Idea for a new law: No tax can be highter then 50%

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

So you want legislators to make a law limiting their power, a law that they can also change at any time. Basically an extra piece of legislation that will change nothing.

Overhead:

generals3:
You have a false definition of "entrepreneur". There is a big difference between an investor and entrepreneur. One can be both of course but one can be an investor without being an entrepreneur.

You cannot however be an entrepreneur without being an investor.

There are people who put some of their savings and almost all their time into their start ups. They don't only invest but often also act as CEO, CFO, CMO and even more if needed. These are people who make 8hour per day 5/7d laborers look like lazy ingrates.

The big emotional appeal/strawman (I notice your example doesn't have much room for lazy owners who just inhereted some money and decided to start a business for example) you're making involves petit-bourgouis business owners who're still acting as labourers. It's their role as a labourer which is creating everything of value; with the investment simply being what is required to be able to control the means of production and in the future extract profit from and exploit workers.

Why would you take away incentives for such great contributors?

They're no greater contributors than anyone else and I wouldn't take away the incentives. Do work, earn money, get more money the more your earn would still be there. The most disproportionate levels of profit would simply be banned.

of course this is all based on the off hand comment I made rather than the true method I'd use, which is to smash the state and destroy capitalism.

I never said there weren't lazy owners, i clearly stated "there are people" not "all the entrepreneurs...". That's just you assuming things. But your system would also take away incentives from the hard working entrepreneurs who are pretty much vital for a healthy economy. You know in Belgium we have a problem that we don't have enough entrepreneurs and the desire to stimulate entrepreneurship is a big topic. And you just want to take away long term incentives. And no the "get more money the more you earn" won't be there since at some point you'll be capped. Why would you want your company to perform better if you already can give yourself the max salary? Why would you work extra hours? Etc.

A 100% tax bracket is plainly destructive.

dmase:
So you want legislators to make a law limiting their power, a law that they can also change at any time. Basically an extra piece of legislation that will change nothing.

Uhm, ALL laws can be changed. Does that make all laws pointless?

generals3:
Why would you want your company to perform better if you already can give yourself the max salary? Why would you work extra hours? Etc.

A 100% tax bracket is plainly destructive.

Honestly, if I ever got that high on my income that it'd get capped, I'd likely already have more money than I could spend in my lifetime, considering I don't give a flying fuck about "swag". Of course not everybody is me, but my motivation to work more and better is the fact that if I'm doing something I might as well do it well, not that I'll get more money for it.

Hardcore_gamer:

dmase:
So you want legislators to make a law limiting their power, a law that they can also change at any time. Basically an extra piece of legislation that will change nothing.

Uhm, ALL laws can be changed. Does that make all laws pointless?

It makes ones where tax caps are in place pointless. Why not just vote for or against tax increases or decreases? If a legislative body wants to put taxes above 50% they vote down the 50% cap and then increase the taxes or they could just vote on tax increases.

If we're talking about a mandatory seat belt law there isn't a changing need for seat belts. They should be used for the same reasons 20 years ago as they are today and 20 years from now absent significant safety changes in vehicles. However taxes are a fluid subject where the populace's opinion changes, circumstances in a country change, and the world changes.

Hardcore_gamer:
Taxes are needed for the maintaining of society. This is fact and there is no getting around it.

Even if so however, taxes can also be used as a tool for abuse by the state when they are unfair. I personally believe that the state should not be able to profit more from somebody's cake then the person baking the cake, and thus I suggest a law that makes it illegal for the state to make any single tax higher then 50%. A full half should be the most the state should be allowed to legally take away from someone.

That way, high taxes are still possible when they are needed but the state still can't rob people by profiting more from them then they do them self's.

Thoughts?

Taxes aren't unfair, the government can do whatever it likes* because it's democratically elected and so, if taxes are increased, it's not the government but a majority of people saying that you should contribute more. Thus, if you vote in a party that does not increase taxes over 50% then that is dandy, but you cannot prevent another party that wants to if it is fairly elected.

