Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

[Razgovory]

You are a bunch of envious socialists.

If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally. I know the "rich has more to spare", but that's the road on which you can eventually arrive to the "omg he is not poor! the bastard! where did he get it?!!!!!" society, which is NOT fun to live in, trust me.

When did you live in Sweden?

[Tamas]

I have been living in Hungary. That's almost the same except for a semi-working welfare state.

[Martinus]

If you believe the gubermint will create more wealth with his money than he can, then sure, raise the tax.

This argument keeps being brought up but it is ultimately idiotic. Governments are not businesses or corporations - they are not in the business of "creating wealth". Wars, promotion of high art and culture, universal access to facilities - all these things and more that governments are in the business of doing are ultimately less profitable than selling fizzy drinks to people.

If governments of old didn't have an access to tons of spare cash they could spend on non-profitable things, there would be no Pyramids, no Sistine Chapel and no Mozart music.

[Martinus]

I have been living in Hungary. That's almost the same except for a semi-working welfare state.

Uhm, have you tried going on unemployment or use the socialized medicine for anything more than routine checks? Unless the state of affairs in Hungary is incredibly better than in Poland, I suspect all this "welfare state" is a malfunctioning fig leaf which fails to provide the services it is supposed to do. Only because you pay "high" taxes on your meagre income does not mean you live in a welfare state.

[Zanza]

You are a bunch of envious socialists.

If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally. I know the "rich has more to spare", but that's the road on which you can eventually arrive to the "omg he is not poor! the bastard! where did he get it?!!!!!" society, which is NOT fun to live in, trust me.

Did you actually read the piece? His argument is that his tax rate is much lower than that of normal income earners.

[Monoriu]

If you believe the gubermint will create more wealth with his money than he can, then sure, raise the tax.

This argument keeps being brought up but it is ultimately idiotic. Governments are not businesses or corporations - they are not in the business of "creating wealth". Wars, promotion of high art and culture, universal access to facilities - all these things and more that governments are in the business of doing are ultimately less profitable than selling fizzy drinks to people.

If governments of old didn't have an access to tons of spare cash they could spend on non-profitable things, there would be no Pyramids, no Sistine Chapel and no Mozart music.

Of course governments are not in the business of making money.  But there are certainly limits as to what they can do.  A lot of things are better left for the private sector to pursue.  So society needs to divide its resources between the public and private sectors.  How do you make this decision then?  Will I create more value by putting this additional dollar into the public or the private sector?  I think this is a fair question to ask.  Here, "value" doesn't mean the bottom line, but rather utility for the community. 

[Tamas]

I have been living in Hungary. That's almost the same except for a semi-working welfare state.

Uhm, have you tried going on unemployment or use the socialized medicine for anything more than routine checks? Unless the state of affairs in Hungary is incredibly better than in Poland, I suspect all this "welfare state" is a malfunctioning fig leaf which fails to provide the services it is supposed to do. Only because you pay "high" taxes on your meagre income does not mean you live in a welfare state.

by semi-working welfare state I meant Sweden.

[CountDeMoney]

If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally.

But they don't, you fucking Adidas track suit-wearing monkey.

[Tamas]

If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally.

But they don't, you fucking Adidas track suit-wearing monkey.

well then they should. Jesus, what is wrong with you people. 

[Syt]

Besides, Tamas, I don't think that your argument s particularly valid in Europe, because you not only pay income tax, but there's all kinds of taxes on consumption, chiefly sales or value added tax, fuel tax maybe, alcohol tax, tobacco tax etc.

People with lower income spend a larger part of their income on consumption - if we had a flat income tax, these people would also pay a larger part of their income in taxes; unless you make income tax the only tax there is.

[Zanza]

I have been living in Hungary. That's almost the same except for a semi-working welfare state.

I think that's really why your ideology doesn't apply to the rest of us. We don't live in dysfunctional, corrupt states with an overly strong single party that ignores the rule of law.

[Tamas]

Besides, Tamas, I don't think that your argument s particularly valid in Europe, because you not only pay income tax, but there's all kinds of taxes on consumption, chiefly sales or value added tax, fuel tax maybe, alcohol tax, tobacco tax etc.

People with lower income spend a larger part of their income on consumption - if we had a flat income tax, these people would also pay a larger part of their income in taxes; unless you make income tax the only tax there is.

My opposition to a non-flat income tax is purely ideological. It sends the wrong message, and -in case of the much more prevailent "the more you earn, the more % you have to pay" version- it highly encourages tax evasion, punishes success, and in general helps keeping up the socialist mindset.

Sure, VAT changes the picture, but then again, in Europe we have income tax plus VAT -supposedly- to maintain welfare states, of which -supposedly- the poor is to receive benefits of, so the whole thing -supposedly- should even out.

If that is not working, well, the welfare state is dying anyway.

[Zanza]

My opposition to a non-flat income tax is purely ideological. It sends the wrong message, and -in case of the much more prevailent "the more you earn, the more % you have to pay" version- it highly encourages tax evasion, punishes success, and in general helps keeping up the socialist mindset.

With that argumentation, you shouldn't argue for a flat rate, but rather a flat absolute amount. A flat rate is just as unfair as a progressive rate and has no real advantages in the field of tax evasion, punishing success or keeping the socialist mindset.

Sure, VAT changes the picture, but then again, in Europe we have income tax plus VAT -supposedly- to maintain welfare states, of which -supposedly- the poor is to receive benefits of, so the whole thing -supposedly- should even out.

The problem is that the middle class, the ones that actually matter for a healthy society, are the ones being shafted. Both by the poor that they need to subsidize and by the rich that freeride.

If that is not working, well, the welfare state is dying anyway.

Which would be a loss as poverty is the greatest scourge of man.

[Viking]

Yes, do not coddle the super rich Warren Buffet. Make sure he never gets his will and keep taxes on the super rich low!!!!!!1111111o1neoneoeneon

[Warspite]

As a somewhat side note, I've never seen a convincing argument that The Rich are really chased off by tax increases. Of course, when taxation is truly punishing, then perhaps it may be self evident. But to slice off 40% of the portion of income over $1,000,000; by that point, the kids' school fees are paid, the property is bought off completely, as is the holiday home. One is living a rather pleasant life regardless, and so surely what matters then in the environment in which one lives: the quality of one's neighbours, the intangibles of a particular location, the shopping, the night life, the schools, the proximity to business hubs.

If Almaty sets marginal tax rates to 0%, would anyone really want to live there? After all, arts and culture and other millionaires still live in New York and London and Paris, even if you do have to fork over more of your cash. (Assuming of course you can't evade it all)

The British government regularly trots out the line that we will chase away all our entrepreneurs and talent if we keep high tax rates, so this question is an important one right now. Of course, the government has a rather odd idea of what makes an entrepreneur, it being "someone with a lot of money". This probably explains why most Brits with the idea succeed in the USA, rather than the UK.