Ok socialists, lets assume that you get your super taxes. What prevents the rich from just leaving?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

So lets assume that for whatever reason you have your way and there is now a 75% or higher tax on rich people.

What is preventing the rich from simply leaving the ship and going some place else? Nobody is going to just accept a super high tax if they have the option of not doing so, so why should they want to stay?

The markets.
With the proper protections (including not letting people take the money made inside the country out of the country without taxation), their businesses and their income is still situated where their money is produced.
If they leave, they'll still be taxed and if they want to avoid that, they'll have to give up that market, cutting themselves deeply.
You seem to think people can do business wherever they want, but they need to bow to the rules of the market just as others have to. The greatest lie the rich told the rightists was that the country needs them, not the other way around.
There are always new entrepeneurs to take their place; these wannabe Galts are not as irreplacable as they would like to think they are.

Also, I'm not a Socialist and I'm still okay with a 75% maximum tax rate, but I guess to you as a far rightist, that doesn't really factor into it. Everybody left of you fits into the category, I'm sure.

Hardcore_gamer:
So lets assume that for whatever reason you have your way and there is now a 75% or higher tax on rich people.

What is preventing the rich from simply leaving the ship and going some place else? Nobody is going to just accept a super high tax if they have the option of not doing so, so why should they want to stay?

The combination of very high individual tax rates and a regulatory environment quite favorable to business has seemed to work well in the Nordic countries. Why don't people leave? Because their employer is where they are and not elsewhere. You can have a very competitive labor force because of high investment in education and taking care with the government of many of those things which businesses are sometimes expected to handle for employees: health insurance, for example. If your public pension scheme is funded by incredibly progressive individual tax rates rather than a regressive payroll tax, then you aren't negatively affecting the supply or demand of labor with your tax system. Labor becomes relatively cheap for its quality and that makes businesses want to utilize it.

Sometimes income isn't as mobile or reproducible as you might think.

Socialism is nationalization of the means of production. A real Socialist does not care if the rich are no longer present, because the means with which they generated their wealth are controlled by the state.

Higher taxes in a bourgeois state just bolster bourgeois power.

Skeleon:
The markets.
With the proper protections (including not letting people take the money made inside the country out of the country without taxation), their businesses and their income is still situated where their money is produced.
If they leave, they'll still be taxed and if they want to avoid that, they'll have to give up that market, cutting themselves deeply.
You seem to think people can do business wherever they want, but they need to bow to the rules of the market just as others have to. The greatest lie the rich told the rightists was that the country needs them, not the other way around.
There are always new entrepeneurs to take their place; these wannabe Galts are not as irreplacable as they would like to think they are.

Also, I'm not a Socialist and I'm still okay with a 75% maximum tax rate, but I guess to you as a far rightist, that doesn't really factor into it. Everybody left of you fits into the category, I'm sure.

Pretty much that.

Though my answer would be 'Nothing, now get the hell off my land and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.' (Talking to the parasitic millionaire.)

Also, socialist =/= everything left of the democrats.
Get it right.

According to 60 minutes, that's exactly what they'd do. Apparently a lot of companies have 'fled' America in that they rent a little office space in some foreign country and claim that that is their HQ. Because their headquarters is stationed elsewhere, they pay taxes to that country instead of the US. These little 'outpost HQs' are often entirely unstaffed. They're basically just empty rooms.

So yeah, you can't actually tax people with money because there are a ton of little loopholes that wealthy people can utilize to avoid them. Poor people can't really avoid taxes, 'cause they're poor.

Hardcore_gamer:
So lets assume that for whatever reason you have your way and there is now a 75% or higher tax on rich people.

What is preventing the rich from simply leaving the ship and going some place else? Nobody is going to just accept a super high tax if they have the option of not doing so, so why should they want to stay?

Your post is contradictory with the title. No socialist would want a 75% tax on rich folks because in socialism the means of production would either be owned by the proletariat or state in which case taxes are irrelevant.

Kopikatsu:
According to 60 minutes, that's exactly what they'd do. Apparently a lot of companies have 'fled' America in that they rent a little office space in some foreign country and claim that that is their HQ. Because their headquarters is stationed elsewhere, they pay taxes to that country instead of the US. These little 'outpost HQs' are often entirely unstaffed. They're basically just empty rooms.