*Unless, of course, it's against your constitution, which is enforced by the judiciary of your particular country. In my personal opinion you should not change your constitution to limit taxes going over 50% because it would diminish the authority of the constitution by dealing with tax specifics that adhere to certain political ideologies (which goes against the point of having a constitution in the first place - constitutions should be broad aims that protect the fundamental rights of people).

Vegosiux:

generals3:
Why would you want your company to perform better if you already can give yourself the max salary? Why would you work extra hours? Etc.

A 100% tax bracket is plainly destructive.

Honestly, if I ever got that high on my income that it'd get capped, I'd likely already have more money than I could spend in my lifetime, considering I don't give a flying fuck about "swag". Of course not everybody is me, but my motivation to work more and better is the fact that if I'm doing something I might as well do it well, not that I'll get more money for it.

There is a different between doing a lot and doing something well. You could do the strict minimum and do it right, doesn't necessarily mean you'll be doing a lot. And off course motivation depends on the person, but surely we could all agree that more money doesn't demotivate as such you can only be reducing motivation or keeping it on par by taking away extra money as motivational tool.

generals3:

There is a different between doing a lot and doing something well. You could do the strict minimum and do it right, doesn't necessarily mean you'll be doing a lot. And off course motivation depends on the person, but surely we could all agree that more money doesn't demotivate as such you can only be reducing motivation or keeping it on par by taking away extra money as motivational tool.

Uhm, no, I'd not say "strict minimum" suffices to "do it right". It takes time and planning outside doing the actual work to get there. Doing a better job generally takes more effort than doing a sloppy job with minimum necessary effort. And I agree that money doesn't demotivate, but if one's only motivated by money, well...

I don't know, but if I was hiring I'd prefer to take the person that puts their mind to it and does their job well regardless over the person that's just in for the money any time; not even because of monetary concerns, but because people who like doing their work and going the extra mile to do it better than the bare minimum necessary, create a better atmosphere.

Having employees who are motivated only, or mainly, by the money, is asking for trouble.

But your system would also take away incentives from the hard working entrepreneurs who are pretty much vital for a healthy economy.

It would take away one incentive, it would only take it away from those that went past the specific income margin and new small businessmen are only necessary as a way of effectively channelling Capital to create a profit. Seeing as I'm talking about a non-Capitalist socio-economic structure, that's not necessary.

You know in Belgium we have a problem that we don't have enough entrepreneurs and the desire to stimulate entrepreneurship is a big topic.

It's just as much a meaningless buzzword meant to lionise the petit-bourgeoise in the rest of the Western world as it is in Belgium.

And you just want to take away long term incentives.

I want to replace them with other long term incentives. Do you think the tax money gets burnt rather than providing improved healthcare, looking after the elderly, maintaining national infrastructure, etc?

And no the "get more money the more you earn" won't be there since at some point you'll be capped.

It will be capped for a minority of people earning stupid amounts. As I said, only the most disproportionate amounts of income are banned.

Why would you want your company to perform better if you already can give yourself the max salary? Why would you work extra hours? Etc.

Pride, work ethic, loyalty to staff, peer pressure, nationalism, etc. But when stage 2 comes around and the proletariat seize the means of production, it won't really matter.

A 100% tax bracket is plainly destructive.

No, it changed to a 200% tax.

Here in the US, I would imagine the legistlators would add in a bunch of loopholes to get around this issue.

Also

dmase:
So you want legislators to make a law limiting their power, a law that they can also change at any time. Basically an extra piece of legislation that will change nothing.

I would certainly like for no tax higher than 50%. Theoretically you should at LEAST keep half of what you've earned. I'd probably cap it a bit lower though.

Overhead:
It's just as much a meaningless buzzword meant to lionise the petit-bourgeoise in the rest of the Western world as it is in Belgium.

Don't confuse silly marxist rhetoric with arguments.

He's got a very decent point against you, and I'll also explain why. You'd basically be destroying the capital needed to make investments. After all, long before you reach sufficient levels of creditworthyness and liquidity, it gets taxed 100%, effectively prohibiting investments.

