pay for tax advoidance advice. They can't stop working because they are poor. Rather this group - and this group alone - will pay up.

Increasing tax may be dressed up by politicians as proportionate, fair, hitting those most able to pay. Absolute rubbish. It hits the poor.

 

[dandelion]

Uncomfortable truth no politician will tell you: you cannot tax the rich.

Uncomfortable truth no rich man will tell you: Oh yes you can.

The difficulty may be to find anyone in a position with power to do this who is not also a rich man, so might be minded to try. Maybe there should be a rule equvalent to the one which says no one serving a 1 year jail term can be an Mp, that no one owning more than 1 million pounds can be an MP.

They have the option of being domiciled overseas and therefore paying no tax.

People have started saying, guess where one of the worlds biggest tax havens is....the UK! Rich picking starts at home.

This may cause them some inconvenience but will certainly happen if tax levels on the rich are perceived by the rich as being too high. Additionally they can buy the best tax avoidance advice, eg their money will be held in some corporate structure that is registered on the moon and pays low tax.

This is propaganda, pure and simple. The easiest form of tax avoidance is just to persuade governments not even to try.

10% of the wealthiest own 79% of the wealth - I assume this is a US figure. Certainly it is plausible. And yes you must concentrate on taxing the remaining 21%.

If that figure is in any way meaningful, then thats daft. If its real UK wealth then its staying put and fair game for taxation. If it is not real UK wealth then in what way is it meaningful to include it in the 100%.

This might mean work less hard, earn less, pay less tax. Or it might mean retire early.

funny how these things get back to front? Give a man more free cash and he will work harder? He is less well off so he...retires and is even less well off? The normal principle is always that if someone is short of money he works harder. It applies just as much to the rich. Incidentally, I noticed some people have started challenging how big a proportion of UK income is represented by the financial sector. Also the etraordinarily bad effects of tax breaks for the rich, which stifle startup companies, which not being rich are signficantly disadvantaged compared to existing big companies. Under this logic the faster we get rid of big companies - by any means - the better.

In the UK we are told to expect 5% inflation, level wages, job and benefit cuts. This hurts everyone, and of course it hurts the poor hardest. There is no alternative once an economy is in the mess the UK's is in.

Pain may or may not be necessary, but the background imperative is to deal with the reasons this happened, and will happen again. That was not government spending or borrowing but economic instability. It is the speculative financial system which is chiefly to blame.

But the bankers (or those working in finance, or the rich) are all working within a regulatory framework that we the people (through our politicians) have set up. We vote for politicians who promise variously lower taxes and more public spending. And when those politicians get into power they find the only way they can deliver is through taking on more debt

As I said, politicians like to sail close to the wind, but it was an economic thunderstorm which sank the ship. And who caused that? Though I agree, bankers are just people. Nothing more is required than to make them ex-bankers.

 

[B_nyvin]

I don't know why it's so hard to believe...but apparently it is...so here's a quote for you from a good source. But granted it's like ~5 years old so it's off by quite a bit, wealth disparity has gotten considerably worse, specifically in english speaking countries.

The concentration of wealth in different countries varies considerably, with the top 10 per cent in the US holding 70 per cent of the country�s wealth, compared with 61 per cent in France, 56 per cent in the UK, 44 per cent in Germany and 39 per cent in Japan.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1206-01.htm

 

[dandelion]

It would be interesting to see a proper analysis of whether this so called wealth is actually doing the country more harm than good. If one of large companies preoccupations is to prevent small start up companies growing and taking away their business, then what we need to do is cut the large ones down to size. If notional wealth is lost in this process, it wasnt wealth we ever had any access to, so it was worthless.

 

[deleted15807]

"know more" about economics? Economics is a man made science, that's like saying we "know more" about english.

So it's not possible that say after taking a course in English that you can 'know' more about it than you did before? Whether it's science or an art is irrelevant. Those in that field believe they understand more how macro-economics work now than in earlier times.

 

[maxcok]

So it's not possible that say after taking a course in English that you can 'know' more about it than you did before? Whether it's science or an art is irrelevant. Those in that field believe they understand more how macro-economics work now than in earlier times.

Pish-posh. 'Art' or 'science', who cares?

We need to reject liberal extravagances like art and science and get back to fundamentals - strict literal interpretation of the Constitution (inasfar as it conforms with our own personal ideology), "real 'traditional' American values", and Jesus.

 

[deleted15807]

Pish-posh. 'Art' or 'science', who cares?

