Clegg: Tax the rich more

[spursman17]

Tax, brought in to fund a war and has stayed and forever increased since...

Some of your views are so deluded it's cringe-worthy. SO what if someone makes millions in a successful business? If you want the same then take the same risks as he once did.

The rich employ people, bring this country new money and keep this economy moving. I congratulate any businessman/women owning a private business and being successful. It's thanks to people like them that we as a country are able to afford what we can afford.

If you want to target anyone then tax these c###'s who fall pregnant in unstable relationships. Blame those who have many kids with many different partners and then does a runner. Tax those who fudged around at school and left with nothing because they threw it all away instead of targeting the guy who worked hard to make something of his life.

This country makes me sick at times. Always the hardworking or successful having to carry the brick of society. This is why the country if fudged and this is why the benefits system is the biggest tax expense for hardworking British citizens.

50p for every £1 I earn and you want this to increase? And they say slavery has been abolished... pffft.

 

[papaspur]

Tax, brought in to fund a war and has stayed and forever increased since...

Some of your views are so deluded it's cringe-worthy. SO what if someone makes millions in a successful business? If you want the same then take the same risks as he once did.

The rich employ people, bring this country new money and keep this economy moving. I congratulate any businessman/women owning a private business and being successful. It's thanks to people like them that we as a country are able to afford what we can afford.

If you want to target anyone then tax these c###'s who fall pregnant in unstable relationships. Blame those who have many kids with many different partners and then does a runner. Tax those who fudged around at school and left with nothing because they threw it all away instead of targeting the guy who worked hard to make something of his life.

This country makes me sick at times. Always the hardworking or successful having to carry the brick of society. This is why the country if fudged and this is why the benefits system is the biggest tax expense for hardworking British citizens.

50p for every £1 I earn and you want this to increase? And they say slavery has been abolished... pffft.

Lovely rant. I will take a break from impregnating random women and doing meth to weigh in with my opinion.

Although I'm sure there are similarities with taxation between GB and the US, I can't comment on GB tax policy.
First off, we've had tax decreases in the past decade. The Bush tax cuts effectively lowered taxes for all incomes and were set to expire almost two years ago. Funding not one war but TWO while lowering taxes

I've heard your argument hundreds of times now. It's not the small business owner that I have a problem with. I work with my dad at his small business (he runs a machine shop) so I know of the value we have/had to the community. Truth is, there's a large divide between small business and big business. But to think that business owners got to where they are on their own hard work and that the middle class owe them a debt of gratitude is absurd. There are of course a few exceptions to that, especially in the digital age, but much of this success comes off the backs of hard-working minimum-wage laborers that don't have as many opportunities and weren't as privileged as the business owner.

Specifically, your "rich employ people" statement is partially true. Sure, they hire people but they also fire people. I understand that downsizing is necessary in a recession but the fact of the matter is that even when the rich were presented with lower taxes, the economy didn't boom as certain economists predicted. All that led to was greater savings for the rich. Many corporations are sitting on mountains of cash but don't want to spend it in this volatile market. Just because the money is there doesn't mean the incentive is there as well. Again, this is based on evidence from the past administration. My qualm is with large corporations who fight at every turn to maximize their profits, even to the detriment of their employees and their customers. For an example of this, read up on large agriculture. They still receive government subsidies, treat their workers (and livestock) like brick and are not hesitant to sell consumers a substandard product.

When it comes to the other end of the spectrum, I'm actually in agreement with you, for the most part. Taxing low-income families won't solve any problems. First off, there are actually many single parents who do get two or three jobs to try to raise their children. Was it wise to have children in the first place on a low-income? No, of course not but at least they try to make ends meet. For the actual do-nothings who contribute nothing to society, there obviously aren't many solutions. The nature of work in the 21st century has increased the requirements for job attainment as more monotonous, low-skill labor is being performed by robots and computers. But you're right, these people are basically incorrigible and will be stuck in their ways.

Also, are you comparing yourself to a slave in your last statement? You know that if you really don't like it, you can get up and leave. I don't think slaves had such a luxury and I find that comparison abhorrent.

 

[Jurgen the German]

So what happens when they all leave, who fits the bill for public services then?

Take Hollandes proposed 70% tax on the rich, he is going to cripple Frances economy if it goes through

What's the solution then? Keep lowering the tax rate for the rich?

Some rich people just resent paying tax period. Even if you lowered it to 5%, there would still be some who try to squirm out of paying it. You hear absurd stories of people chartering planes to fly out of British airspace to avoid paying tax.

 

[Richie]

What's the solution then? Keep lowering the tax rate for the rich?

Some rich people just resent paying tax period. Even if you lowered it to 5%, there would still be some who try to squirm out of paying it. You hear absurd stories of people chartering planes to fly out of British airspace to avoid paying tax.

It's actually a fact that when Reagan lowered tax rates in the 80s the federal tax income increased. That's because with lower tax rates, it isn't worth someones while to avoid it. Take your example, think about how much it costs to charter a flight, that's an overhead on tax avoidance. The rich feel as though they are over taxed and being vilified for the national debt, which IMO they are.

Going for a bit of a history lesson, Bastiat knew what he was talking about in his essay 'What is Seen and what is Unseen' where he explained the two sides of economic policy. What is seen is easy and can be measured, for example the extra revenue created from a rise in tax. The unseen is equally important though, which is the tax revenue never generated because businesses have the option to go elsewhere and pay less tax. An example of that is Amazons European headquarters is in Luxembourg.

Personally, I advocate the simplest tax system possible. Whether that is a flat tax or not, simplicity of the tax system is what will close the loopholes, not bringing in more legislation to make the tax code even more complicated.

 

[Richie]

I've heard your argument hundreds of times now. It's not the small business owner that I have a problem with. I work with my dad at his small business (he runs a machine shop) so I know of the value we have/had to the community. Truth is, there's a large divide between small business and big business. But to think that business owners got to where they are on their own hard work and that the middle class owe them a debt of gratitude is absurd. There are of course a few exceptions to that, especially in the digital age, but much of this success comes off the backs of hard-working minimum-wage laborers that don't have as many opportunities and weren't as privileged as the business owner.

Specifically, your "rich employ people" statement is partially true. Sure, they hire people but they also fire people. I understand that downsizing is necessary in a recession but the fact of the matter is that even when the rich were presented with lower taxes, the economy didn't boom as certain economists predicted. All that led to was greater savings for the rich. Many corporations are sitting on mountains of cash but don't want to spend it in this volatile market. Just because the money is there doesn't mean the incentive is there as well. Again, this is based on evidence from the past administration. My qualm is with large corporations who fight at every turn to maximize their profits, even to the detriment of their employees and their customers. For an example of this, read up on large agriculture. They still receive government subsidies, treat their workers (and livestock) like brick and are not hesitant to sell consumers a substandard product.

Big business is good for everyone. For example, everyone in the world owes Henry Ford a debt of gratitude for revolutionising the car industry. He made cars affordable for all and he did it because he wanted to maximise his profits. Everybody won.

I disagree with you that big business fights at every turn to maximise profits. The reality is that it is true, companies want to make profit, but in a free market a company can only make a profit if they produce a product that people want to buy at a price people are willing to pay. If they are trying to make profits at the detriment of their customers, their customers can just go to their competitor and the business will fold. In fact that is one of the serious problems with government bailouts, the idea that a business shouldn't be allowed to fail. If a company isn't making profit it means they aren't making a product the market wants and should be allowed to go bust, the American car industry is an example of that.

 

[Gordinho]

In fact that is one of the serious problems with government bailouts, the idea that a business shouldn't be allowed to fail. If a company isn't making profit it means they aren't making a product the market wants and should be allowed to go bust, the American car industry is an example of that.

I don't think that governments step to rescue ailing businesses because they don't want them to fail or that they shouldn't be allowed to, they step in because ultimately the cost to the country as a whole would be greater if the business was allowed to fail. Someone far cleverer than me does the maths and decided that it's cheaper to prop up British Leyland/Northern Rock/RBS than allow it collapse and stick thousands upon thousands of people on benefit. Perhaps that's too simplistic a view, I don't know.

 

[Richie]

I don't think that governments step to rescue ailing businesses because they don't want them to fail or that they shouldn't be allowed to, they step in because ultimately the cost to the country as a whole would be greater if the business was allowed to fail. Someone far cleverer than me does the maths and decided that it's cheaper to prop up British Leyland/Northern Rock/RBS than allow it collapse and stick thousands upon thousands of people on benefit. Perhaps that's too simplistic a view, I don't know.

The problem with that is that the business is failing for a reason. Banks are more complicated, but in terms of British Leyland the taxpaying public are deciding not to spend their money on British Leyland cars for whatever reason, there is no way Governement should use the tax it takes from us and bail them out. If people want their money going to a certain company then they will give it themselves by buying their products, and that will be reflected in the balance sheet. If consumers aren't doing that it means they don't want the product a company is selling, so the governement bailing them out isn't going to help. British Leyland went through £11bn of taxpayer money in the '70s and '80s and still went bust.

The governement shouldn't be in the business of protecting jobs that don't offer value, which is what they do when they bail out a business. It's better for those thousands to be on benefits (which should be very limited, IMO) than have the governement paying their salaries in bailouts.

 

[scaramanga]

What is a bin man?

That's the person the butler hands all your waste to.

 

[scaramanga]

Close the loopholes and make the individuals pay the right amount of tax or payback the money they owe. It's theft, especially the companies who received bailouts.

Surely they're only taking back some of what was stolen from them by the government in the first place.

As for Clegg, it's easy to throw half-arsed hippy bullsiht policies around when you know that nobody is going to take any notice. All it does is further damage the relationship between the two parties that our country needs to work right now.

 

[Richie]

Surely they're only taking back some of what was stolen from them by the government in the first place.

Good point. I find it ridiculous that moving your money in a perfectly legal way, as to avoid the governement putting thier hands even deeper in to your pockets, is being denouced as theft.

 

[monkeybarry]

Tax, brought in to fund a war and has stayed and forever increased since...

Some of your views are so deluded it's cringe-worthy. SO what if someone makes millions in a successful business? If you want the same then take the same risks as he once did.

The rich employ people, bring this country new money and keep this economy moving. I congratulate any businessman/women owning a private business and being successful. It's thanks to people like them that we as a country are able to afford what we can afford.

If you want to target anyone then tax these c###'s who fall pregnant in unstable relationships. Blame those who have many kids with many different partners and then does a runner. Tax those who fudged around at school and left with nothing because they threw it all away instead of targeting the guy who worked hard to make something of his life.

This country makes me sick at times. Always the hardworking or successful having to carry the brick of society. This is why the country if fudged and this is why the benefits system is the biggest tax expense for hardworking British citizens.

50p for every £1 I earn and you want this to increase? And they say slavery has been abolished... pffft.

hhhhhhmmmmmmmm, i think you'll find a balance need to be struck somewhere in the middle there

public services and infastrucutre need paying for - that is quite clear.

society should be just that, society - everyone should chip in to create a balanced and effective society, thus giving individuals the chance to be a part of a stable society.

quite clearly the money has to come from somewhere.
big business (oft led by "the rich" (whoever they are)) need people to be as stable as possible so they are employable, can develop skills and ultimately produce better results for the company.
as such there does need to be a greater onus on the rich to contribute a greater amount to society - it's not "fair", but it is proportionate and essential for a balanced, safe, productive society.

that said - this country needs a massive propoganda shift and to start appreciating what "the rich" contribute to society - the "have" culture is very destructive.
people need to take a step back and actually consider what the effect would be on them and society should the rich not contribute anymore.

re; the pregnancy remark. tricky one.
we do need to be encouranging people to get into work rather than make welfare a life choice, but there is a fine line between doing that and damaging the family fabric which produces well rounded children (who become adults) that can then contribute to society effectively.

 

[monkeybarry]

Good point. I find it ridiculous that moving your money in a perfectly legal way, as to avoid the governement putting thier hands even deeper in to your pockets, is being denouced as theft.

i think its mostly born out of jealousy and ignorance.
someone can't have broken the law if the law didn't exist

(doesn't mean it shouldn't change however!)

 

[scaramanga]

Good point. I find it ridiculous that moving your money in a perfectly legal way, as to avoid the governement putting thier hands even deeper in to your pockets, is being denouced as theft.

Quite. If I buy an expensive watch, I put it in a locked cabinet inside a house with a burglar alarm (when I'm not wearing it), not on the street where anyone can walk off with it at will. Why not do that with money?

 

[papaspur]

Big business is good for everyone. For example, everyone in the world owes Henry Ford a debt of gratitude for revolutionising the car industry. He made cars affordable for all and he did it because he wanted to maximise his profits. Everybody won.

I disagree with you that big business fights at every turn to maximise profits. The reality is that it is true, companies want to make profit, but in a free market a company can only make a profit if they produce a product that people want to buy at a price people are willing to pay. If they are trying to make profits at the detriment of their customers, their customers can just go to their competitor and the business will fold. In fact that is one of the serious problems with government bailouts, the idea that a business shouldn't be allowed to fail. If a company isn't making profit it means they aren't making a product the market wants and should be allowed to go bust, the American car industry is an example of that.

Reagan both lowered and raised taxes, but overall he increased the national debt three-fold. Correlation does not imply causation... Just because two events coincide does not mean that one was the cause of the other, especially in a complex system such as the economy.
I agree that taxes should be simpler and less susceptible to being dodged. If only lobbyists didn't write our laws...

About business, I agree that I can't generalize that all large corporations and businesses are bad because they do employ tens of thousands. But the nature of any publicly traded company is to deliver profits for its shareholders. Again, I urge you to look into the produce/meat industry. This industry provides the best example of how far large businesses will go to maximize profit. If you're not interested in that, then we can discuss banks (Libor anyone?). The latest outrage was over "pink slime" being added to ground meat. Pink slime essentially is a cheap filler made from the "meat" (usually cartilage, tendons and all the excess trimmings). The companies don't have to list this pink slime as an ingredient because they're essentially allowed to market it as meat.
So because I am informed, I can choose to boycott companies that mistreat their livestock or have other poor practices. But not everyone chooses to be informed, either because they're too lazy or in most cases, are too busy to be reading up on everything. Hence regulation to PROTECT consumers, especially when it comes down to their health. And that's just one example. I could go on about growth hormones in fruits, vegetables, and livestock, conditions of workers that pick the produce or

I'm mixed on the bailout. The auto-industry case is unique because it is its own mini-economy. On the one hand, many tens of thousands of jobs were saved (including in the supply chain leading up to GM/Ford), and the companies are now doing fairly well. Furthermore, the auto companies paid back what was essentially a large government loan.
When it comes to bailing out the banks is where I have a major issue. The banks are too cozy with government and the lack of convictions/arrests of top bank executives proves that. The SEC has no teeth and is run by ex-bankers.

 

[Richie]

Reagan both lowered and raised taxes, but overall he increased the national debt three-fold. Correlation does not imply causation... Just because two events coincide does not mean that one was the cause of the other, especially in a complex system such as the economy.
I agree that taxes should be simpler and less susceptible to being dodged. If only lobbyists didn't write our laws...

About business, I agree that I can't generalize that all large corporations and businesses are bad because they do employ tens of thousands. But the nature of any publicly traded company is to deliver profits for its shareholders. Again, I urge you to look into the produce/meat industry. This industry provides the best example of how far large businesses will go to maximize profit. If you're not interested in that, then we can discuss banks (Libor anyone?). The latest outrage was over "pink slime" being added to ground meat. Pink slime essentially is a cheap filler made from the "meat" (usually cartilage, tendons and all the excess trimmings). The companies don't have to list this pink slime as an ingredient because they're essentially allowed to market it as meat.
So because I am informed, I can choose to boycott companies that mistreat their livestock or have other poor practices. But not everyone chooses to be informed, either because they're too lazy or in most cases, are too busy to be reading up on everything. Hence regulation to PROTECT consumers, especially when it comes down to their health. And that's just one example. I could go on about growth hormones in fruits, vegetables, and livestock, conditions of workers that pick the produce or

I'm mixed on the bailout. The auto-industry case is unique because it is its own mini-economy. On the one hand, many tens of thousands of jobs were saved (including in the supply chain leading up to GM/Ford), and the companies are now doing fairly well. Furthermore, the auto companies paid back what was essentially a large government loan.
When it comes to bailing out the banks is where I have a major issue. The banks are too cozy with government and the lack of convictions/arrests of top bank executives proves that. The SEC has no teeth and is run by ex-bankers.

I disagree with this. I think the consumer has the right to buy (almost) whatever they want and if they choose to either be ill informed or decide to do something that isn't in the best interest of their health, that is up to them. There is no reason government should be involved in that decision. By the same token I don't feel smoking or alcohol should be banned despite the health concerns, it is a persons choice to consume those products. What really protects the consumer is free market competition, which is a point you yourself have proven. You have the right to choose product A over product B for whatever reason you choose, but that is a decision each individual should make.

As for big business, again you aren't wrong that a businesses duty is to deliver profit to its shareholders, but that is just one small part of it. By that logic, Sainsburys could deliver more profit to its shareholders by charging £10 for a loaf of bread, but of course it doesn't. That's because the free market sets prices and thus sets natural limits on profits. If a company is making excessive profit, another company can waltz in and provide the same service and charge lower prices while still making a profit and run the first company out of business, or force it to lower prices to compete.

As for your complaint about lobbyists you're absolutely right. However the problem isn't lobbyists, they are just looking out for their own self interest the same as everyone else. The problem is big government. If government took a stance not to interfere through regulation, then the lobbyists would have nothing to lobby for.

Finally, I found the quote I was looking for before when I made my original post re: business being good for everyone. It's by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations, published in 1776

By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

 

[papaspur]

Quite. If I buy an expensive watch, I put it in a locked cabinet inside a house with a burglar alarm (when I'm not wearing it), not on the street where anyone can walk off with it at will. Why not do that with money?

So the government dons ski masks and runs into your house to take your moneys?
That "perfectly legal way" was no doubt written by lobbyists that were hired by the wealthy to create loopholes for them to move their money. If I had boatloads of money I would use those same loopholes while they're open, but I'd still want them closed as crazy as that sounds. And that's why I agreed with rich's point earlier about simplifying the tax code in order to make it more robust. Also, you do realize that the taxes you pay go to repairing infrastructure and towards services citizens use. I think many people have forgotten why government was there in the first place. The conservative rhetoric these days (in the US) makes it seem like they're anarchists, with the big exception of defense spending. That's the one piece of the pie that no one can touch.

Again, I can't comment on taxation over in GB but taxes USED to be much higher for the wealthy in the US. I don't even care if you're earning less than $500K. And even that wouldn't bring us into the top .1% of earners. It's the people earning millions upon millions of dollars that I'm most concerned about. And stop with the "they create jobs" fantasy. Yeah, I guess they create jobs in the sense that they hire people to build them pools and 18-hole golf courses. Most of that wealth goes into savings and investments, or is funneled to offshore accounts. Greatest myth ever employed by conservatives and it's oft repeated despite the lack of evidence.

Like I stated before, the tax cuts of the past decade were never meant to be permanent. But the mentality of the common conservative is rather funny, since they often see themselves as temporarily displaced millionaires. In their fantasy, EVERYONE can win the lottery.

To cap off, I never said I was ungrateful for the contributions of the wealthy to society, but conservatives seem to treat this as a one-way street. This whole system is supposed to be cyclical, where everyone takes care of each other. Instead, we have a pyramid where the brick rolls downhill.

 

[Richie]

Most of that wealth goes into savings and investments...

Do you understand what you just said? You are arguing that a rich persons wealth doesn't go in to creating jobs, but goes in to investments? What do you think those investments are doing? They are investing in more businesses that create jobs! And savings are used by banks in the form of loans to small businesses to again, create jobs!

 

[papaspur]

I disagree with this. I think the consumer has the right to buy (almost) whatever they want and if they choose to either be ill informed or decide to do something that isn't in the best interest of their health, that is up to them. There is no reason government should be involved in that decision. By the same token I don't feel smoking or alcohol should be banned despite the health concerns, it is a persons choice to consume those products. What really protects the consumer is free market competition, which is a point you yourself have proven. You have the right to choose product A over product B for whatever reason you choose, but that is a decision each individual should make.

As for big business, again you aren't wrong that a businesses duty is to deliver profit to its shareholders, but that is just one small part of it. By that logic, Sainsburys could deliver more profit to its shareholders by charging £10 for a loaf of bread, but of course it doesn't. That's because the free market sets prices and thus sets natural limits on profits. If a company is making excessive profit, another company can waltz in and provide the same service and charge lower prices while still making a profit and run the first company out of business, or force it to lower prices to compete.

As for your complaint about lobbyists you're absolutely right. However the problem isn't lobbyists, they are just looking out for their own self interest the same as everyone else. The problem is big government. If government took a stance not to interfere through regulation, then the lobbyists would have nothing to lobby for.

Finally, I found the quote I was looking for before when I made my original post re: business being good for everyone. It's by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations, published in 1776

In your Sainsburys example, my issue is not with setting prices. I think that's something the free market can achieve on its own as long as there's competition, so in total agreement with you there. My complaint is that a company can put something that's actually HARMFUL for you on store shelves without informing you. Alcohol and cigarettes have warning labels on them, everyone knows they're bad for you so sure, make your own choice. And don't forget that tobacco companies used to conduct their own studies that "proved" that smoking had no effect on your health. My complaint has nothing to do with price, so I think you should re-read my post again to see what I'm getting at since you either glossed over those points or simply chose not to respond to or acknowledge them.

I think the overarching point I'm trying to make is that the common consumer (middle-class) is powerless to affect change compared to the wealthy citizen who holds more sway with government.

"The problem is big government. If government took a stance not to interfere through regulation, then the lobbyists would have nothing to lobby for."

What you have just described is every conservative's wet dream. I understand that lobbyists are simply a means to an end, but you miss the bigger picture there. It's the fact that the wealthy/large corporations CAN AFFORD to hire lobbyists to fight for their causes which often hurt everyone below them.
Look at Wall Street and other global financial institutions. What happens when you give them free reign?

 

[papaspur]

Do you understand what you just said? You are arguing that a rich persons wealth doesn't go in to creating jobs, but goes in to investments? What do you think those investments are doing? They are investing in more businesses that create jobs! And savings are used by banks in the form of loans to small businesses to again, create jobs!

No doubt it used to be really easy to get loans. In the recession, not so much...
I don't think investing your money into a company necessarily means it's going to create jobs if it's doing well. Also, I think it matters WHERE these jobs are being created.

Again, I'm not an economist or an expert so I won't keep talking about this, but look at the example of Apple. Where are most of their jobs being created? In San Cupertino, hiring more engineers and product designers?
More like Taiwan, in sweat shops with bricky conditions and worker dormitories with nets outside the windows to prevent those pesky suicides that create so much bad press.

 

[Richie]

Re: your point about Apple, the reality is that by producing those goods cheaper in other countries, it enhances society by having better products be affordable on the market. As for sweatshops, this video explains far better than I could

[video=youtube;NxBzKkWo0mo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxBzKkWo0mo[/video]