Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate, Will the US learn from this trend?

To you, life is a complete mystery which leaves you confused and embittered, and probably borderline-violent. You are hostile toward anyone who isn't as confused and crazy as you are, and you wish them harm. You are a moral vacuum and waste of time.

Also, for anyone reading any of my post(s) on this topic let me clarify something...

When I talk about the "Rich" I am not talking about 250K/year (although that IS "rich" compared to me...)

I am speaking of folks making 1 Million per year and more. I made about 50K/year at my last job and I lived quite well. It would have taken me 20 years to make 1 Million.

Once someone is making THAT much money per year- They are Rich. That is $480 per hour (at a standard work week) and if that work needs to be done 80 hours a week that is still $240 and HOUR.

So... They could split the work up, spread the wealth and stay below a Million p[er year. Or Pay their fair share.

That is all.

I never said life was solely about money, but to assume that because one possesses $10 million they should be shot is totally asinine and immature.

Judge a man not by his possessions, but by his character and actions.

Thank you.

Essentially you are correct- But that is a whole separate discussion.

The very "Rich" do not pay near 30% with all their loopholes. Hell, even the Middle Class (myself included) often have interesting tax loopholes not available to those in a lower income bracket... The very poor make money through taxes but again, that money was "stolen" from them through regressive taxation and laws in favor of Corporations and the Rich.

Corporations used to have to be Chartered every so many years and prove to Congress they were "Good for the American people".The way Corporations are run today would have been considered treason.
We have so many poor so the very Rich can reap greater rewards and have better stock prices... That said, there will always be por and always be people taking advantage but (for the most part) its the "rich" taking advantage these last few decades.

-And what about the insane amounts of money spent on Wars and bases?

There are answers here- But its about nationalism and closed borders- Which will never happen.

got that off of ure's site this morning. good stuff indeed.

I feel little pity.

If you owe any fines to the Government or Child Support you are not allowed to leave the Country.

I was denied a Passport for a damn "Driver Responsibility Fee" of $1000 which I was making payments on (and was current) and had to go to the damn Secratary of State and pay them in full (Money I had to borrow) so I could attend a Funeral outside the USA.

-Oh, and to add. That was a republican (Bush) law.

If $1000 can keep you from leaving for an unplanned FUNERAL (because you are on hard times and have to pay money you do not have to begin with...) well, whats good for the goose.

Nobody cried about my (very real) problems.So I have little pits for Multi millionaires who might only be able to afford 4 houses and 34 servants instead of the 8 houses they planned on purchasing in BFE.

Makes perfect sense when you consider that Communist Obama's ultimate goal is to destroy the US economy and force us into the New World Order's one world government.

Idiots who voted for him mistakenly believe that they and other Americans would profit from a "fair redistribution of wealth" or at worst, they wouldn't have to give up very much. They are badly mistaken.

Cracks are developing in the fabric of societies around the world. In the U.S., the headlines about Hurricane Sandy and the mobs of shoppers fighting over phones are disturbing signs. The Middle East continues to boil. China appears to be turning hard line once again. Japan continues to slide into financial trouble. Doubts are emerging about the form and existence of gold holdings of central banks.

“The US gold coverage ratio, which measures the amount of gold on deposit at the Federal Reserve against the total money supply, is currently at an all-time low of 17%. This ratio tends to move dramatically and falls during periods of disinflation or relative price stability. The historical average for the gold coverage ratio is roughly 40%, meaning that the price of gold would have to more than double to reach the average. The gold coverage ratio has been there twice during the twentieth century. Were this to happen today, the value of an ounce of gold would exceed $12,000.” Scott Minerd, analyst, courtesy Investment Rarities, Inc.

[link to www.theburningplatform.com]
Russell Comment -- This is all conjecture, since we don't know for certain whether the US has any gold. Ron Paul called a congressional hearing on Thursday to grill federal officials about his bill to audit and inventory all the gold reserves at Fort Knox, West Point and Denver, even though Treasury officials insist that the gold is all there.


During the hearing Paul suggested that the Fed has 5% of the US gold reserves, and has the ability to swap gold with other countries without anyone knowing about it. Says Paul, “Congress doesn't have much say on what's going on over there. They do a lot of hiding.”

As Shakespeare put it, “What fools these mortals be.”

Last Edited by SHR on 11/29/2012 11:01 AM

This literally is a perfect example of a pathological sociopath.
Note how this individual has decided that he doesnt have just a view of this subject. Its now more than an opinion, its his/her personal belief, which he/she must make manifest in reality and impose on other people.
He/She now feels that he/she must clarify his/her loon obsession with others success financially by creating their own rules for these people. They are too successful as far as he or she is concerned and because of this they must be destroyed.
Note how according to him/her, people must make what he or she made because when he/she made that amount of money, he/she was happy. So everyone else must adide by this same emotional rule of thumb that he/she created for themself.
Note also that he/she has decided that work can be "split up" in his/her example, like a queen bee trying to rule over the hive of worker bee's.
Also, note that all people who make more money than them are termed as "Rich" and are considered evil.
Also, note that there are always durogatory, odd, off-the-wall, vague claims that these evil, "Rich" people somehow made their money in a criminal way.

This is the perfect example of the communist/luciferian ideology. Usually these people are known to have an "Inferiority Complex" or another personality disorder, which causes them to obsess over others percieved success in any number of different life situations.

Very common in communist circles.

Okay, off topic but I must ask (because I actually concur with what you are saying...) Did you honestly think Romney would have done different? Do you think Bush WASNT a "socialist" (in sheeps clothing)

-See, I agree. I threw my vote at the Libertarian ticket (I am a pseudo Libertarian who hates many of their ideals but likes most)but to blame this on Obama and the dems (when this is a two sided coin) and play the "You people are idiots for voting for Obama over Romney" is IMHO incorrect.

Anyone who voted for either (or Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan)was mistaken and fooled.

Multi millionaires who might only be able to afford 4 houses and 34 servants



So someone who paid off their house, bought 3 or 4 more and now rents them out for additional income is living like a rich king?

I never knew.

You lost me at Luciferian but again, I pretty much agree with the gist of your thoughts.

But why tax anyone anything then. Why have Police protecting the Rich from the masses? Why not go back to the "law of the jungle"?

I really wish I had time to go over your post point by point- I will later but have top go-

Suffice it to say what is "criminal" is constantly redefined. So those with money change laws so they are NOT criminals.

Read the story of HR HUNT (formerly the Worlds richest man)and how he did it.

Here is a very simple explaination.

A) Win a Oil well in a card game
B) Make some cash and friends in the buisness
C) Buy 2 more Oil wells
D) PAY to make a LAW which says "to drill for Oil you must have a minimum of 3 Oil Wells" making many peoples claims unworkable.
e) Buy more Oil Wells at a discount (say 10 more)
f) PAY to have a new Law that 13 OPil Wells must be owned in order to work the land
G) Buy more Oil wells VERY CHEAPLY
H) Form a Corporation with your friends to combine assets so you own Thousands of Wells
I) PAY to have a NEW LAW that THOUSANDS must be owned to drill
J) Profit....

Now, had everyone been able to drill their own land absent of these laws the amount of Oil would have been the same as would the Wealth- Just in more peoples pocket.

Anyhow, Interesting points. And in a "True" free market you are correct. But we do not have a true "free market" because Money buys Lawmnakers.

Out of context friend.

We are talking about people moving to avoid paying taxes not Landlords. =/

We are talking about making your money in a nation and then packing up and leaving with all your wealth.

Nope.

From a buddy of mine on another forum who owns his own business:



Keep dreaming if you think raising taxes on the rich and redistributing via government mandate will help the lower-middle class.

Last Edited by -GooGooFlexy- on 11/29/2012 11:10 AM

That is already happening.

I find American Companies who do off-shore banking odd given the number of loop holes they have already implemented. AEB, An Amex subsidiary was created just for that method.

Saddletramp, what happens at the end of this fiat cycle? Will we take a chip?

Taxable income and revenue. Opponents of raising the taxes that high-income households face often point to findings that high-income taxpayers respond to tax-rate increases by reporting less income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as evidence that high marginal tax rates impose significant costs on the economy. However, an important study by tax economists Joel Slemrod and Alan Auerbach found that such reductions in reported income largely reflect timing and other tax avoidance strategies that taxpayers adopt to minimize their taxable income, not changes in real work, savings, and investment behavior. While such strategies entail some economic costs, these costs are relatively modest. Moreover, policymakers can limit high-income taxpayers' ability to respond to increases in tax rates by engaging in tax avoidance activity -- and also enhance the efficiency of the tax code -- by broadening the tax base, as discussed below.

Work and labor supply. The evidence shows that changes in tax rates that fall within the ranges that policymakers are debating have little impact on high-income individuals' decisions regarding how much to work. As Leonard Burman, former head of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC), recently testified, "Overall, evidence suggests [high-income Americans'] labor supply is insensitive to tax rates."[2]

A marginal rate increase may encourage some taxpayers to work less because the after-tax return to work declines, but some will choose to work more, to maintain a level of after-tax income similar to what they had before the tax increase. The evidence suggests that these two opposing responses largely cancel each other out.

Saving and investment. Some claim that tax increases on high-income people -- in particular, increases in capital gains and dividend tax rates -- depress private saving rates and investment. But as Professor Joel Slemrod has written, "there is no evidence that links aggregate economic performance to capital gains tax rates."[3] Similarly, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has reported that most economists find that reducing capital gains tax rates would have only a small -- and possibly negative -- impact on saving and investment.[4]

Although tax increases on high-income individuals might reduce their saving, if the revenue generated is devoted to deficit reduction, the resulting increase in public saving is likely to more than offset any reduction in private saving. CRS concludes, "Capital gains tax rate increases appear to increase public saving and may have little or no effect on private saving. Consequently, capital gains tax increases likely have a positive overall impact on national saving and investment."[5]

Small business. The evidence does not support the claim that raising top marginal income tax rates has a heavy impact on small business owners: a recent Treasury analysis finds that only 2.5 percent of small business owners fall into the top two income tax brackets and that these owners receive less than one-third of small business income. Moreover, even those small business owners who would be affected by tax increases on high-income households are unlikely to respond by reducing hiring or new investment. As Tax Policy Center co-director William Gale has noted:[6]

"[T]he effective tax rate on small business income is likely to be zero or negative, regardless of small changes in the marginal tax rates. This is for three reasons. First, small businesses can expense (immediately deduct in full) the cost of investment. This alone brings the effective tax rate on new investment to zero, regardless of the statutory rate. Second, if they can finance the investment with debt, the interest payments would be tax-deductible, making the effective tax rate negative. Third, they can deduct wage payments in full, so the marginal tax rate should have minimal impact on hiring."

In addition, a review of the research finds little evidence for the common assertion that small businesses are responsible for the majority of job creation in the United States or that tax breaks for small businesses generally -- as distinguished from start-up ventures -- are effective at stimulating jobs or growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Entrepreneurship. CRS finds that "An extensive empirical literature on [the relationship between income tax rate increases and business formation] is mixed, but largely suggests that higher tax rates are more likely to encourage, rather than discourage, self-employment."[7] One reason is that taxes may reduce earnings volatility, with the government bearing some of the risk of a new venture -- by allowing tax deductions for losses -- and receiving some of the returns. Further, there is little evidence that the current preferential tax rates for capital gains and dividends substantially stimulate investment in new ventures.

Growth and jobs. History shows that higher taxes are compatible with economic growth and job creation: job creation and GDP growth were significantly stronger following the Clinton tax increases than following the Bush tax cuts. Further, the Congressional Budget office (CBO) concludes that letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire on schedule would strengthen long-term economic growth, on balance, if policymakers used the revenue saved to reduce deficits. In other words, any negative impact on economic growth from increasing taxes on high-income people would be more than offset by the positive effects of using the resulting revenue gain to reduce the budget deficit. Tax increases can also be used to fund, or to forestall cuts in, productive public investments in areas that support growth such as public education, basic research, and infrastructure.


This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein's On The Economy blog.

Again, since my post earlier was ignored...

How the Hell did they do it with the 50% tax rate? taxes are the lowest in 100 years (for the very Rich) and Companies made lots of Millionaires under 50% tax...

You friend probably is a small buisness Owner and that is NOT who we/I am talking about. If he makes over a Million a year and cancels his TV over a tax rate- I lol.

-Anyhow, I GTG- Time for Work (and to pay my taxes LOLz)

Since it is clear that you hate the more successful members of our society, why do you care if they leave?

It seems this would make you very happy.

You're mental if you don't think the same process doesn't apply to big businesses and those who make millions. The difference is that their cutbacks are on a VAST scale in comparison.

Enjoy work, GM. Be careful not to work too hard; that might get you into a raise and into a higher tax bracket.

The whole world should agree to tax rates at the UN, so the wealthy have nowhere to hide.

Smart...
:way...:

Hence why Soros, the liberal hero, is plowing enormous amounts into physical metals.

You can be certain these metals are held at a off shore location. The billionaires will not suffer the fiat crash, they are already positioned to come back full & strong.

The capital controls & horrendous taxes will only hurt successful working people.

Hong Kong, Russia and many of the countries which recovered the fastest from 2008 all have a flat or flatter tax rate

Americans are unique, in that they cannot simply move out of the country to escape taxes, as they will be taxed at the full rate wherever they move to in the world

However, I tell you from personal experience, that the no-tax states such as Florida and Texas will benefit from DC's tax grabs

It isn't the only reason to move to Texas, but it sure makes relocation an easy sell to any small business owner or those earning over 250K

anyone who says people won't move because of higher taxes is delusional or doesn't make enough to understand

A 50% sales tax on everything should fix our problem .....
permanently. The United States of Extortion. The Obama talks about fairness while destroying any little remaining bit of morality. He's a thief with multiple excuses for robbery.

The bold statement is an outright lie.

Taxes were lower in the late 80s up until 91/92 than they are today.


Do tell how high taxes are going to send the economy booming to the moon... I am apparently too stupid to figure it out...