For one thing which I can guarantee you is a consequence of that, that absolutely paralyses the construction sector, because they get most of their work from people who work on a long term planning and require extensive investments.

Overhead:
Pride, work ethic, loyalty to staff, peer pressure, nationalism, etc. But when stage 2 comes around and the proletariat seize the means of production, it won't really matter.

So a bloody civil war followed by further collapse into a totalitarian dictatorship is your ideal... Sounds like a good way to destroy your credibility if you ask me.

Blablahb:

He's got a very decent point against you, and I'll also explain why. You'd basically be destroying the capital needed to make investments. After all, long before you reach sufficient levels of creditworthyness and liquidity, it gets taxed 100%, effectively prohibiting investments.

For one thing which I can guarantee you is a consequence of that, that absolutely paralyses the construction sector, because they get most of their work from people who work on a long term planning and require extensive investments.

Taxed money isn't destroyed it's transferred. That's the basis of your argument and it falls down at a pretty early level.

Overhead:
So a bloody civil war followed by further collapse into a totalitarian dictatorship is your ideal... Sounds like a good way to destroy your credibility if you ask me.

We're assuming that these tax proposals are put in place through the standard legislative means, so if there's a far left socialist in power that's how changes in ownership of businesses would be pushed through as well - legally by demcoratically elected representatives rather than guns.

Overhead:

Rentiers would already be in the Gulags. Next objection?

A man after my own heart!

Odgical:

Taxes aren't unfair, the government can do whatever it likes* because it's democratically elected and so, if taxes are increased, it's not the government but a majority of people saying that you should contribute more. Thus, if you vote in a party that does not increase taxes over 50% then that is dandy, but you cannot prevent another party that wants to if it is fairly elected.

I don't think this is a particularly constructive way to view a democratically elected government. Governments can and do go against their manifestos and election pledges all the time. I would try and point to an example in British politics, but I think you could just throw a stone in the House of Commons when in session and hit someone who has broken a pledge or election promise (but for example: Tuition fees, which is an example of literally promising one thing and delivering the opposite).

I would say if a party runs on a platform of high taxes and is elected, they can legitimately say they have a mandate for it, but just because a party is elected doesn't make their actions automatically supported by the voters.

PiCroft:
I don't think this is a particularly constructive way to view a democratically elected government. Governments can and do go against their manifestos and election pledges all the time. I would try and point to an example in British politics, but I think you could just throw a stone in the House of Commons when in session and hit someone who has broken a pledge or election promise (but for example: Tuition fees, which is an example of literally promising one thing and delivering the opposite).

I would say if a party runs on a platform of high taxes and is elected, they can legitimately say they have a mandate for it, but just because a party is elected doesn't make their actions automatically supported by the voters.

Well, no, the entire point of democracy is that if someone does go back on their promises then you can vote for someone who isn't a lying scumbag the next time around, theoretically reversing all their decisions and making the world right again, whilst the constitution and the judiciary protect basic fundamental rights so it doesn't get too bad whilst the evil ones are in power.

When I say evil ones, I of course mean the Green Party. Filthy, filthy, global-warming-myth-spreading socialists.

Overhead:
Taxed money isn't destroyed it's transferred. That's the basis of your argument and it falls down at a pretty early level.

Not only did I never claim anything like that, but it's transfered to something that's not a an investment, the point stands.

A jealousy tax of 100% would destroy the ability to invest in anything, and would destroy the economy over the course of a few cycles.

Overhead:
We're assuming that these tax proposals are put in place through the standard legislative means, so if there's a far left socialist in power that's how changes in ownership of businesses would be pushed through as well - legally by demcoratically elected representatives rather than guns.

Except it doesn't work like that. People don't allow everything they have to be stolen, and as a result it'll never gain a majority either, not as long as at least 51% of the population that's elligable to vote has a brain.

Even minor attempts at stealing possession to fuel the radical left idea of an economy have shown to be a spectacular failure. Mostly southern american countries that have tried it have seen their economies collapse as investors took their money elsewhere, to places where it's not likely to get stolen from them on a whim.