So yeah, you can't actually tax people with money because there are a ton of little loopholes that wealthy people can utilize to avoid them. Poor people can't really avoid taxes, 'cause they're poor.

Looks like it's time to use my favorite phrase!

Ready?

*gaaaaaaaasp*

Citations or it never happened!

There will always be people who want to be rich. Where there are opportunities they will be exploited. Assuming of course the state allows them to be exploited.

Perhaps rather than let ourselves be held captive by a few assholes we should pass laws that limit what ammount of non-private capital you can actually move out of the country? I'm not talking about making it illegal to leave, just a limit on what you can actually take with you when you leave.

I also have trouble seeing how this supposed mass-flight of rich people would happen. People aren't machines that calculate numbers and decide that "Oh, right now Barcelona is the place to be for maximum profit, honey, pack the kids!". Rich people, shockingly, have lives and friends and family. I have a hard time seeing more than a fraction of them just move out of the country, abandoning their entire previous lives just because they only get to keep 30k a month rather than a 100k. That is still an insane ammount of money, more than a private person can spend in a month.

Also, there has never been a "tax on rich people". Progressive taxes, as the name implies, have a rising percentage of your income needing to be paid depending on how large your income is. 75% being the maximum tax would only be paid by the absolutely highest in the country. Most above average earners would not pay a 75% income tax.

FuhrerVonZephyr:

Kopikatsu:
According to 60 minutes, that's exactly what they'd do. Apparently a lot of companies have 'fled' America in that they rent a little office space in some foreign country and claim that that is their HQ. Because their headquarters is stationed elsewhere, they pay taxes to that country instead of the US. These little 'outpost HQs' are often entirely unstaffed. They're basically just empty rooms.

So yeah, you can't actually tax people with money because there are a ton of little loopholes that wealthy people can utilize to avoid them. Poor people can't really avoid taxes, 'cause they're poor.

Looks like it's time to use my favorite phrase!

Ready?

*gaaaaaaaasp*

Citations or it never happened!

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/08/29/markets-hub-more-companies-moving-overseas-to-avoid-taxes/

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/11278-global-corporations-have-no-allegiance-to-us-move-headquarters-and-divisions-overseas

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-firms-move-abroad-024200566.html

http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Companies-US-Taxes-move/2012/08/29/id/450200

http://www.comparebusinessproducts.com/fyi/10-big-businesses-that-have-moved-abroad

If you try to mess with people that have money, they're going to fuck you nine ways from Sunday. Attempting to tax them in a meaningful manner is basically self-harming.

Remember America, go down the road and not across the street!

Atrocious Joystick:
Also, there has never been a "tax on rich people".

Actually, we had one known as "wealth tax" but the neoliberals made sure to get rid of it. Some other countries still have it, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax

Kopikatsu:
So yeah, you can't actually tax people with money because there are a ton of little loopholes that wealthy people can utilize to avoid them.

Only if you let them. But since politics in the USA are so extremely dependent on raising money from them, it's unlikely that this will change any time soon.

I think you are confusing corporations and people. The big con that the wealthy in the US have pulled is that individual income tax rates effect business. Corporations do not pay personal income tax, nor does any major private business, so a rise in personal income tax means nothing to them.

If some wealthy people leave so be it, someone else will replace them, after all companies still need a CEO and as long as their is profit to be made investments will be made.

As long as the business environment itself is pretty good personal income tax rates mean squat because most people do not build a massive amount wealth by having a high income. Most people who become rich (outside of being born into money) do so by starting a business, building the value up and cashing out. They then put that money into investment funds that get run for them.

Skeleon:

Kopikatsu:
So yeah, you can't actually tax people with money because there are a ton of little loopholes that wealthy people can utilize to avoid them.

Only if you let them. But since politics in the USA are so extremely dependent on raising money from them, it's unlikely that this will change any time soon.

If you have money, you can hire lobbyists. If you have lobbyists, you can somewhat influence laws being made (Beat down harmful ones and push through beneficial ones), on top of 'donating' money to individuals in positions of power (A practice that was once illegal but the law outlawing it was overturned some time ago). The US has been an Oligarchy since at least the 1880's.