We need to reject liberal extravagances like art and science and get back to fundamentals - strict literal interpretation of the Constitution (inasfar as it conforms with our own personal ideology), "real 'traditional' American values", and Jesus.

And we can cherry-pick our way through the Bible for 'strict literal interpretations' too. We'll embrace 'the culture of life' and ban abortions and then switch over to 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' and embrace the death penalty and preemptive war. Though preemptive war is a bit of a problem but fiddle-dee-dee. I'll think about that tomorrow.

 

[maxcok]

And we can cherry-pick our way through the Bible for 'strict literal interpretations' too. We'll embrace 'the culture of life' and ban abortions and then switch over to 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' and embrace the death penalty and preemptive war. Though preemptive war is a bit of a problem but fiddle-dee-dee. I'll think about that tomorrow.

Oh Sargon, don't worry your pretty little head over such weighty matters.
.
.

 

[deleted15807]

Oh Sargon, don't worry your pretty little head over such weighty matters.
.
.

Frankly I won't. I'm going window shopping now.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

Uncomfortable truth no politician will tell you: you cannot tax the rich.

I laughed really hard when I read this, but your other posts in the thread are not much better.

You try really hard to convince people you know what you're talking about economically, but you really have no clue. It's possible that you're insulated a bit not being American as most of the rest of the board is, but probably not a good excuse, since our economics are closely tied to yours.

Please, please, please, start using your head and stop believing every fluff piece you read in The Economist.

 

[Jason]

I laughed really hard when I read this, but your other posts in the thread are not much better.

You try really hard to convince people you know what you're talking about economically, but you really have no clue. It's possible that you're insulated a bit not being American as most of the rest of the board is, but probably not a good excuse, since our economics are closely tied to yours.

Please, please, please, start using your head and stop believing every fluff piece you read in The Economist.

You are welcome to disagree with my views. But when you revive a weeks-dead thread for no reason other than to say so (without a hint of a reason) it does appear rather rude.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

It was really that stupid. If you like, I'll explain exactly why when I'm not on my phone keyboard.

 

[Jason]

Cheers Sinwin, no problem.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

Uncomfortable truth no politician will tell you: you cannot tax the rich.

Hilarious. I'm going to go tell the IRS that the 2/3 of all income tax revenue that the top 10% pay is not really there.

They have the option of being domiciled overseas and therefore paying no tax. This may cause them some inconvenience but will certainly happen if tax levels on the rich are perceived by the rich as being too high. Additionally they can buy the best tax avoidance advice, eg their money will be held in some corporate structure that is registered on the moon and pays low tax. The compromise is that nations can manage some modest taxation on the rich (at a level the rich believe appropriate).

LOL, you actually believe this, don't you? The John Galt theory on taxation.

Let me let you in on a secret: They've been using this line forever, but it's almost never true. If it were, every single billionaire in the world would move to the US, with it's super friendly tax policies.. But they don't, because you're this is just a line that they feed gullible types.

More figures into your location than just tax rates. Hell, we've had our top marginal rate at 90% in the US, and we didn't have an exodus. It was over 50% up until Reagan, and still wealth became concentrated at the top.

10% of the wealthiest own 79% of the wealth - I assume this is a US figure. Certainly it is plausible.

Plausible? You don't even know enough about US economics to know that wealth was so upwardly concentrated, and you're expecting to be taken seriously in a discussion about this country?

Please educate yourself(to be fair, it's more like 73%):It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

And yes you must concentrate on taxing the remaining 21%.

Hilariously dumb, and stupid, since there is not enough wealth in that 21% to pay for a country without basically destroying society.

This remaining 21% is the middle and the poor. The middle are (broadly) wealth producers. In the US and the UK (and many other countries) the middle are bearing pretty high levels of tax anyway.

Actually no, taxes in the US are at historical lows.

They aren't going to join the rich as domiciled overseas, but they are potentially going to stop working. This might mean work less hard, earn less, pay less tax. Or it might mean retire early. Yes you can tax the middle, but after a point it becomes counter productive as there are less of them to tax.

Or you can tax the rich a tiny bit more and pay for programs that help everyone.

You can tax the poor. They are unlikely to be able to emigrate or pay for tax advoidance advice. They can't stop working because they are poor. Rather this group - and this group alone - will pay up.

Or you can tax the rich a tiny bit more and pay for programs that help everyone.

Increasing tax may be dressed up by politicians as proportionate, fair, hitting those most able to pay. Absolute rubbish. It hits the poor.

Actually it hits the rich, because it's a progressive tax system.

Currently it's not nearly progressive enough.

The only thing that's rubbish is your knowledge of the subject.