Odgical:

PiCroft:
I don't think this is a particularly constructive way to view a democratically elected government. Governments can and do go against their manifestos and election pledges all the time. I would try and point to an example in British politics, but I think you could just throw a stone in the House of Commons when in session and hit someone who has broken a pledge or election promise (but for example: Tuition fees, which is an example of literally promising one thing and delivering the opposite).

I would say if a party runs on a platform of high taxes and is elected, they can legitimately say they have a mandate for it, but just because a party is elected doesn't make their actions automatically supported by the voters.

Well, no, the entire point of democracy is that if someone does go back on their promises then you can vote for someone who isn't a lying scumbag the next time around,

Good luck with that! :p

This sounds great in theory. However, with the country in debt and some people being so wealthy they could never spend what they make in ten lifetimes it doesn't seem to be a good idea in practice.

PiCroft:

Odgical:

PiCroft:
I don't think this is a particularly constructive way to view a democratically elected government. Governments can and do go against their manifestos and election pledges all the time. I would try and point to an example in British politics, but I think you could just throw a stone in the House of Commons when in session and hit someone who has broken a pledge or election promise (but for example: Tuition fees, which is an example of literally promising one thing and delivering the opposite).

I would say if a party runs on a platform of high taxes and is elected, they can legitimately say they have a mandate for it, but just because a party is elected doesn't make their actions automatically supported by the voters.

Well, no, the entire point of democracy is that if someone does go back on their promises then you can vote for someone who isn't a lying scumbag the next time around,

Good luck with that! :p

That's a bit lethargic, apathetic and defeatist. After all, the government is "of the people", so the people don't have power over it only theoretically; but it does takes some organized effort to get active and push for change, yes.

It's especially interesting since around escapist plenty of small government conservative types seem to also do a lot of that bootstrappy talk, I wonder why politics should be any different in that regard? The government isn't some otherworldly alien entity...so why is it being treated as such? Path of least resistance, attempts to wash one's hands, it being somebody else's problem?

Vegosiux:

That's a bit lethargic, apathetic and defeatist. After all, the government is "of the people", so the people don't have power over it only theoretically; but it does takes some organized effort to get active and push for change, yes.

It's especially interesting since around escapist plenty of small government conservative types seem to also do a lot of that bootstrappy talk, I wonder why politics should be any different in that regard? The government isn't some otherworldly alien entity...so why is it being treated as such? Path of least resistance, attempts to wash one's hands, it being somebody else's problem?

I was being facetious but I think you missed my point. I was arguing against the idea that the government is justified with something by using the criteria "because they were elected". This is an over-simplified and naive view, since it implies the electorate of the UK wanted Foundation Hospitals, or increased tuition fees, or the Iraq War because our representatives voted for them even though none of these things were:

A) put on any parties manifesto
B) were done against the majority of the electorate's wishes (and to extremely fierce public outcry in the case of the war)

If a politician runs on a platform, then explicitly does the opposite, is it the electorate's fault for not being prescient? What if every party they have the option of voting for (realistically, in the US' two-party system and the UKs more or less de-facto two-party system) does the same?

This is my original point: if a politician or party runs on a platform and is elected, you can generally consider the promises they made to have a mandate. If not, saying "well, they were elected, weren't they?" is useless and is excuse-making for bad politicians.

PiCroft:

I was being facetious but I think you missed my point. I was arguing against the idea that the government is justified with something by using the criteria "because they were elected". This is an over-simplified and naive view, since it implies the electorate of the UK wanted Foundation Hospitals, or increased tuition fees, or the Iraq War because our representatives voted for them even though none of these things were:

A) put on any parties manifesto
B) were done against the majority of the electorate's wishes (and to extremely fierce public outcry in the case of the war)

If a politician runs on a platform, then explicitly does the opposite, is it the electorate's fault for not being prescient? What if every party they have the option of voting for (realistically, in the US' two-party system and the UKs more or less de-facto two-party system) does the same?

This is my original point: if a politician or party runs on a platform and is elected, you can generally consider the promises they made to have a mandate. If not, saying "well, they were elected, weren't they?" is useless and is excuse-making for bad politicians.

