11-30-2012, 12:31 PM | #46 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Just sacrifice one of them, like in a volcano. They won't be missed. Of course we'll have to sacrifice one per year, but that's four centuries of purging... unless they figure it out first.
Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate |
11-30-2012, 01:13 PM | #47 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
11-30-2012, 01:59 PM | #48 | ||
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
|
Quote:
From your link: Quote:
There definitely were more dollars and pounds floating around in 2009-2010 than there were afterward, so the direct cause of the change in the number of rich people and the change in the tax law is unknown, but certainly not complete. There's a big difference between driving rich people out of the country and people manipulating their income so that they're under some threshold. I don't recall the name (jimmy somebody), some acerbic comedian who paid minimal taxes by such manipulations and had a public mea culpa on the subject. Once again, saying the tax rate change caused the number of millionaires to drop from 16000 to 6000 isn't easy to support without a lot more evidence. Then the last bolded section, I find interesting. The tax rate is still 50p, it won't change until next year, but the number of millionaires has risen to 10000. Why? Surely it isn't the tax rate, since it's unchanged. Claiming, suggesting that the change in the tax rate drives millionaires out of the country is not believable.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not. |
||
11-30-2012, 02:07 PM | #49 | |
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
Jimmy Carr
__________________
Quote:
|
|
11-30-2012, 03:30 PM | #50 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Whatever. Just purge one of them, man, and see how many are left in the country a year later to play that lottery.
|
11-30-2012, 03:43 PM | #51 | |
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
Why purge them? Why not just expect them to pay a fair rate of tax?
__________________
Quote:
|
|
11-30-2012, 03:49 PM | #52 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Ask biggie, he put the idea up.
|
11-30-2012, 03:55 PM | #53 |
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
|
I put the idea up?
I don't think so. You might have mistaken a fart for a trial balloon.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not. |
11-30-2012, 04:55 PM | #54 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
What is "50p", 50%?
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
11-30-2012, 04:57 PM | #55 |
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
|
yes
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not. |
11-30-2012, 06:36 PM | #56 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 2,655
|
I'll tell you what. The taxes paid by those poor babies in the $250,000 plus gang DO make a major difference. Why do you think the Tea Party members in the House have been so intransigent and refused even the most reasonable of compromises - keep the tax cuts for 98% of the people in the country and fight over the upper 2% tax rate come January? Surely, that would be simple common sense to the Right and the Left both.
The Tea Party wants small government, and they don't care what they do to the country in order to achieve this goal. Choke government revenues by keeping the tax rates for the wealthy artificially low. Tah dah! Small government. Put our disabled vets out on the streets, send the country back into an economic tail spin, let unemployment rise to 9% or more, etc., etc., etc. Who cares? We will have SMALL GOVERNMENT at last. The Tea Party LOST some seats in Congress. The DEMOCRAT nominee for President won. The Tea Party does not represent the will of the majority of the people in the U.S. And just what office was Grover Norquist elected to again? Don't everybody all answer at once. |
12-04-2012, 12:01 AM | #57 | ||
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
Quote:
L.A. Times Lisa Mascaro and Michael A. Memoli 12/12/03 Republicans counter with their own 'fiscal cliff' plan Quote:
|
||
12-04-2012, 08:25 AM | #58 |
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
They consider lower tax rates and closing loopholes pro-growth revenue increases. I don't know any details of why.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all. |
12-04-2012, 09:14 AM | #59 |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
The closing loopholes thing is a mixed bag, but overall, I think it would hurt Democrats the most. So that's part of the reason Republicans are pushing for it.
What are the biggest itemized deductions? There are three. State and local taxes, mortgage interest, and charities. And they are pretty much in that order of importance for most people. If you can't deduct state and local taxes any more, who is going to be hurt the most? People in the states and localities that have the highest taxes. Typically, tax rates are higher in liberal leaning states like Massachusetts and California, and lower in conservative states like Texas. Also, taxes in urban areas are generally higher than in rural areas because property values are greater in urban areas. Urban areas are also generally more liberal. So eliminating the deductions for these taxes will hurt Democrats much more than Republicans. For mortgage interest, it is pretty mixed. You're hitting much of the middle class if you eliminate this deduction. At the two extreme ends of the spectrum you have rich Republicans in mansions losing pretty nice deductions, and poor Democrats in apartments not being touched at all, but in the middle, it's completely mixed. And finally, for charitable giving, it's also pretty mixed, but Republicans give slightly more to charity, so this would hurt Republicans a little bit more. Really, though, eliminating charitable deductions would decimate the work charities do, and that would be terrible at a time when the government is cutting back the work they do for the needy. The people hurt most by eliminating charitable deductions would overwhelmingly be the needy. |
12-04-2012, 10:05 AM | #60 |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
My dad was on CSPAN talking about the AMT portion of the fiscal cliff. It's the only part of the cliff that actually takes effect immediately, because it's the AMT adjustment for tax year 2012, not 2013, and you really don't want to be changing 2012 tax policy while people are filling out their returns. All the rest can be fixed retroactively later in the year.
What I found most interesting was that the AMT actually kept lots of people in the $200,000-$500,000 from getting the Bush tax cuts, so letting them expire for people making over $250,000 may only actually raise taxes on people making over half a million.
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|