Not sure how you would stop them though, because they're fully capable of bailing with most if not all of their assets at a moment's notice.

Kopikatsu:
Apparently a lot of companies have 'fled' America in that they rent a little office space in some foreign country and claim that that is their HQ.

..and yet America has some of the lowest corporation taxes in the developed world.

Maybe tax avoidance is, you know, something which rich people and corporations do anyway regardless of the tax rate because they can and because who the hell wants to pay money when you can legally avoid doing so?

Surely the point here is not that we should lower taxes on the vain hope that rich people might be decent enough to actually pay it if it's low enough, but maybe we should actually work to close down the loopholes which make tax avoidance possible in the first place.

If this was actually your point, sorry. It just sounded like you were agreeing with Hardcore Gamer.

Hardcore_gamer:
What is preventing the rich from simply leaving the ship and going some place else?

Depends how rich they are.

The super-rich don't pay income tax in the same way as the rest of us because most of them don't have a salary. Their money comes from accumulation on investments. Thus, although they may be making an enormous amount of money, they probably aren't generating very much of it as income. Much of it will be capital gain, which is taxed completely separately.

If one of these people moves away to avoid paying capital gains tax, the company or business they've invested in is still paying corporation tax, and since the profits of that company are where their capital gain comes from, they are still effectively paying income tax on most of their profit. It's likely to be a minimal saving for a lot of trouble.

The not-quite-so-rich get their money from working a salaried job which happens to be very highly paid. If they leave that job and move to some island tax haven, they need to find a new job. I'm guessing there isn't too much demand for corporate lawyers and investment bankers in the Bahamas.

Hardcore_gamer:
So lets assume that for whatever reason you have your way and there is now a 75% or higher tax on rich people.

I have two questions for you, buddy.

1) Who's "you"?

2) When are you going to start acting like an adult and discuss things like discussions are meant to go as opposed to your standard practice of dropping a bombastic misleading title then trying to imply everyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't know what they're talking about?

This is why phase one of the revolution is writing a list of counter revolutionaries and stage two is building some gulags.

But seriously, there are a lot of different ways to do it. Socialism doesn't even entail a high tax rate, as it would be just as easy to say that there is no inheritance or selling of shares/ownership and keep the tax rate the same, with everything going into communal ownership upon the death of the private owner.

Although personally I prefer re-appropriating the means of production and the disproportionate wealth accumulated through their control immediately rather than having to wait a few generations and keeping a Capitalist class in power which will seek to undermine any revolutionary activity. So why don't the rich flee the country? They're allowed to, but they're not really rich any more because rather than taxing a percentage of income, we've capped their wealth and there aren't any millionaires anymore.

Of course even if we go with your suggestion, which revolves around taxing the rich and not destroying the capitalist class and therefore seems more liberal than socialist, there's one amazingly obvious answer that stands out. Make it illegal. Plenty of countries have done so in the past. South Korea even instituted the death penalty for some forms of capital flight at one point, although personally I think taking their capital and kicking them out the country would be adequate punishment.

Hardcore_gamer:
-snip-

Vegosiux:
I have two questions for you, buddy.

1) Who's "you"?

2) When are you going to start acting like an adult and discuss things like discussions are meant to go as opposed to your standard practice of dropping a bombastic misleading title then trying to imply everyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't know what they're talking about?

And I have two questions to add onto that:

3) Do you realize that by grouping "liberals/people who aren't conservatives" with "socialists" is as childish and ignorant as grouping "conservatives" with "fascists," right?

4) The reason we aren't opposed to taxing the rich at least the same as the poor and middle class and preferably more is because we realize that trickle-down economics just doesn't work. It didn't work in the bank bailouts, and it won't work now. If rich people are given money now, they aren't going to try and replicate it by "taking risks" and doing stuff that will make more jobs. They'll hide it away and wait for the economy to get better. They can afford it--they're already paying for their meals quite easily.