Well paint me red and call me Reginald Proctor the Third, esq., I did miss your point there, yes.

Yes, I see where you're coming from, after all, you can't blame people for being lied to...once. It's a bit of a "Fool me once..." thing here. But I will take issue with the "What if every party does the same?" part. Because if that's the case, and there are enough people who share the sentiment, get organized. Get loud. Campaign, endorse, run for positions. Yes, I'm aware changes come slowly down that road, but they still come faster (and most importantly, they're more persistent) that way than the "sit down and complain how the government is evil" way...

Incidentally, I'll be attending the anti-government protests over here after work tomorrow.

Vegosiux:

Well paint me red and call me Reginald Proctor the Third, esq., I did miss your point there, yes.

Yes, I see where you're coming from, after all, you can't blame people for being lied to...once. It's a bit of a "Fool me once..." thing here. But I will take issue with the "What if every party does the same?" part. Because if that's the case, and there are enough people who share the sentiment, get organized. Get loud. Campaign, endorse, run for positions. Yes, I'm aware changes come slowly down that road, but they still come faster (and most importantly, they're more persistent) that way than the "sit down and complain how the government is evil" way...

Incidentally, I'll be attending the anti-government protests over here after work tomorrow.

I'm being cynical I guess, but the state of politics in the UK is getting me down.

What protests are you going to btw?

A cap of 50% on what? Income tax? Are we talking marginal or effective tax rate? Someone with a marginal tax rate of 50% might have an effective tax rate closer to 25-30%, depending on how the rates are structured and what deductions they can write up.

That's not even touching on the fact that most industrial nations have a multitude of taxes and fees on various kinds of economic activities and assets. It would be meaningless to discuss taxes without specifying which ones one wants to change, and for what reasons. As an example, I have long been a proponent for lowering the sales tax in my nation (which currently stands at 25%), because it disproportionally hits the poor harder than the well-off.

PiCroft:

What protests are you going to btw?

Anti-corrupt-politician protests, mostly. It's aimed mostly against the governmnet, of course (several MP's of the main party have been caught with forged degrees and the like, the PM himself is on a criminal trial in three states, but clinging to the position like a damned octopus), but several major opposition figures have also been caught in shady business so it's going to be against them, too.

The first two protests have been peaceful and civilized even if there were attempts to sabotage the first one (some folks were found, trying to incite riots), but that luckily didn't happen. I hope it keeps that way. But basically, the people have had enough, and are getting quite loud with "You've stolen the country, we do not want to see you leading it anymore, get out." And it's aimed against all those monkey suits who fucked up our economy for their own profits.

Slovenia is not in a good position right now, and it's going to take a while for things to get better...but I hope we can clean up a little, and find someone more trustworthy to take over. I'm almost half-inclined to say I almost wish we'd just do away with the government, and hire a dozen foreign experts without an agenda to help us fix this mess we're in...

Damnit, are you going at this again?
Sigh. I don't have the energy to go through this again, so I'll just say: Correct the typo in the topic.

Hardcore_gamer:
Taxes are needed for the maintaining of society. This is fact and there is no getting around it.

Even if so however, taxes can also be used as a tool for abuse by the state when they are unfair. I personally believe that the state should not be able to profit more from somebody's cake then the person baking the cake, and thus I suggest a law that makes it illegal for the state to make any single tax higher then 50%. A full half should be the most the state should be allowed to legally take away from someone.

That way, high taxes are still possible when they are needed but the state still can't rob people by profiting more from them then they do them self's.

Thoughts?

It depends on how you think about tax brackets and how you apply the 50%.

Lets say a man makes 2,000,000 dollars in one year from his successful company.

Lets make the brackets VERY simple ok?

He receives the first 500,000 with 20% tax. 100,000 in tax taken in total

He recieves the next 500,000 with 30% tax. 250,000 in tax taken in total

He recieves the next 500,000 with 40% tax. 450,000 in tax taken in total.

He recieves the next 500,000 with 60% tax. 750,000 in total.

So he made 1,250,000 and the state takes 750,000.

So even though ONE tax bracket is taxed 60% the business owner STILL makes more money than the state takes, meaning that although ONE tax rate is over 50% he makes more money than the state on his own business, which i agree is right. However it depends on what scale you apply such a restriction. If you mean no TAX can be over 50% people will make SUBSTANTIALLY more than 50% of their profit in TOTAL.

I agree with your premise if we agree that, after TOTAL taxation, no business should be made to pay more than 50%.

I dont really undestand though because I want to be taxed when i get a job. I want to contribute to the NHS for which im working for. I dont really see the point of hoarding money. I will NEVER understand why people want more money after they finish buying everything but hell thats their right i guess. Money is for things. Once i have all things i want and enough to cover all risks/food for ever ill donate 100% of the rest of it to charity. Working damn hard to increase a number in a database that youre never going to spend except to invest to make the number bigger seems like lunacy.

So you want to set an arbitrary limit on all taxes, which may not even result in an equal sharing of income between the individual and government depending on how multiple different tax rates are structured, and you want this to be the law so that even if it were necessary for any reason that the state increase taxes above that limit, they wouldn't be able to until the law was changed at the very least, possibly causing problems which could be avoided by simply not having the limit in the first place.

And what's the real goal here? To set limits on government power? There are much better ways than setting arbitrary tax limits which could needlessly tie government hands in times of crisis.

Vivi22:
And what's the real goal here? To set limits on government power? There are much better ways than setting arbitrary tax limits which could needlessly tie government hands in times of crisis.

Well, his dad recently complained those damn thugs of the taxation service had prevented him from buying a 3rd mansion by stealing his money and giving it to people who are struggling to even buy enough food, so clearly the topic and statement is totally justified.

Blablahb:

Overhead:
Taxed money isn't destroyed it's transferred. That's the basis of your argument and it falls down at a pretty early level.

Not only did I never claim anything like that, but it's transfered to something that's not a an investment, the point stands.

A jealousy tax of 100% would destroy the ability to invest in anything, and would destroy the economy over the course of a few cycles.

What you've clarified yourself as saying is equally nonsensical. Capitalists aren't required for investment. Do I REALLY have to reel off a series of examples of state investment or can we just take this as so obvious that it can be accepted without further debate?

Except it doesn't work like that. People don't allow everything they have to be stolen, and as a result it'll never gain a majority either, not as long as at least 51% of the population that's elligable to vote has a brain.

This is a top rate tax, so even if we allow that all other motivations leave people and they vote purely in their own interests and we assume they have a limited understanding of their interests which involves thinking that them having as much money as possible is beneficial - that doesn't come anywhere near 51% of the population.

Even minor attempts at stealing possession to fuel the radical left idea of an economy have shown to be a spectacular failure. Mostly southern american countries that have tried it have seen their economies collapse as investors took their money elsewhere, to places where it's not likely to get stolen from them on a whim.

For instance Argentina, which fuelled it's recovery by defaulting on over $100 billion of debt? Or Evo Morales who's been nationalising things and maintaining a rate of growth that is literally infinitely better than the last UK quart of growth (which was negative).

Also I wasn't talking about stealing, but passing laws backed by a democratic government, but apparently it suits you to make those kind of lies.

Hardcore_gamer:

dmase:
So you want legislators to make a law limiting their power, a law that they can also change at any time. Basically an extra piece of legislation that will change nothing.

Uhm, ALL laws can be changed. Does that make all laws pointless?

Are you joking? Because the point was that a law that ties the hands of the people who make the laws isn't very useful since if they want to bypass it they can just repeal it.

Dijkstra:

Hardcore_gamer:

dmase:
So you want legislators to make a law limiting their power, a law that they can also change at any time. Basically an extra piece of legislation that will change nothing.

Uhm, ALL laws can be changed. Does that make all laws pointless?

Are you joking? Because the point was that a law that ties the hands of the people who make the laws isn't very useful since if they want to bypass it they can just repeal it.

More precisely, this law would do nothing until the government wants to raise taxes. If the government has the votes to raise the taxes, it will also have the votes to repeal the previous law. It would be like a New Year's resolution: seems like a good idea at the time but when you feel like breaking it, the only thing stopping you from doing so it yourself.

Now, if you wanted to make it something like constitutional amendment than it would be harder to get around. However, it would need to be much more precisely written because you have to be specific about which taxes fall under this rule and that it has to be cumulative.

Hardcore_gamer:
Taxes are needed for the maintaining of society. This is fact and there is no getting around it.

Even if so however, taxes can also be used as a tool for abuse by the state when they are unfair. I personally believe that the state should not be able to profit more from somebody's cake then the person baking the cake, and thus I suggest a law that makes it illegal for the state to make any single tax higher then 50%. A full half should be the most the state should be allowed to legally take away from someone.

That way, high taxes are still possible when they are needed but the state still can't rob people by profiting more from them then they do them self's.

Thoughts?

You're operating off of a fundamental misunderstanding of most modern progressive tax systems. No one is charged 75% of their total income, for example.

If someone is taxed 20% for 100K or more, 30% for 10 million or more, 40% 100 million or more and 60% for 1 billion or more you would assume that they would have only 400 million dollars through simple math. What they actually are charged if they make 1.1 billion is 988,980,000. That is about 10% of their total income. To make an understatement, that's a little shy of 60%. If you're wondering how this is possible it's because in every progressive tax system around the world, they are only charged tax rates for the specific bracket in which those rates apply. Using my example, they are charged 60% for every dollar they make over 1 billion but are charged progressively lower tax rates as you go down through each bracket which results in them making a substantial amount more than the highest tax on the highest level of income would suggest.. It's to prevent people from purposely making less money to end up with more.

To summarize, if you are actually for taking 50% of the riches total income... Alright. That's probably the most liberal suggestion I've ever heard on this board. They certainly aren't handing over that much of their total income in any system at the moment. In reality, with a progressive tax system it's way less than 50%. So yeah, might want to re-think whether or not that's a good plan you got there.

Overhead:
That's tax avoidance, not tax evasion. Talk about one or the other, don't chop and change.

Don't hide behind semantics, you understand damn well what I'm saying.

Overhead:
Yes, just like what happened when the USA raised it's taxes to 93%. Of wait, that didn't happen and you're making simplistic assumptions about human decision making based on a specific reductionist ideology with no basis on fact.

Bullshit. Capital flight is real. In earlier discussions about France's shot down 75% tax rate we already came across indications that French had been fleeing their country indroves and the rate was increasing. Belgian tax evasion specialists saw their business rise a lot for instance. You're the one who's got no proof people will just accept their entire income being taken away in such a jealousy tax.

Overhead:
In this example it would be applied to the top tax rate, which is a small percentage of people and a completely different scenario.

In that case it would have no effect at all, because those people can also easiest move their income across borders. Also it would cost more than it brought in as a result, because the control agencies would need to put a huge amount of work in enforcing such a jealousy tax.

Overhead:
The British legal principles would a priori be dealt with because the assumption is that this is all going ahead at the behest of British legislation.

In terms of international law and EU treaties, I can't think of anything off hand that would cover it but it's such a niche subject it's hard to say. For instance although the EEA agreements are set up to encourage the free flow of Capital across country's borders, that's in terms of things like the integration and standardisation of national financial services between nations rather. I have never seen anything which covers nations imposing laws on capital flight because I don't think it was really considered a possibility.

There's nothing niche about it. You can't forbid someone from emigrating or forbid them entirely from moving money or possessions across borders. And because you can't tie down every person and possesion in the UK like medieval serfs, trying to stop tax evasions from a 100% jealousy tax is pointless. Even if people manage to gain only a penny for every pound hidden it would still be worth it for them.

Tax evasion schemes these days avoid a few percent tax. How do you think it would not happen if people have nothing left to lose?

Hardcore_gamer:

dmase:
So you want legislators to make a law limiting their power, a law that they can also change at any time. Basically an extra piece of legislation that will change nothing.

Uhm, ALL laws can be changed. Does that make all laws pointless?

Laws that limit what the lawmaking body that passed them can do tend to be (unless they require a supermajority to repeal.)

Blablahb:
Don't hide behind semantics, you understand damn well what I'm saying.

It's not semantics. Tax evasion is the dodging of tax through illegal means while tax avoidance is the dodging of tax though legal loopholes and methods of lowering tax.

Although the words are similar, they are two very different things and cannot be interchanged, George Osborne got roundly slammed in the press during the run up and aftermath of the general election for confusing the two because it betrayed a lack of basic knowledge on his part.

Bullshit. Capital flight is real.

Of course it is. That's not under discussion and capital flight being a thing that happens doesn't mean your specific scenario about capital flight is real.

In earlier discussions about France's shot down 75% tax rate we already came across indications that French had been fleeing their country indroves and the rate was increasing. Belgian tax evasion specialists saw their business rise a lot for instance.

Yes, there have been anecdotes about capital flight occurring. However if you're going to rely on anecdotes from a situation which is currently occurring where we don't yet have the hard data rather than looking at the occurrences that have happened in the past where experts have had plenty of time to look at and analyse what has happened, all that will happen if you continue this like of inquiry is I'll point out all your evidence is anecdotal and meaningless.

South Korea might be a good place to start your arguement, as I believe that in the past they had fairly extensive laws on capital flight that were also especially harsh; up to and including the death penalty even!

It would also be much more relevant than France, because even if your anecdotes did represent a real trend - France isn't taking a powerful legislative approach to make capital flight illegal as I've put forward, so it's no comparison at all.

You're the one who's got no proof people will just accept their entire income being taken away in such a jealousy tax.

1) They don't have to accept it. They're free to leave the country (without their capital over a certain amount) or vote for a different political party in the next election or fight against this in numerous ways. This includes Capital flight, but with it being cracked down upon and made illegal, I don't see any reason why it should become a bigger problem than it's been previously.

2) I don't have to prove they won't accept. You're the one who has to prove this is a problem because you're the one suggesting it as a possibility. It's up to you to back up your claim..

In that case it would have no effect at all, because those people can also easiest move their income across borders.

Yes, the easiest to move across borders in the current system where that kind of movement of capital is actively encouraged much of the time and at the very worst is tolerated. My changes come part in parcel with a revision of the system to make that illegal, as I've already mentioned.

Also it would cost more than it brought in as a result, because the control agencies would need to put a huge amount of work in enforcing such a jealousy tax.

What extra work? It takes as much time to calculate taking 100% tax off of the top tax bracket as it does 50% or 40% or 30% or 20%. If anything it would ease the system massively because it would also close the numerous byzantine and complicated loopholes that are available to the rich and make it a straight calculation requiring far less bureaucracy than is currently the case. I'd still like to see funding increased to it, but then even in the here and now I'd like to see funding increased to punish tax evasion.

Overhead:
There's nothing niche about it. You can't forbid someone from emigrating or forbid them entirely from moving money or possessions across borders. And because you can't tie down every person and possesion in the UK like medieval serfs, trying to stop tax evasions from a 100% jealousy tax is pointless. Even if people manage to gain only a penny for every pound hidden it would still be worth it for them.

If it's not niche, tell me the laws that would cover and prevent this.

When you didn't name laws but suggested possible areas of law, I explained why I didn't believe that was the case. Now you've become even less specific.

I mean suggesting that there is some EU law which would prevent capital flight but not mentioning which of the thousands of EU laws it is or even trying to prove that such a law exists was pretty bad, but then just not even trying to prove that is the case and just repeating your previous statement as a fact without any kind of reasoning offers me nothing at all to go on.

Tax evasion schemes these days avoid a few percent tax. How do you think it would not happen if people have nothing left to lose?

Do you mean tax avoidance, because my understanding of income tax evasion is that normally the whole amount would be avoided (cash in hand work that isn't reported, for instance) rather than avoidance where people will just use loopholes to set a lower rate?

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked