You are. You just said that workers should take over produce (deregulation) and no one should pay taxes ... that's anarcho capitalism at it's finest.

Socialism? Where's the support for the poor? The funding? No taxation? That's pure anarcho capitalism.

Reply 124

username878267

Original post by SotonianOne

Yeah I mean, they probably didn't move there for tax reasons if they declared "tax is too high", they might just like the weather you know.

Yes he does, his residence in the UK is 89 days a year in Suffolk is to continue his contract.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/sep/18/andrew-flintoff-dubai-tax-exile
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/celebritytravel/7221016/Andrew-Flintoffs-Dubai.html

Of course.

And has about half the tax.

No because that's higher than what they would pay in California so why would they bother

Work reasons

Yes I know my argument is based on human nature which is why only my argument is suitable. Your argument is superficial and based on all humans being inherently nice little kind robots

Flintoff has since moved back. Prove Beckham went for tax reasons.

So why not lower taxes to 1% then and undercut every single country?
Because unless we have the lowest tax in the world, your argument falls flat.
Your argument is underpinned by the fact humans are greedy, they don't have to be and shouldn't be allowed to be.

If we closed down the loopholes, then the higher tax rate, the higher returns.
Which people will refuse to pay 45% tax rate but will all too gladly pay 40%?
How about when Bush lowered tax rates and revenue reduced? Funny how you ignore that.

We're not basing an economic system of human greed.
And yet again, if they're not happy about paying taxes they can leave.
You threaten everyone as if we should be so grateful to people exploiting the system. I don't care if they go. So i'm not basing a system on the threats that they will.

You have no logic and no base to your argument. You conveniently ignore the parts of the laffer curve which disprove you argument even though you used it to support your argument.

You're arguing for ideological tax cuts and then trying to find an 'economic justification'. It's pathetic.

Reply 125

Jammy Duel

Original post by Bornblue

The issues is, that this whole argument of tax revenues increasing after lower taxation panders to the greed of the wealthy.

They say 'we don't want to pay tax' so we lower the tax rate. Yet when someone on benefits says 'I don't want to work'. we don't raise the minimum wage.

It does seem one rule at the top, another at the bottom.
And by the foundation of the argument, unless we have the lowest taxes in the world, people will flee.

At the end of the day, do you think all these people who go to Monaco and Switzerland do it only for the weather? Suppose we had 0% income tax, suddenly they would all flock back, well, maybe not all, but most of them would.

Because i've found that to be the trump card of capitalists, that if we tax rich people or make them pay their workers a living wage, they'll get up and flee overnight.
And that's wrong.
So call their bluff. I don't believe many at all will leave if we raise to 50% and if they want to leave and spit their dummy out then i'll volunteer to drive them to the airport and carry their bags to the terminal. For free aswell.
I'll help them out.
How's that for a big society?

"Let's ignore the case studies, they disagree with my conclusion!" Typical reaction to a factual argument against an emotional argument.

Moreover, economists stress that tax cuts (and increases, for that matter) hardly work in a vacuum to bring about changes in receipts. Income-tax payments tend to naturally increase year-on-year because of population growth, GDP growth, and inflation. Monetary policy, government spending, and the business cycle also have a major impact. Thus, showing causation becomes a tricky exercise when it comes to taxes. Receipts often climb after tax cuts, but not necessarily because of them.

Which is how people can cost such tax changes? And why trends do exist, why the I think it was OBR said that while increasing the top rate to 50% should have increased revenues by over £3bn, but those who had to pay it changed their habits and in fact the increase was less than a third of that? You don't look at the total receipts, you look at the habits of those effected and the consequences of those changes.

Reply 126

SotonianOne

Original post by Bornblue

So why not lower taxes to 1% then and undercut every single country?

because the increase in top rate tax payers will not offset the decrease in taxation as a result of the cuts

the optimum level of taxation is 25 - 30% in prosperity and 35 - 40% in recovery

**** me you are pathetic

Reply 127

DJKL

Original post by Bornblue

The issues is, that this whole argument of tax revenues increasing after lower taxation panders to the greed of the wealthy.

In the UK it is not automatic the "wealthy" pay high taxes, or the "rich" pay high taxes, it is actually the high earners or those that make gains, these are not always the same people. Wealth tends only to be taxed on death

I know an individual (a client), age 30, not yet "wealthy" or "rich" who will earn this tax year circa £170,000, £80,000 is his basic the £90,000 is his performance bonus for what he achieved last year. He is resigned to what he will pay, but he was shocked, his first "big" bonus. Yes he will no doubt strive this year but he will also, I fully expect, mentally calculate the net equation of not seeing as much of his young family against the financial reward for their stability; all the evenings working to earn that bonus. His net earnings will be recycled into the economy, the entire net bonus to be used on works on his house, so the key , for the economy, is should his earnings go to the state to spend or is he, the individual, more efficient at spending. Usually individuals are far more efficient re getting competitive pricing than the state, the difference is they care more, it is their money.

They say 'we don't want to pay tax' so we lower the tax rate. Yet when someone on benefits says 'I don't want to work'. we don't raise the minimum wage.

It is not that they don't want to pay tax, they just do not want to pay a higher rate on that higher band, they pay as earned income 42% on the 40% income tax band, then jump to 47% and previously to 52% (remember NIEE) There is also the personal allowance withdrawl, above £100,000 to circa £120,000 the withdrawl of £1 of allowance for every £2 of earnings equates to 20% for a 40% taxpayer, with NI a marginal rate of 62%. So earn extra £10,000 keep £3,800 in this band.

It does seem one rule at the top, another at the bottom.
And by the foundation of the argument, unless we have the lowest taxes in the world, people will flee.

Some will flee, if able. About three weeks ago The Scotsman newspaper (which is mainly local to Edinburgh re property advertising) in its Thursday property supplement had an entire page listing of properties for sale in Berwick on Tweed and Northumbia. Why is this? Could it be because the outline consultation paper on tax residency in Scotland, for the soon to be devolved income tax powers, appears to be indicating that someone working in Scotland but having main residence in England is likely to not have to pay the future Scottish rate. I am hard pressed to think of another reason why such a page of properties should appear now, The Scotsman usually has very few properties advertised from across the border (I check it every week, I work in the property industry)

Because i've found that to be the trump card of capitalists, that if we tax rich people or make them pay their workers a living wage, they'll get up and flee overnight.
And that's wrong.

People move and migrate for a number of reasons, tax is one of these. I have one client who was going to close his Scottish business and move south if there had been a Yes vote last year, why, because he perceived that such an event would be financially detrimental to him and did not consider he would enjoy living in Scotland as a separate country. Whether he is right in his thoughts or wrong is academic, the jobs would have been lost and the capital he owns would have gone

So call their bluff. I don't believe many at all will leave if we raise to 50% and if they want to leave and spit their dummy out then i'll volunteer to drive them to the airport and carry their bags to the terminal. For free aswell.
I'll help them out.
How's that for a big society?

The phrase cutting of own's nose to spite one's face does spring to mind. Looking at the big picture an economy wants all the factors of production employed efficiently to create wealth, one of these is capital. China only really started motoring as an economic powerhouse when it harnessed capital (and technology) it always had land and labour. The other thing that has helped it is some degree of rights over property, the state being restricted in its ability to seize property. It is a dangerous economic world where the state starts to believe it can levy taxes and fines at will, over and over; whilst we in Europe are not there yet our politicians are managing to continue to expand the reach of the state into the pockets of business and the rise of technology allows quite a few sectors of the economy to operate from myriad worldwide locations

Moreover, economists stress that tax cuts (and increases, for that matter) hardly work in a vacuum to bring about changes in receipts. Income-tax payments tend to naturally increase year-on-year because of population growth, GDP growth, and inflation. Monetary policy, government spending, and the business cycle also have a major impact. Thus, showing causation becomes a tricky exercise when it comes to taxes. Receipts often climb after tax cuts, but not necessarily because of them.