But imagine if poorer people had more money. IIRC if you split up the bank bailout money between every man, woman, and child in the US every person would get like $5000. Imagine what would happen if all of that money was split among the people. A buying surge would occur--people would start buying stuff again, which is exactly what an economy needs to get back on its feet--people buying stuff. People who need food would buy it, people who need a vacation would take it, and people who are in debt would use it to help pay off those debts (of course we can't guarantee everybody will use it responsibly, but at least some will, and at least if that money isn't going to rent it's going to do something in the economy).

That is why we don't think the rich deserve fewer taxes than everybody else. You can argue because they own businesses they "create jobs," but they certainly aren't the only job-creators and they aren't altruistic gods on high who use every penny they have to give as many jobs to the masses as possible. On the contrary--they want as few employees as possible because that means more money. What they're after is money, and they certainly aren't going to take it upon themselves to employ a few more people than necessary to get the economy started again. They'll just hole-up with their millions and wait for better weather. They can afford to wait.

Hardcore_gamer:
So lets assume that for whatever reason you have your way and there is now a 75% or higher tax on rich people.

What is preventing the rich from simply leaving the ship and going some place else? Nobody is going to just accept a super high tax if they have the option of not doing so, so why should they want to stay?

I know this has probably been said but I'll chime in anyways.

1) 75% isn't what anyone here is proposing. 75% is extreme. Very extreme. What most of us want is in the 40-50% range, I imagine.

2) I assume you're talking about America here, and the answer for the US is simple; they're talking out their ass. Where else are they gonna go? If we're talking about the people earning between 250k-1million ish, they have jobs and livelihoods that can't exist outside the US. Anywhere else they go where a job like that exists (Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, Denmark, etc) they aren't gonna find better tax rates and relaxed regulation. Quite the opposite, in fact. If you're talking about the ultra rich, people who own and run major corporations,they're tied down by the reality that their companies exist in the largest economy in the world. They can't go anywhere else and find a similar level of success just by simple numbers. And even if you can get past all that, they still pay corporate tax, they still pay property tax on their assets, and I'm not 100% on this but I'm pretty sure that unless they forfeit their citizenships they're still obligated to pay some level of tax.

3) Going outside the US, I'll admit, you're right. In the US people threatening the abscond and abandon the quality of life and power AMD relatively low levels of economic regulation they face are making threats in vain like spoiled children threatening to run away because mommy didn't let them play outside. In Canada or Britain or Ireland or Australia or France, yeah the government really does have to make sure that the highest income people don't up and leave. Of course, the ultra right in other countries tend not to act like spoiled brats as much as the ultra rich in the states do. For all their right wing dogma about entitlement the top payers seem to think they're entitled to an awful lot. But I digress. In other countries the issue is tempered by the fact that they aren't as dependant on the ultra rich for revenue. Mitt Romney is right when he says the top fifth pay the overwhelming majority of American tax money, but that's because income disparity is so extreme in the US that the top fifth control something like 60 percent of the wealth. In Canada for example, income disparity is less extreme so you have more people paying taxes across the board and a more even contribution to the federal revenue stream.

MoNKeyYy:
1) 75% isn't what anyone here is proposing. 75% is extreme. Very extreme. What most of us want is in the 40-50% range, I imagine.

I'd wager the 75% is a reference to the French government's plans.

did america have rich people in the 1950's? why didnt they all flee then?

pyrate put it fairly well, the republicans have been running a long con on the american people and its finally beginning to unravel.

Skeleon:

MoNKeyYy:
1) 75% isn't what anyone here is proposing. 75% is extreme. Very extreme. What most of us want is in the 40-50% range, I imagine.

I'd wager the 75% is a reference to the French government's plans.

Like I said, extreme :P I don't think we have many French here I don't think, much less who agree with the plan. I would agree that 75% might he enough to drive off those who can escape. But I have to say, I'm glad he at least went for the "scared away" defense for lower taxation rather than the "demotivated" defense. I've never bought into that one; more money is more money no matter how you slice it. If I'm earning 50000 Euro and walking away with 30000 that's still a lot less than making 250000 and walking away with what, 61666?

I suppose losing their job positions and income(still super taxed) may stop some ultra rich people from leaving.
Some actually care about the projects, the prestige, dad's factory and not only the money, which they nolonger know how to spend anyway. Those are the men we need.