I gave up trying to decipher direct cause and effect movements when at university, a economy has far to many moving parts. Far better to look at human behaviour, people are Darwinian in their outlook, they strive to improve their own lot, sometimes there are frictional forces keeping them static but if you keep applying more and more small forces, all in similar direction, eventually inertia is overcome.

Responses in bold, there is a balance, always remember “the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”

Reply 128

MatureStudent36

Original post by DJKL

Also known as the Laffer curve.

A great explain action though.

Reply 129

username878267

Original post by Jammy Duel

More "if I want I can just avoid this tax", and why should they care that somebody unemployed doesn't want to work? Take away their benefits and they will suddenly want to work, and of course why should we care that some unemployed don't want to work for that wage, there are hundreds of thousands more people who are perfectly happy to. Just like why should an employer care about firing a lazy unskilled worker? There will be lots of people lining up for that job that will actually follow their instructions.

At the end of the day, do you think all these people who go to Monaco and Switzerland do it only for the weather? Suppose we had 0% income tax, suddenly they would all flock back, well, maybe not all, but most of them would.

"Let's ignore the case studies, they disagree with my conclusion!" Typical reaction to a factual argument against an emotional argument.

Which is how people can cost such tax changes? And why trends do exist, why the I think it was OBR said that while increasing the top rate to 50% should have increased revenues by over £3bn, but those who had to pay it changed their habits and in fact the increase was less than a third of that? You don't look at the total receipts, you look at the habits of those effected and the consequences of those changes.

You're entire argument is based on the foundation that those at the top will flee.
I'm not accepting an economic argument based on the greed of those at the top being the pre-requisite of any changes.

And it's not an emotional argument, many case studies have shown lowering the top rate of tax not to increase revenue but you too ignore those.
You're making an ideological argument and then pretending it's a factual one. It's not.

And your argument means that unless we have no tax, people will flee. In which case it won't matter at all if they flee.
If they want to flee, let them. Good for them and I hope they have a nice time.

Reply 130

illegaltobepoor

Original post by billydisco

Wow, I actually didn't read one of your posts and think you're a loony leftie.

At least you have the balls to admit increasing tax will reduce revenues because wealthy people would relocate.

You got anything positive to add to the discussion?

Reply 131

DJKL

Original post by Bornblue

It is more additional forces breaking inertia, incremental changes to which different individuals/organisations have different decision points. For A, a tax increase can be accepted, there are other forces holding him/her, family, friends, language , culture etc. For B the thresholds are lower, he is already fed up, a multitude of small factors, some not tax, have got him close to the decision point, the additional tax is just the small nudge to make a change.

Now personally in my case it is more red tape that would see me jacking in work and retiring, possibly abroad. It is the constant meddling, fiddling, changing in regulation that annoys and irritates. It is the volte face changes. It is the perverse illogicality of tax changes. I have spent thirty years dealing with the tax system and accounting regulation, I've seen reliefs change, rates go up and down, taxes introduced, taxes withdrawn, all at the whim of politicians and what they believe, at a point in time, is acceptable. I work on projects that may take five to ten years from start to tax point, and have to constantly reconsider what effect the changes will possibly have, is the financial structure still appropriate, etc.?

What is needed is politicians to stop pandering to the whims of the electorate (good business, bad business, nasty bankers, workshy layabouts etc) and give us all some certainty. The catch is we get stuck in these arguments about scope of the state and the rhetoric just does not help.

If they want to improve tax collection and equity in tax assessment, they need to simplify the tax system (not play at the edges making it worse and more complicated) have the adult conversation accepting both that business cannot be toyed and played with on a whim and also that the support systems that the tax take funds need to have parameters that work.

Quite honestly they are all like kids with a complicated new toy on Christmas Day, they are not going to read the instructions and you know that at best it will need new batteries on boxing day and at worst it will be broken and the warranty does not cover a ripped of arm.