The rest who can live forever on their accumulated wealth in their swiss accounts and who don't have a passion for their business anyway, will simply leave and good riddance.

MoNKeyYy:
Like I said, extreme :P

I don't even think it's that extreme. Remember that in a progressive tax system, the 75% would only apply to the income above a particular amount. Everything else would be taxed according to their respective tax brackets. The USA had something like 90% highest tax rates during the 50s, for example. A rate that high shouldn't be applied to the entirety of the income.

Hardcore_gamer:
So lets assume that for whatever reason you have your way and there is now a 75% or higher tax on rich people.

What is preventing the rich from simply leaving the ship and going some place else? Nobody is going to just accept a super high tax if they have the option of not doing so, so why should they want to stay?

As Skeleon said, the markets.

Not to mention in a socialist system akin to the nordic countries, the rich wouldn't be able to leave without a major tax hike, and if they did the massive influx of educated people could easily replace them. Unlike what Atlas Shrugged tried to teach, the rich aren't ‹bermensch that the country relies on.

Skeleon:

MoNKeyYy:
Like I said, extreme :P

I don't even think it's that extreme. Remember that in a progressive tax system, the 75% would only apply to the income above a particular amount. Everything else would be taxed according to their respective tax brackets. The USA had something like 90% highest tax rates during the 50s, for example. A rate that high shouldn't be applied to the entirety of the income.

Yeah? I think anything above 60% ish is getting into the extreme range. Trust me, I know that the system is progressive that in the French case income tax rates would vary from 0 at the low end to 75 at the high end, I just don't think 75 is reasonable. I think once you're splitting it even down the middle, you're good. Especially considering that after income tax you also pay sales tax and property tax splitting your income with the government is a fair deal. And as for the fifties well, I've never accepted something being done in the past as justification, especially when it was 60 years ago. Although admittedly I don't believe that was the point you were making, I just haven't been able to fully work that one out yet.

You, once again have a misleading and somewhat aggressive title. None of us here are socialists, so either learn exactly what Socialism means, or keep quiet.
In fact, in a Socialistic system, "taxes" wouldn't exist much as they do today, since most if not everything would be run by cooperative function. We wouldn't have the same system of trade either.
So no, I won't play along with you. I'm going to report you, and that's it.

Well my question would be, would it be passed onto the consumer? If we saw a large rise in taxes, usually we see an increase in prices due to companies wanting that profit margin to remain, so what would stop them from just raising prices on their products across the board amongst almost every company being taxed so high? I'm sure they would sooner pass the costs onto the consumer than take the hit themselves.

MoNKeyYy:
Especially considering that after income tax you also pay sales tax and property tax splitting your income with the government is a fair deal.

Actually, sales tax is all the more reason for going higher on the high-end tax brackets, since those doesn't affect the rich as much as the middle and lower classes in the first place. Property tax is a different beast, there I'd agree.

And as for the fifties well, I've never accepted something being done in the past as justification, especially when it was 60 years ago. Although admittedly I don't believe that was the point you were making, I just haven't been able to fully work that one out yet.

Not exactly. Not because it was "in the past" but because many rather conservative folks have a romanticized view of the "Golden Fifties" where things were more traditional and supposedly better. I could make a similar argument regarding the times under Reagan, which similarly featured not just tax cuts but loads of tax hikes. The point isn't so much that "in the past, it was better" as it is "people think it was better then, despite massively higher tax rates".
From today's perspective incredibly high tax rates don't preclude a well functioning society, on the contrary. But, yes, you need the proper protections to ensure people can't just pack up and leave without paying their fair share before heading elsewhere. And I don't see any such protections in the USA right now, on the contrary. Just think of the frequent albeit irregular tax holidays which actually encourage moving money outside the USA until such a time that it can be repatriated with incredibly low rates.

Realitycrash:
You, once again have a misleading and somewhat aggressive title. None of us here are socialists, so either learn exactly what Socialism means, or keep quiet.
In fact, in a Socialistic system, "taxes" wouldn't exist much as they do today, since most if not everything would be run by cooperative function. We wouldn't have the same system of trade either.
So no, I won't play along with you. I'm going to report you, and that's it.

Dude, there might be a socialist here. Dont generalize!

You know that we live in a socialist democracy right? More or less and even less for Americans. A pure capitalistic society would be too cruel.

I think we should let the rich jump ship. If we need to appease them to make them stay than might as well get them out.

Why do you have such a "thing" about socialists?

Where else? The UK, which is a centre of trade with London and probably the easiest country to adapt to (except maybe Canada) for Americans has a 50% tax rate on the rich.

Where would all the rich Americans run to exactly?

I think that they would be more likely to be arrested for committing crimes in other countries.
Also, different country, different laws, and, different ways those laws are interpreted and enforced.

Nikolaz72:

Realitycrash:
You, once again have a misleading and somewhat aggressive title. None of us here are socialists, so either learn exactly what Socialism means, or keep quiet.
In fact, in a Socialistic system, "taxes" wouldn't exist much as they do today, since most if not everything would be run by cooperative function. We wouldn't have the same system of trade either.
So no, I won't play along with you. I'm going to report you, and that's it.

Dude, there might be a socialist here. Dont generalize!

Well there is Overhead, but that's pretty much it, yeah.

But of course, that's just me living in denial, because anything not right enough from the center is a socialist.

There is a misconception that no matter how much we tax the rich, they wont "Go Galt" on us because they would still make more money by continuing to operate within the American market. The problem is that being rich actually takes a lot of work, they aren't just lazy bums who got lucky. Try to imagine the stereotypical image of a guy who lives at the office, or is on business calls the entire time he is on vacation. If the taxation gets too ridiculous, they might just decide its not worth the trouble, take the millions they already have, and just retire.

Skeleon:
The markets.
With the proper protections (including not letting people take the money made inside the country out of the country without taxation), their businesses and their income is still situated where their money is produced.
If they leave, they'll still be taxed and if they want to avoid that, they'll have to give up that market, cutting themselves deeply.
You seem to think people can do business wherever they want, but they need to bow to the rules of the market just as others have to. The greatest lie the rich told the rightists was that the country needs them, not the other way around.
There are always new entrepeneurs to take their place; these wannabe Galts are not as irreplacable as they would like to think they are.

Also, I'm not a Socialist and I'm still okay with a 75% maximum tax rate, but I guess to you as a far rightist, that doesn't really factor into it. Everybody left of you fits into the category, I'm sure.

Then it's not social it's fascist.
Double taxation is frowned upon even in social states.

Pluvia:
Where else? The UK, which is a centre of trade with London and probably the easiest country to adapt to (except maybe Canada) for Americans has a 50% tax rate on the rich.

Where would all the rich Americans run to exactly?

To the nearest tax shelter, like half the guys in the London branch of my company, open couple accounts in the Isle of Man and none the wiser...

MoNKeyYy:

Hardcore_gamer:
So lets assume that for whatever reason you have your way and there is now a 75% or higher tax on rich people.

What is preventing the rich from simply leaving the ship and going some place else? Nobody is going to just accept a super high tax if they have the option of not doing so, so why should they want to stay?

I know this has probably been said but I'll chime in anyways.

1) 75% isn't what anyone here is proposing. 75% is extreme. Very extreme. What most of us want is in the 40-50% range, I imagine.

My progressive tax rate is 48% + Social Security Tax + Health tax, i get value tax on my company car, cellphone, and heck they are even trying to find ways to tax the benefits you get from getting frequent flyer miles during your business travel.

I'm getting payed 48K a month in my local currency, additional 4.3K is added to it(for tax reasons) for the "value" of my company car, and couple 100's for cell phone and other expenditures which my employer covers.
The bottom line i get is 22.6Kish in local currency, after taxes(17K~ Income Tax, 2K~ health tax, and 2.5K~ social security) and the mandatory 12.5% retirement and sabbatical fund deposits.
I'm not doing badly, i make about 5 times(Pre tax) the average salary here, and I'm still not considered wealthy, not even close.
So yeah i don't really think you want to be paying 50% or more in taxes.
Especially if you live in a country with tons of indirect taxes(Vat, Property Tax, etc`).

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked